|
| ▲ | freehorse 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| "Public enterprises" are different kinds of enterprises, with different structure and governed by different regulations/laws than private enterprises. "State owned private enterprises" have all the structure etc of a private enterprise, their only difference being that they are owned (fully or by majority) by some state body. |
|
| ▲ | PurpleRamen 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, it can. Many public services in Germany are legally private companies, which just happen to be owned by public entities. Main reason seems to be that they can act more flexible and independent of public rules. On a more nasty side, it's also easier to sell them partly or full, if necessary. And in some cases they simply started as private companies and were bought up by the state for various reasons. |
|
| ▲ | klausa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "Public company" is a very specific thing; the BVG is state owned, but very much not a public company. |
| |
| ▲ | lotsofpulp 2 days ago | parent [-] | | In the US, “public” can be short for a private business with publicly listed shares on a stock exchange anyone can buy, or public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government. | | |
| ▲ | overfeed a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > public can mean an organization owned and operated by the government. Would you consider In-Q-Tel - wholly owned by the CIA - to be a public venture* through ownership by a government agency, or a private one, because the public has no opportunity of ownership or control? I'm convinced it's the latter. * Let's ignore it's non-profit status. Any CIA shell-/front-company is an even better example | |
| ▲ | klausa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Perhaps the fact that we’re having this discussion on HN shows the kind of media I’m likely to consume, but I’ve never seen it used in the latter sense. TIL, I guess! |
|
|
