>Your argument that "direct interventions" such as industrial policy would
>catch their interest is no answer, since people still have to care about the
>abstract choices between what industries to invest in and which make the
>most sense.
And what, pray tell, does buying stocks have to do with choices of what industries to invest in? And what's so abstract about such a choice, unless you're talking about the stock market, in which case you're undermining your own argument. You don't really think that buying IBM stock means that IBM has more capital to invest, do you?
>If all pension funds or social security funds do is pick stocks, you
>probably are correct, but the 1990s has seen the rise of active,
>institutional investors like CALPERS who have asserted far more discretion
>in choosing management and arguing for various kinds of social policy. It
>is limited at this point, but then the funds involved are limited.
Yeah, and Calpers has been pushing the lean & mean policy characteristic of the shareholder revolution. I interviewed their chief investment officer a few years ago and asked him to comment on the oddity of a public worker pension fund pushing an antiworker agenda. He said all they cared about was results.
Doug