From: tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Myths and monopoly
Reply-To: tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.162617.10344@lth.se>, sundinKC@dna.lth.se (Anders Sundin) writes:
>Tomas Eriksson writes:
>>I also do not see where your arguments are leading. The selling-out
>>(about time!) of a steel company the Swedish state is majority owner of
>>is the logical extension of socialisation in the 1910's and 1920's ???
>
>I quoted this article because it is dishonest of Per Westerberg to use
>SSAB this as an example of anti social-democratic policy.

Well, it obviously is anti social-democratic policy, since many leading 
social democrats complain bitterly about it, or? But I agree that it 
isn't the logical extension of previous centre-right industrial 
policies. (So if they say "we have always done like this" or something 
like that, they're either dishonest, or ignorant about the postwar 
Swedish political history.) However, as I wrote, it was the policy of the
late 1970's which was the deviation, while todays policy is closer to some
kind of normal Swedish non-socialist industrial policy.

>The centre-right government's privatisation of SSAB was not a blow to the
>Social-democratic industrial policy because it was the same centre-right
>government who socialized SSAB in -78.

No, not really the same government. Neither in persons (Per Westerberg, 
being approx. 40 today, was definitely not a minister in 1978), nor in 
policies. In the 1976-78 government, the centre party was heavy. Today, 
that role is filled by the conservative party. Also, the liberal party 
today has no red shades in their industrial policies.

>Per Westerberg may think, wish, or pretend that it was the Social-democratic
>party who socialized SSAB, the wharfs, Datasaab, etc., but it was not.

Social democratic governments pre-1976 have socialized a few things, 
but that's probably beside the point.

According to the industrial policies of the non-socialist parties since 
approx. 1980, the state-owned crise-struck companies acquired during the 
1970's should be sold when the restructuring of them was finished, and 
they were working the way an industrial company should. This would have 
meant selling SSAB at least five years ago. However, the social 
democratic government of 1982-91 wasn't interested in losing the states 
majority of shares. Many factions of the social democrats wanted, and 
still wants, to keep all state-owned companies state owned. Just as they 
wanted to keep the "l|ntagarfonder"; state-controlled stock ownership in 
thin disguise as employee/trade union ownership.

Acquiring companies was very stuipd of the old centre-right government, 
but did not originate in ideologically motivated socialization efforts. 
To hold on to the ownership of these companies by the socialist 
government, when they could have been sold during the good years of the
second half of the 1980's, was stupid. This was not becuase the 
government was cornered, but because of ideology.

>BTW, I did buy an option for SSAB stock. It was a too good an offer to pass.

So did I. I signed up for two packets, but I only got one in the 
"lottery". An interesting construction to offer an option for 100 stocks 
(at SEK 170 per stock in February 1994), together with a state bond 
giving you SEK 17,000 Januray 31, 1994. Altogether you paid SEK 14,806
for this package in June, 1992. This gives you a typical savings 
bank-account interest on your money, so if the times are still bad then, 
you haven't lost any money. However, in such case, the government will 
need to make a second privatization round to get rid of the SSAB stocks, 
betting on good times in 1996 or so...

A few more offers similar to this one is likely to occur in the future. 
The mining company LKAB could be a logical next after steel company SSAB 
(also, LKAB is a large share holder in SSAB), but there could be some 
problems with the far-left LKAB mine workers unions, so probably other 
companies will come first. Celsius, the little that's left of Svenska 
varv, the shipyard company, could come next. They've actually become a 
defense industrial company instead. Combining the two naval shipyards 
Kockums (Malm|) and Karlskronavarvet, they took over small arms/infantry 
weaponry/aircraft maintenance state-owned company FFV. When they took 
over Bofors from Nobel Industrier, they became owner of a major part of 
the Swedish defense/military industry, excluding aircraft, vehicles and 
radar.

Tomas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Eriksson                                          tomas_e@physchem.kth.se
            Surface Force Group, Department of Physical Chemistry,
               Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quotation of the week (30), from "Endymion" by Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of 
Baconsfield:
	"'As for that', said Waldershare, 'sensible men are all of the same
	religion.'
	'And pray, what is that?' inquired the prince.
	'Sensible men never tell.'"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic