> Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>> Yes, the lack of direct bank
>> ownership of equities in the 20th century made US corporate structures
>> different from much of the world, but one of the results was
>> precisely the
>> mega-corporate structures where firms didn't even need much capital
>> from the
>> markets since they could raise it internally-- a point I believe a
>> certain
>> Doug Henwood has emphasized in questioning the centrality others have
>> given
>> to the role of Wall Street.
>
>
> The fundraising role of Wall Street is exaggerated; its real function
> is the organization of ownership and disciplining management. I've got
> a paper around somewhere that points out that dispersed ownership, as
> in the predominantly English-speaking countries, is a more hostile
> environment for social democracy, since it's pitiless in its demands
> for cost-cutting and labor flexibility. Ownership in the soc dem
> countries is more concentrated. The comparison works for Canada and
> the US; Canada is both more concentrated and more social democratic.
>
The ne plus ultra of this, I think, is Sweden, where huge swaths of the industrial landscape have been owned or controlled by the Wallenberg dynasty.
Seth