I’ve been increasingly irked by the use of the words “socialism” and “nationalization” when applied to the financial industry bailouts and Obama’s economic policies.

The world’s governments have claimed a share in companies’ ownership in return for bailout monies. I argue that ownership is not socialism, and that nationalization has a negative connotation that is not warranted.

Socialism includes both ownership and administration. I have not seen any evidence that our governments are getting more involved in the administration of the companies that benefit from bailout monies. Perhaps more oversight and regulation, but not day-to-day business operations.

The government taking an ownership stake in these companies is better described as nationalization, but even so, the degree of nationalization is not the same as what has historically scared capitalists. This is not the same as a third-world country’s regime arbitrarily taking ownership of private companies. While our governments are getting an ownership stake in bailout companies, they are not taking an ownership role; rather, the governments’ role is more akin to gentleman farming than anything else.