> Forstater, Mathew wrote:
>
> >"The confusion about public/private is highlighted by the very fact
> >that the term 'public' in one sense refers to the state ('public
> >sector') and in another sense refers to the people ('the public'),
> >whose actions, when not on behalf of the state, are thought to
> >constitute the 'private' sector."
>
> And don't forget the "public" corporation, owned by a relatively
> small batch of rich people.
>
> Doug
Isn't "public corporation" short-hand for "publicly traded corporation" (where shares aren't held in private but are bought and sold on the public, open, market)? In that case, the linguistic confusion between public and private (highlighted by anonymous' quote above) doesn't seem to apply.
Jim
- Re: Public/Private, (continued)
- Re: Public/Private, Ian Murray Fri 30 May 2003, 22:25 GMT
- Re: Public/Private, Kenneth Campbell Fri 30 May 2003, 23:10 GMT
- Re: Public/Private, Ian Murray Fri 30 May 2003, 23:34 GMT
- Re: Public/Private, Kenneth Campbell Fri 30 May 2003, 23:43 GMT
- Re: Public/private, Devine, James Fri 30 May 2003, 22:12 GMT
- Re: Public/private, Forstater, Mathew Fri 30 May 2003, 22:21 GMT
- Re: Public/Private, David S. Shemano Fri 30 May 2003, 23:11 GMT
- Re: Public/Private, Ian Murray Fri 30 May 2003, 23:42 GMT
- detente, Devine, James Fri 30 May 2003, 16:40 GMT