Same with Jerome's article and Chris' comment. This is 'Think Tank' material.

Martin raises a good point, in that there would still be enough market influence in the mortgage business to quickly create corruption in the dealings between a government-owned financing agency and the retail establishments. Strong regulation would, of course, suppress this to some degree, but the tendency would always be there to seek and find new loopholes.

That's where approaches such as Chris' and Melancthon's are crucial. There has to be a decentralization and broadening of control over processes which affect large constituencies - e.g., housing. Nothing like local, involved citizenry to jealously guard their stock from large predators.

Jerome mentions local, quasi-governmental ownership of energy resources. He is probably thinking in terms of distribution (my part of WA state is almost exclusively PUDs [Public Utility Districts]). Our neighboring county's PUD has set up a private corporation with 3 other PUDs, under which they have financed wind turbine installations. They are already using and selling wind-generated energy, and very soon they will have US$2 billion in wind turbine assets in their county. Because they set up a private corporation, these assets are taxable property, and they receive full federal credits for the installations. The private corporation makes money for the PUDs, but the statutes that govern the PUDs limit the use of this money to the benefit of the PUD members (all of the residents who are serviced by the PUD) - left-over prairie populism/socialism from the early/middle part of the 20th century.

paul spencer