A company, as the concrete form of entrepreneurs’ manifestation, requires economic calculation in terms of free prices which, in turn, has several institutional premises, the most important being: the existence of private property in general and over the means of production in particular (inclusively in the form of an unobstructed capital market), freedom of (internal and international) exchanges and sound currency. Ok, but what happends at state companies? A state company, by its frank definition, is that form of business organization that leads to paroxysm what in the literature of corporative governance is called separing “the property from the control” – not as a market failure, “obvious” around great corporations characterised by atomic and scattered shareholdings -, but as a failure of the institutional definition given to property – wherever there is something that prevents the ultimate owner from exercising his natural authority. When talking about the state, the “common property” (of everyone and, after all, of no one other than the one who effectively controls it), as an instance of a socialist residue “strategically” tolerated by the modern liberal democracies, does not allow reproducing the strength of incentives and the relevance of calculations made by a capitalist-entrepreneur who choses, controlles and motivates its manager. Between the private mister manager named by the state and the comrade director from a socialist enterprise there is only a difference of status. They are both, in foro interno, equally “private” and discretionary, governing what does not belong to them and being held accountable, on the vertical of bureaucracy, by a suite of ambiguous intermediaries (the government!) of those who are the rightful owners – the taxpayers.