Closely held outfits invest more
And look further ahead
Public firms exposed to open markets in their equity
Tend to look only one quarter ahead
Cliche ?
That bit about investing more sounds in my ear
like a stone falling thru a bottomless well
Where's the plunk ?
Is there some sense in which a system of corporations all of which
Were public would in aggregate invest less then system of private firms ?
Invest here means not in securities or buying other firms up out right
But investing in real new production facilities
The whole game of social design of corporations seems pruned
Of systemic functions
Firms morph over time
Take on new forms
The whole system may require all the different forms to function sustainably
as it does
Too much reform seems to recommend running the broader evolution of the corporate form
In reverse
Why should it be a systemic virtue to isolate parts of the social capital ?
If private closely held firms seem to pounce faster on opportunity
Is that locally good but perhaps globally inferior
Surely the social capital needs to flow where it finds highest use
Or is that not about equity capital but credit funds
And is the law of equity capital to control with the smallest share of invested capital possible
Once founders cash in why out equity share in that corporations assets rise ?
Concentrating the gain from a well chosen path seems preferable
Given the top management class takes de facto ten percent of earnings
Why not the rest all be debt
Other then the need to easily transfer control over " the residual"
Equity is the handle on the suit case
Securitization of ownership capital
surely is that much closer to full socialization
