Soft privatization

Seth Ackerman SAckerman at
Fri Jul 31 09:20:17 PDT 1998

Those are all good reasons. But are they good enough to convince many relatively poor people to forbear higher returns on their only significant lifetime savings?

Seth Ackerman FAIR

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Henwood [SMTP:dhenwood at]
> Sent: Friday, July 31, 1998 11:41 AM
> To: lbo-talk at
> Subject: RE: Soft privatization
> I oppose stock purchases for several reasons. One, it'd be a vast
> subsidy
> to Wall Street. Sure the fund would hire its own managers, but even
> index
> fund managers don't come cheap, and you can't buy stocks for free.
> Two,
> what stocks would the fund buy? Index the S&P 500? But what about the
> small
> stocks, whose neglect issuers and holders would whine endlessly about.
> Every stock? Would they manage the portfolio actively? What about
> social
> screening criteria? Arms-makers yes, tobacco no? Three, how would they
> vote
> the stock? With management? With the Council of Institutional
> Investors?
> Four, why should public money go into the stock market? On the basis
> of
> historical returns, which economic theory still can't explain? To
> promote
> "capital formation," which the stock market has nothing to do with?
> And
> five, it would further the ideological legitimation of the stock
> market,
> and make supporting prices a matter of national policy. The
> government's
> material interests would fall even further in line with those of big
> capital than they already are.
> The only reason to buy stock with public funds would be to socialize
> the
> enterprises, but that didn't work in Sweden.
> Doug

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list