Re: wealth distribution and corporate control

[Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>]

I agree with Jeff.  You need to make the sharing of ownership and control
part of the rules of the game to provide essential infrastructure services.
 Indeed, the franchise from the government for the service to exist and/or
operate should be made conditional upon ownership and control reverting
over 20 years or so to the individuals who are part of the politcal
constituency who vote for the government who control the service.  In this
way infrastructure services could become owned and controlled by their
employees, customers and suppliers to create a stakeholder/third way
entitity/mutual.  This should be very politically appealing.

The Sydney Harbour Tunnels and the latest freeways in New South Wales where
financed by private investors who give up ownership and control after a set
period of time.  So the principal of time limited investments has already
been well established in NSW.  However, with these precedent, ownership
referts to the government.  The difference I am suggesting is that
ownership reverts to individual stakeholders in a way which can provide
competitive operating advantages as described in my articles.

Regards

Shann


At 11:27 PM 20/10/1999 , Tim Mitchell wrote:
>Jeff, Shann
>
>Can you see any way of making it part of the rules when you will have say,
>six state owned retail electricity companies and say, ten or more privately
>owned companies (eg, CitiPower, which I think is US owned) competing in the
>one market.
>
>I'm focussing on this because the regulations on this are being thought
>about and drafted as we speak. I have an opportunity to inject some ideas in
>to the melting pot.
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jeffgates <jeffgates@mindspring.com>
>To: Tim Mitchell <pentim@netspace.net.au>; 'Homestead'
><Homestead@cog.kent.edu>; ownership@cog.kent.edu <ownership@cog.kent.edu>;
>Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>
>Date: Wednesday, 20,October, 1999 03:05
>Subject: Re: wealth distribution and corporate control
>
>
>>Certainly -- at least if you make it part of the rules of the game -- no
>>one qualfies without it.  Otherwise, the margins in such bidding are, I
>>expect, likely to be too thin for anyone to offer it.
>>
>>What'dya think Shann?
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>At 11:58 PM 10/19/99 +1000, Tim Mitchell wrote:
>>>Shann,
>>>
>>>To use a practical example that is close at hand, for you and me, but
>within
>>>the realms of possibility:
>>>
>>>Here in New South Wales, as of 1/1/2001, there will be full retail
>>>contestability in gas and electricity, ie every home owner will have a
>>>choice of a wide variety of supplier companies for these basic services.
>>>
>>>The competition will be ferocious. Companies will be pursuing all manner
>of
>>>creative marketing techniques to win customers from their rivals and
>secure
>>>the ones they already have.
>>>
>>>How could:
>>>
>>>(1) these companies offer CSOP incentives to customers; and
>>>
>>>(2) the State Government, which will regulate this competition, encourage
>>>such incentivisation?
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Tim Mitchell
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Shann Turnbull
P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350
Phone: 02 9328 7466 office; 02 9327 8487 home
Fax: 02 9327 1497 home & office.  Mobile 0418 222 378
Outside Australia, replace first "0" with "61" after international access code
Life long E-mail: sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu
http://www.mpx.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html