"Government can't run a bank better than the private sector. "
I point out that the reason the government ended up owning the shares in the first place was that the private sector failed dismally at running a whole set of banks.
The wider problem is that we have a whole set of economic notions like this one which are deeply ingrained but which are dreadful guides to action. They might sound sensible, but so did the phlogiston theory at one point. You wouldn't get very far running a chemical plant using it.
Maybe it is better for banks to be in private hands. Maybe it is much better to have them run by the state. I don't know. And neither does anyone else.
'Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House, according to associates of both men.
Is Perot = Ross Perot (doing a quick google search)?
Yes(!)
I've probably made you feel old again
Nah, the story of Ross Perot is not general knowledge. It's the sort of political intrigue that interests pbers...
What is the story of Ross Perot, as it happens....
Perot was a billionaire who stood for the Presidency in 1992. Fundamentally a Republican, Perot became disillusioned with Reagan and largely bankrolled his own campaign (don't worry - he had plenty of money). For a while it looked like he would win, but in the end he won a respectable 19% but no electoral college seats - helping Bill Clinton into the White House. He stood again in 1996, but his moment had passed.
I thought Perot voters split 50/50 Republican/Democrat when forced to choose between Clinton/Bush.
Comments