You haven't described any reason to have a 'social bank' yet

and when you are talking about a bank you are makign some assumptions about the monetary system, etc, which is a whole other can of worms

a) specialist investors perform better than clueless normies in markets
b) socially owned banks can have wider mandates than typical corporate mandates, such as regional development goals, a focus on restoring environment, etc
c) this isnt private, its social. its meant to include the whole of society mostly equally in the process of wealth accumulation as the economy grows

if there are some social welfare goals, the honest way to fund it is direct monetization

bruh

stop whitewashing

socially owned banks are clearly a way for these things to be achieved

and its broader than just a question of "welfare"

if the goal is to gamble on this replica stock market in order to make returns in order ot finance these projects?

ESPECIALLY under a scenario like that, i would not want any sort of 'specialist investor' who thinks he knows this is a good idea

wut

a specialist investor with multiple mandates is absolutely better than a dumb idiot buying shares of amazon

(because he doesnt know any better)

a specialist investors, if he is a real professional, will understand markets are about edge and not 'picking winners', and should be very hestitate to get public money involved in any of this. see calsters, calpers, etc and all their issues

its not about edge when you have multiple mandates

governments playing catchup because they refused to do things the honest way and sock it away

you are so fucking dense

also he literally has a public mandate to get money involved

'edge' is how we make our money on the markets, unless we are playing the venture capital style game, which is how some of those california funds got in trouble

and hes going to earn a % of the gains

so he has plenty of incentive to invest public money

what the fuck are you not understanding about multiple mandates

do you know what a fucking mandate is

a better way(much better way) to invest public money is just to spend the money on the projects the public wants

yes, that can be a mandate!

then there is no need for any other this stuff inbetween

but there is

you jsut give the money to DOT or whatever

and tell them to build roads

not gamble on stock market to get money to build roads

no but the world isnt just roads

unnecessary steps

we need organisations

industries

and part of this process involves exiting occasionally to pursue new goals

dot can spend the money at various contractors if they are trying to spread the economic activity around, etc

no need for any financialization

..........

there is a need for financialisation to some degree, because pecuniary incentives create incentives to grow and innovate

which is something i want

the government is not constrained by that, they can simple fund the contracts and tax the economic activity that results from building the infrastructure