The Gov would have to organize a competitive bidding system, evaluate contract proposals, monitor contract compliance, enforce contracts, and have substitutes (possibly itself) in the event of non-performance. It ain't like ordering pizza. Taxing is definitely easier.
If the Gov is renting capital and paying managers what they could earn in alternative employment, the extent of remaining surplus that it has 'nationalized' is in some doubt. In the pharmaceuticals case, it would might own patents and collect rents they earn. But where would it get the patents? What's really in question is the ownership of the research, not the manufacturing. The latter lends itself to contracting, with above caveats, whereas the production of patents is an excellent candidate for public ownership, as Dean Baker has written. -- mbs Several people mentioned that taxing is easier than running businesses. Maybe so, but the experience of running businesses may prove valuable. Also, business may well be able to use its influence to undermine the taxing more easily than to create a reprivatization. Finally, both Bill and Gene mentioned pharmacueticals. If government owned the business, they could easily contract out the production of the medicine. I don't advocate that strategy, but at least there would be nothing to run. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
