__ __ _ _____ _ _ _
| \/ | ___| |_ __ _| ___(_) | |_ ___ _ __
| |\/| |/ _ \ __/ _` | |_ | | | __/ _ \ '__|
| | | | __/ || (_| | _| | | | || __/ |
|_| |_|\___|\__\__,_|_| |_|_|\__\___|_|
community weblog
What might it mean to seize the means?
The people's money should be used for the people's projects, as increased pension investment in municipal bonds could supplant private banks as the market makers for public infrastructure; participatory budgeting and bonding could open up the hidden processes that appropriate and allocate the people's money, subjecting them to democratic accountability; and outcomes-based contracting could hold private vendors accountable for the goods and services their fat government contracts are meant to provide. [archive]
posted by chavenet on Oct 24, 2026 at 4:46 AM
---------------------------
The math doesn't add up. Municipal bonds are tax exempt and thus lower returning than comparable investments (pension funds don't have to pay taxes on their returns so they don't get that benefit).
Pension funds' primary responsibility is to ensure that the beneficiaries are paid. Would you want the Ford pension plan to buy Ford shares to prop their market value—with the risk being if Ford goes bankrupt so does the pension plan. Corporate plans are insured, state plans are typically not.
posted by Lucubrator at 6:24 AM
---------------------------
Better accountability for vendors to government: good!
Pension funds buying municipal bonds: absurd (for the taxable-equivalent yield reason Lucubrator says)!
posted by MattD at 8:47 AM
---------------------------
Lucubrator, couldn't "seizing the means" include insuring state plans? In the future, I mean, I assume your are right that it couldn't happen now. A tweak to the law (or whatever is stopping the insurance from happening) could get popular support.
Along the lines of states owning banks, for example, or credit unions getting the same privileges as banks.
posted by Vegiemon at 11:02 AM
---------------------------
The pull quote is just something tacked on the end of a fairly lengthy article about "Sewer Socialists" and how they focused on making cities run efficiently despite powerful forces putting up roadblocks. It would be interesting to see if socialist-run cities can pull off modernized versions of the strategies. For example, although a city-run bank is almost certainly dead in the water, perhaps a city can put together a more modern version of the baby bonds as a pay app with minimal fees.
posted by netowl at 11:44 AM
---------------------------
It's interesting to see that the socialist movement of the early 1900s was, in practice, a response to the inefficiency of and mass grift by its political predecessors. I see the current regime put the public $40 trillion in debt and wonder if a similar response will be coming, piece by piece, as more socialists are elected.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:45 AM
---------------------------
Electricity Bills Are Rising Faster at Investor-Owned Utilities Than Public Ones: One Home's Power Bill Is $500. A Half-Mile Away, It's 70% Lower - "Soaring prices at some of America's biggest utilities are fueling new scrutiny of the investor-owned model"
posted by kliuless at 7:26 AM
---------------------------
Lucubrator, couldn't "seizing the means" include insuring state plans?
Why, exactly? State plans are usually protected by specific state law. And there's no advantage for state pensions to buy municipal bonds, as the state pension already has tax advantages, and municipal bonds are inherently relatively poor performers. It performs worse for pensioners with no advantage.
Along the lines of states owning banks, for example, or credit unions getting the same privileges as banks.
Credit unions getting the same privileges as banks would kinda mean losing the advantages of having a not for profit model, while presumably still having the mission of the credit union. Which would mean it becomes a shitty credit union, or a shitty bank.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:57 AM
---------------------------
[One deleted. Folks, the conversations here are very seldom improved by the first comment out of the gate being dismissive and snarky.]
posted by mod_adrienneleigh at 1:36 PM
---------------------------
IMO, instead of the funding source, the actual projects that 'the people want' deserve more consideration, with a goal towards getting the most for the most.
Right now, the vast majority of the budget for the people goes to highway maintenance and construction. That's why almost every city and town looks extremely similar across the entire US.
IMO that would be better spent on other stuff, or a more democratic process where what it is used for is voted on across municipalities.
" Whereas previously "street flushing had been done with firehose at a cost of 69 cents per thousand square yards . . . the new system reduced the cost to fifteen cents." Handley and Dietz also led an effort to weigh trash, breaking down the cost per ton of disposed garbage to develop cheaper ways of handling refuse."
We don't really do stuff like this anymore, almost all of 'city accounting' uses stupid and fake accounts like 'lost hours', with a ridiculous wage attached to it. You've probably heard of this used when computing all the time lost to office gossip during the World Cup or Super Bowl or whatever.
It has no basis in reality. It's just 'big number scary' kind of stuff.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:40 AM
---------------------------