in Canada, we have Office of Superintendant of Financial Institutions (OSFI-BSIF) and in Quebec we have L'Autorité (AMF) which controls a lot of what banks and other financial institutions can do or not. Last year, they decided that there will not be any 40 years mortgage anymore. They also check funding and solvency of every institution and can (and they do) retract a permit to a bank or insurance company if they do not meet their requirement. This makes that Canadians can borrow ou lend money in safety, and it a company is bankrupt, others have to (by law) split their customers between them so no one can lose its insurance, investments or bank account up to 100000$ or 300000$.
It never has been easy to have a mortgage here.

But in the other side, we see what happens when things go wrong, our country has come in a political crisis, we don't have a government now, we have elections over elections in Canada or in Quebec, again, tomorrow I will vote for Quebec, I voted for Canada two month a go.
In the while, the financial crisis is not resolved because the finance is waiting for them to take decisions.
So this have good and bad side, a government takes a lot more time to take decisions than a few CEO, but those decisions are made for everyone.

Socialized Capitalism makes something like in Europe, where life costs a lot more than here, so it has a lot of disadvantage too, including less competition.

Socialized capitalism? You mean state capitalism?

A quick run down for everyone, you've got four archetypes for economic systems: central command, state capitalism, market socialism, and market capitalism. A central command economy is one in which everything is owned, allocated, and planned by the state. Think of the former USSR and Maoist China.

State capitalism is a situation where most property is privately owned, but the government plays a large role in economic planning and the distribution of wealth. Think of Japan or Sweden.

Market socialism is where most property is state or collectively-owned, but the government takes a hands-off approach and allows supply and demand to set prices and foster a market mechanism for distribution. Think of contemporary China or 1980's Yugoslavia.

Market capitalism, or laissez-faire capitalism, is where most everything is privately owned and the state plays a very minimal role in the economy. Think of pre-New Deal USA.

Obviously every country has varying levels of public ownership and government economic intervention, so none fit any of the definitions perfectly.

Franco- I agree with that.
Viscus- I guess it could be defined that way. I'm not real famiiliar with the different types of capitalism.

Mostly I just think since the government is handing out money to these companies, so they should make some effort to ensure the money is used for the appropriate reasons and have partial ownership because the way the economy is structured...the government would be the equivalent of a rich and stupid investor at a time of crisis...were they not the government. Or better said- the government just basically purchased a portion of the companies it helped to "bail out." The companies should be responsible for paying that back, not the general public, and they can do that through allowing the government to receive a portion of their profit, like any board member would. That allows the various companies in distress to continue with business, but boosts the government's income without raising taxes on John Q. Public. Would that be considered State Capitalism?

I like the idea of the government and the companies being in co-hoots with one another but it raises a question of conflict of interest eventually. Apologies in advance for throwing the wrench in, but as we all know, our friendly politicians are keen on exploiting that situation to their benefit, if it ever came about.

I do like the idea that with this "bail out" they give a portion of the earnings to the government and not raising taxes on Mr. or Mrs. Public.

You raised an interesting question of whether this is state capitalism or not. I think it depends on the involvement of the government in this partnership(?!?!). Is the government acting as a limited partner or a fully partner? Is the role of the government simply that of a loan shark waiting for his cut after giving out this bail out loan? This raises now all sorts of legal questions as to what is permissible by the Federals.

I would think that in order to preserve Capitalism they would have to remain a limited partner, but also in order to preserve Capitalism-because of the LARGE amounts of money they would deserve the rights of a full partner. I wouldn't really say "loan shark," but investor. The government would have the money paid back by it's investment, plus the businesses would be contributing a hell of a lot towards the national deficit by allowing the Feds to continue to remain on the board~thus helping to prevent the need for future bail outs in hard economic times, but also partnering with the Feds-a larger source of income to ensure the company's future stability. The government isn't going to let one of it's investments sink, so in crisis they would be guaranteed money...but it lessens the liklihood that the money would be needed...if that makes sense.

EDIT: I'm not really claiming that this would be sucessful (as we all know how politicians are), but it's better than the public having to pay for it!!!

I got an interesting video in my email this afternoon from the WE campaign. (Of which I am a member)
https://secure.repoweramerica.org/page/contribute/obamavideo

Socialized capitalism? You mean state capitalism?

yes
if french it is "Capitalisme à tendance sociale", so I didn't know how to translate.