> On Feb 18, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Ian Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > I have my suspicions that if US government were to announce that it was > > “regulating” JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and > > Goldman Sachs by taking 100% ownership and consolidating them under new > > state-appointed management as the Bank of the United States, their current > > directors and shareholders and the right wing generally would not see the > > expropriation as a matter of mere semantics. But, judging by some of the > > comments on this thread, maybe it is time to follow suit and drop my > > obsession with these words and labels. :) > ================== > > Well, to continue the thought experiment it's pretty clear that ownership > underdetermines competence and no amount of property law is going to bring > the kind of knavery-free competences needed for a robust and global financial > system into being. > > To expand to another context. Consider an organization with, until recently, > 100% state ownership and appointed management; the US military. > > Should the State take over Wharton, Harvard, Stanford, LSE etc. business > schools and make managerial and professorial appointments the prerogative of > Congress and the Office of Personnel Management? Will that create a better > financial system down the road?
I haven’t any interest in privatizing the military nor the business schools, although I’m a fan of neither. My examples were the financial, energy, and pharmaceutical industries. I think they are more relevant subjects given widespread public hostility to all three. But not so hostile that a US politician or other public figure would be prepared in the present political climate to make a case for their being taken out of the private sector.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
