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

and we're not gambling on the stock market to build roads

you realise a government STILL EXISTS

these public banks exist instead of private ones

sure, the gov existing makes this whole trip even less 'necessary'

no it doesnt though

this kind of stuff is how governments get in trouble. governments shoudl stick to what they do best, which is NOT operating on a profit/loss basis

the whole point of keeping a stock market and professional investors with pecuniary incentives is to keep the structure of society not only intact (historical skillsets are bad to dispel because of unemployment and civil unrest), but also for purposes of innovation and improvement of everyday products with monetary incentives

the incentives of government and taxation really don't support using that model

governments shouldnt operate on profit/loss bases, stop strawmanning this system