Oy. Not necessarily. Presently state governments have lots of private assets. I don't hear their public voice in corporate governance, for the most part. Even union ownership has yet to result in much, though some folks are working on this.
Still the potential Federal ownership of a good chunk of the capital stock raises interesting issues. It should be noted that this ownership must be transitory for it to fulfill its purpose -- financing Social Security. At the point where expenses outstrip the cash receipts of the fund -- payroll tax and cash returns from financial assets -- the Fund must begin liquidating the assets. In the projections it has to unload all of it in the space of a decade or so. So ownership would be transitory. But interesting to think about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The issue of surpluses raises a basic socialist point -- if the state is in
deficit, it does not exercise control on capital in society but is itself
subject to the vagaries of capitalism, most notably being at the mercy of
the bond market and interest rates on its debt.
>>>>>>
[mbs] Bull. State power or the lack thereof vis-a-vis capital stems from political mobilization, not from its financial position.
. . . But if the government is in surplus, it has the ability to gain some degree of independence from those forces and in turn act in interventionist ways to appropriate control of capitalist enterprises. . . .
see above.
. . . Now, folks may prefer visions of expropriation without compensation of
capitalist enterprises as the only solution, but it seems that a gradual
expropriation of the wealthy through taxation that exceeds annual spending
(completely legal) is a simpler and more likely scenario than one dependant
on completely abandoning the constitutional framework of our laws.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: this is not expropriation. it's a rearrangement of portfolios. The wealthy would buy other assets, likely in other countries. The U.S. economic reach would expand, with all the fun that implies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It would seem a basic socialist goal to have the government control large
chunks of capital in our society, which by definition would seem to require
controlling surpluses beyond annual spending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
mbs: not at all. The gov can buy capital any time. It doesn't need to run a surplus. It can trade gov bonds for stocks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Aside from the issue of how the rightwing will try to deflect any such goal
into less threatening avenues, doesn't a basic socialist goal have to be to
have the government increase its net control of capital - the definition of
running a surplus?
-- Nathan Newman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. Control of capital and running a surplus have no necessary relation. The first requires a left-based political mobilization. The latter rests on the current political torpor.
I've noted the prospect of the Gov owning a piece of the rock, even temporarily, is of some interest.
What you ignore altogether is getting from here to there. The religion of debt pay-down is the basis for austerity and experiments like "welfare reform." It's why the Prez is doling out bushels full of tax credits and teacups full of spending programs. It will hamper the Gov when the next recession begins to appear. It explains the drought before us in social spending.
There will always be another emergency to justify not spending. Right now it's Social Security. After that it will be "saving Medicare." After that, securing "net national saving." After that, financing retirement of the Baby Boom's Baby Boom.
mbs