As I have been thinking about this, one question continues to linger in my mind. The financial capitalists seem to have a "contradiction in their unity." In other words, there seem to be several fractions of finance capital with antagonistic interests. My intuition is that this contradiction is an important determinant of the policy outcome. To cite one example, the WSJ had an article this week about how some sectors in the insurance industry were objecting to public subsidy of AIG, because it went against their interests. Can anyone identify & describe these factions of finance capital?
epoliticus
----------
I am not sure what your point is. I was arguing that what matters in this debate is institutional order based on property relations, and technical issues are for the most part irrelevant. Any solution that effectively changes the institutional order and its underlying property relations (private ownership of finance capital) is opposed by the ruling US oligarchy and thus 'off the table" as long as that oligarchy maintains its power.
Therefore, it does not really matter what the technical details of the "Swedish solution" are. The only thing that matters is that the "Swedish solution" stands for (i.e. is a code word for) a challenge to private ownership of finance capital in the eyes of both the US oligarchy and its detractors alike. As such, this option is out of question as long as the oligarchy maintains its grip on the power structures in this country. That trumps any technical merits or demerits of this solution. Debating such technical details is not only pointless but also counterproductive - it diverts attention from the real issue, the power of financial oligarchy.
Is it such a difficult point to grasp?