The Case For Our State ...

[ahinton]

At least my dad, a neoliberal capitalist before Sir Keith Jospeh was even a twinkle in his dad's left testicle, always said: always invest in production, never property or speculative ventures.

But doesn't "property" (assuming that, by it, you mean residential and commercial buildings) presume "production"? You can't have it without someone "producing" it in the sense of building it. Furethermore, aren't all investment ventures potentially if not actually "speculative" by their very nature?

The notion of the left testicle of Sir Samuel George Joseph, 1st Baronet in the present context, however, affords passing amusement!

[Serial_Apologist]

... but then, would you trust someone's opinion when he makes such a spelling mistake in his first sentence?

I always get words ending -ence, -ance, -ent, -ant mixed up.

[Serial_Apologist]

But doesn't "property" (assuming that, by it, you mean residential and commercial buildings) presume "production"? You can't have it without someone "producing" it in the sense of building it.

Correct!

Furthermore, aren't all investment ventures potentially if not actually "speculative" by their very nature?

Not if you know before hand that what you're putting your money into is a) useful, b) wanted, c) not harmful, and d) quantities needed.

A different methodology from what now passes for market research would be welcomed.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The notion of the left testicle of Sir Samuel George Joseph, 1st Baronet in the present context, however, affords passing amusement!

?!Where did he leave it?

[Serial_Apologist]

?!Where did he leave it?

In its recepticle?

[ahinton]

To my question
Furthermore, aren't all investment ventures potentially if not actually "speculative" by their very nature?
you answered

Not if you know before hand that what you're putting your money into is a) useful, b) wanted, c) not harmful, and d) quantities needed.

But (a) how can anyone be certain of that in all cases and, perhaps even more importantly, what guarantee could there ever be that even ventures that do indeed fall into the categories "a) useful, b) wanted, c) not harmful, and d) quantities needed" will not end up being risky - and therefore speculative - investments?

[ahinton]

?!Where did he leave it?

The question for those of more political persuasion of one kind or another might actually be "did he leave his left one anywhere near his right one?" - and in any case was it he who left it whevever it was left or did someone leave it on his behalf?

[Serial_Apologist]

To my question
Furthermore, aren't all investment ventures potentially if not actually "speculative" by their very nature?
you answered

But (a) how can anyone be certain of that in all cases and, perhaps even more importantly, what guarantee could there ever be that even ventures that do indeed fall into the categories "a) useful, b) wanted, c) not harmful, and d) quantities needed" will not end up being risky - and therefore speculative - investments?

Well I can't offer any speculations on that. I'm just offering a posible scenario in which risk would be as much as possible preempted by safeguarding criteria such as I have suggested.

[ahinton]

Well I can't offer any speculations on that. I'm just offering a posible scenario in which risk would be as much as possible preempted by safeguarding criteria such as I have suggested.

Fair enough in principle, I suppose, but given that there's nothing certain in life besides death and taxes (the latter of which can already be avoided by some at times and - who knows? - the former of which might eventually be avoidable as well), there are inevitable limits to the extent to which the element of risk in almost everything - not just investments - can be so "safeguarded". That said, haven't such terms as "risk management", "damage limitation" and "risk and reward" (i.e. the balance between those two) become part of the vocabulary of capitalist theory and practice?

[french frank]

Testing only: not intended for discussion!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

this man answers some of the qquestions above about investment and the need to understand it other than as profit and efficiency and optimal allocations &c [eg why did we fund basic research in number theory - no one had heard of search/google] he has clearly made several fortunes as a venture capitalist!

innefficient state investment gave rise to five major waves of innovationb


if one substitutes the right words one can construct an argument for cultural institutions [publicly funded] eh ....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Mazzucatto has started a whole series

eg

[Serial_Apologist]

Mazzucatto has started a whole series

eg

I really would like to believe (in) what this guy, and others like him, are saying - namely that such buzzwords as margins, returns, profitability, shareholder protection and competition don't matter (apparently); really I would; I'm temperamentally not well suited to revolution and the violence and retributions that thereby always ensue. But I think the old guys who said class conflict is intrinsic to capitalism, and remind us that things will blast off from time to time whenever that basic contradiction comes to the fore (and can't be resolved by war), and that a revolutionary party that understands the mechanics of all this and can help guide, if not hopefully dominate, the process of change for the better, those moments of conflict, when they inevitably come along, will blast off as riots, misdirected destructive energy, and those committing them will end up being mown down in the streets and pro tem occupied citadels and symbols of power.

Ask any capitalist why he or she is under no incentive to invest for purposes of social benefit, and he or she will answer, taxes undermine my profits leaving me with insufficient to invest in more productivity, and not enough for my shareholders, without whom, da-di-da... And those shareholders are often ineluctably implicated in this state of affairs by virtue of having pensions or even bank accounts, so expecting them to vote for change that threatens this is tantamont to asking them to cut off noses to spite faces. Such moral bribery, when we are no less hardwired to belong than all species but the menu is fabricated, is put down to human nature being weak, with religion or new fads such as evolutionary psychology wheeled in as alibis. From the evidence it may seem amazing that firms are more prepared to operate in gangster states than in countries with strong trade unions worker organisation, untill one recognises that workers are only there to make the surplus value that keeps the boss and his or her family at a higher living standard than his or her employees. Suggest that if they pay their workforce a minimum or living wage so they can then buy the products they make, they will answer that they sell their product abroad. Who then buys the stuff, you ask, and it turns out to be those wealthier than your employed people in those countries who can afford them. Is this fair, you ask? No, comes the reply, but that is a matter for governments in those countries to address. They then of course admit that under turbocharged global capitalism governments have no power to make things better for ordinary people because funds can be switched at the impulsive click of a mouse, engineering a run on the currency concerned, and your country is lucky to have the institutions it does because it once had an empire affording it politically speaking to buy off its own populace. They may all be buying £££££s as a safe bet, making British industry less competitive, but there you go... and so it goes on, round and round on the karmic roundabout kept running by funny money, where you make a product which is only differentiated from mine by one set of adverts separating life from reality being more persuasive than another.

[DracoM]

<< under no incentive to invest for purposes of social benefit, and he or she will answer, taxes undermine my profits leaving me with insufficient to invest in more productivity, and not enough for my shareholders, without whom, da-di-da.. >>

The implication being that BEFORE thinking 'investment/ profit etc etc', what has never crossed her mind is any other scale of values than the capitalist imperatives. A Priori assumptions?

Wonder what our world would be like if we banned adverts for ANYTHING for a year.

[Serial_Apologist]

<< under no incentive to invest for purposes of social benefit, and he or she will answer, taxes undermine my profits leaving me with insufficient to invest in more productivity, and not enough for my shareholders, without whom, da-di-da.. >>

The implication being that BEFORE thinking 'investment/ profit etc etc', what has never crossed her mind is any other scale of values than the capitalist imperatives. A Priori assumptions?

Wonder what our world would be like if we banned adverts for ANYTHING for a year.

Very few ads actually offer info about the product - feminine hygiene products being among the few that tell you what they do. It's more, "you will fit this image of wellbeing if you buy this product which makes you identify with the handsome David Beckham lookalike driving this sleek motor fast across the Arizona desert on empty highways".