"With owning it comes of course that the government manage the business (decide who will manage it)". Why does this have to be pointed out? - Jerryseinfeld 04:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The content from "public ownership" was move here since it belongs here. The arguments against "public" ownership is that it isn't really "public" ownership. Which is shown by the fact governmet bonds are not "public bonds" because the "public" doesn't own or run the government. - Jerryseinfeld 05:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article is about government owned businesses ("public business"). "public business" used in this way? Really?? In any case, Jerryseinfeld, you seem determined to write an article about how terrible it is for government to own businesses operating in competitive sectors. (You might like to look at Vattenfall.) Fine, do that - you can have "government ownership" as your US-centric sandbox to play in. I will move the "Public ownership" material to public sector and focus on the broader issues. (I have already corrected your absurd redirect of public services to public goods; thanks for spurring me to at least making a start on that article.) Rd232 16:53, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are you trying to have an edit war? Look at public services and public good and see the difference!! If you're not familiar with public services, fine, maybe it's not a term used in the US. But previous things you said suggest an ignorance of what a public goood is too, which I can find no excuse for. Go to your local library and pick up any introductory economics textbook if you don't believe the Wikipedia definition. You're heading in my estimation from US-centric to uneducated in economics to troll. Please stop this downward slide by showing reasonableness (maybe even knowledge, if that's not too much to ask). Rd232 19:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
