Talk:Corporatization

Politicisation

"In general however, 'corporatizatioon' means only the establishment of a corporation, provate, public, profit-seeking, or non profit-seeking, national or local. Using it as a term with political connotations is seriously misleading."

The article as it stands represents a singularly biassed point of view, which needs countering. Corporatisation is a precise legal term, especially in a business environment, and should be left that way. At best the article should also be edited to refelct he fact that it represents a political point of view that is in fact rather American, and anyway has no place in a section supposedly devoted to business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.136.58 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Language

Ben@liddicott.com (Talk | contribs) "the word "Major" is there to let the reader know that the list is not exhaustive, and these are broad headings." You've got railroads, highways, electricity, water. How many more are there? The word major is subjective and can NOT be here. - Jerryseinfeld 23:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IS CORPORATIZATION AND GOING PUBLIC SAME?

A Contradiction

…places them in the control of government-owned corporations. This is often seen as a step towards full-scale privatization

This line is oxymoronic; if they're government-owned, they are by definition not private. Therefore this has nothing to do with privatization. Nagelfar 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Nagelfar 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's oxymoronic, that is only because corporations are not private entities under any legal regime. Corporations are creatures of the state. The fact that so many corporations behave today as if they were private entities, unencumbered by public responsibilities, reflects the deterioration of the legal framework defining and authorizing the corporation in the first place. See http://www.POCLAD.org/ for the history on this. The fact that one must add the descriptor "government-owned" to the word "corporation" in order to distinguish "private" corporations from "public" corporations is an indication of the degree to we have experienced the privatization of the corporation already . . . Ben Manski

I agree, it just needed to be clarified for distinguishing between the break down of corporate to state structure. Mostly for purposes of the article being understood in terms of the different connotations of "corporation" being considered as 'privatism run amok' versus 'privatization run amok', the latter I see as more of a misconception as in reality that should be a more laissez faire noncorporate condition. This though, may just be a matter of ones ultimate view of Corporate Personhood. Nagelfar 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Confused with privatization?

I think this article on corporatization -- the formation of corporations, as in Limited Liability Corporations -- with privatization, the spinning off of public assets and agencies as corporations.

The history of corporatization reaches back to 1100s and the formation of the merchant guilds, and on to the craft guilds of the medieval period (at least in the West). Any article on corporatization that leaves out Charters, Guilds, etc., is deficient. See Douglas Rushkoff, Life. Inc. 2009.

There is also the moral dynamics of moving from businesses in which all owners are held liable, to limited liability corporations, where, as the term suggests, their joint liability is limited. The problem of moral hazard, and moral displacement, then become issues -- all part of corporatization, one would think.

By limiting the definition to privatization, we miss the opportunity to convey this rich background and these very human consquences.Gsmcghee (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gsmcghee (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be flagged and rewritten

As detailed above, the definitions employed in this article are wholly irrelevant to the use of the word "corporatization" in North America, a continent with nearly 500 million people. This article must be revised to make it inclusive of the different uses of the term. And as for the commentary regarding the supposed "legal" basis of the word, as an attorney who specializes in non-profit law (i.e. - corporate law) I have never come across the word used in that way.

Ben Manski (talk) July 29, 2010