On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’m still not persuaded that the American people, given a lead, would not > support targeted nationalization of the polluting energy sector, the > price-gouging pharmaceutical sector, and the loan-sharking financial > sector. The most radical proposals for regulation coming from Sanders and > others are equally perceived as unrealistic given the power of these > lobbies. There are no easy answers because of the power imbalance which has > greatly widened between the classes in the past three or four decades. > I have a somewhat different take on this. I am inclined to think of regulation and nationalization as points on a continuous spectrum, rather than as stark binary either-or choices. To put it somewhat provocatively, my claim is that a sufficiently well-regulated private enterprise is indistinguishable from a public one. >From a practical perspective, is there really that much of a difference between a profit rate of 0.1% and 0.0%? If the nationalization is considered too radical (because Socialism!), there is an easy way around it - just call it regulation! My sense is that the right wing perceives this very clearly. It is only the Left that seems obsessed with words and labels. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
