4 ms·
One solution, nationalize the company. If they are only a financial company, seize the totality of their asset and transfer their clients to a true company that
by orwin 3y ago
One solution, nationalize the company. If they are only a financial company, seize the totality of their asset and transfer their clients to a true company that really create value.
- jampekka 3y agoWhy a financial company couldn't be nationalized?
- orwin 3y agoThere is no point to nationalize a financial company. They serve a purpose, to chase and 'fix' market inefficiencies (not sure how useful it is in the modern world), but they do not have much, if any, effect on production.
- jampekka 3y agoNot sure what the scope here, but e.g. banks and funds have huge effect in capital allocation. I.e. what is produced, where, how and by who. As for something like insurance and brokering of commodities not so much.
- jltsiren 3y agoIt's a Norwegian subsidiary of an American company. The market itself is operated by a Norwegian company, which no longer has any Finnish shareholders, as Fingrid sold its shares to Litgrid about a year ago.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> If they are only a financial company, seize the totality of their asset and transfer their clients to a true company that really create value. Financial companies create value. People generally pay for things they want, unless the government have messed up and allowed a monopoly position to arise.
- orwin 3y agoOK, there is 4 types of values. Value here meant productive value. I'm sorry I should have been more explicit. Financial companies create exchange value (that's their main goal) and sometimes incidentally sign-value (for notation agencies it's not incidental, but I try to generalize here). They do not have any effect on productive value or use value (well, in theory). You're right and I wasn't precise enough, I should have been, thank you.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI don't think this is a very useful way to look at things, as those categories I think are either too imprecise to describe reality, or they need to be distorted to describe reality. But we can try. As an example: say I'm a farmer. I have a load of crop I'll be producing, but I won't know how much I can sell it for. I can sell it on a futures market, where a financial firm buys the crop for a price fixed now. I the farmer get certainty of money, and the financial firm takes the risk of the market in the future. But they think they've modelled things well enough that they will at least break even, and hopefully make a profit. In that example, the value added by the futures trader is removal of risk. Nothing additional is produced. What type of value is that, in your conception of value?
- orwin 3y agoA future, or an insurance, are typically commodities with great exchange values and low (or rather, unknown) use value. The opposite of the food the farmer sells. [edit] > those categories I think are either too imprecise to describe reality[...] I agree signal/sign value and exchange value are imprecise and would benefit being more divided (I really like the notion of sign value as I think it is useful to explain 90% of modern western society). I disagree on their uselessness. Value can mean a lot of things and having more words to describe those things is always useful. A reverse 1984 if you will.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI agree that value can be used for a lot of things; I disagree that those particular 4 things are the right subcategories, or even that they all represent useful categories for economic value at all. Judging economic value by sale price alone makes a huge amount of sense, and seems to subsume all of those subcategories (well - it is one of the subcategories. But the other three, at least.) And it also includes pricing for services that reduce risk, such as energy reselling, car insurance, or futures trading.