[objectivistbrit]

The unprecedented size of these savings might not matter if investors only wanted a modest return. Unfortunately investors are greedy and there are simply not enough things to invest in that can offer the high returns they demand.

So how do investors react? For decades, they have bullied governments to release assets for sale that can then be leased back at high returns. In the UK, this is why we have privatised utilities and a swath of other safe, previously state-owned, assets in private hands.

It is not morally wrong ("greedy") for investors to seek high returns. If an investment does offer high returns, investors will flock to it, the price will increase, and it will quickly offer average returns, relative to the amount invested.

Nor do investors "demand" high returns - who would they demand them from? - they simply look for the best place to put their money. Investors are not a cartel that lobbies the government. Government services were privatised in the UK for political reasons.

Then there is the way most people, businesses and governments have accumulated their savings. Just a quick look at the $100tn total and we can see that most of it is the result of tax avoidance.

The Japanese are famous for their savings and investments. But middle-income families can only save because they don’t pay enough tax for officials in Tokyo to provide basic services. Every year the Japanese government runs a 10% budget deficit, such that its accumulated debt is worth almost 250% of GDP.

The author has expanded the meaning of "tax avoidance" to cover cases where he thinks the government should be imposing higher taxes. I agree that governments should run a balanced budget (I would prefer they do so by cutting spending), but the author implies that you could pay all the taxes you owe, and you would still be cheating the system.

[pjc50]

> Investors are not a cartel that lobbies the government.

Investors as a class most certainly lobby the government.

> Government services were privatised in the UK for political reasons.

.. and this politics does not exist in a vacuum. There is a whole mythology about privatisation that is put forward by opaquely-funded think tanks. It has other functions simply than providing assets - it's also an anti-strike measure and a means of avoiding complaints.

[objectivistbrit]

Investors aren't a class. "Investors" includes pension funds, university endowments, hedge funds, banks, sovereign wealth funds, individual savers - the only thing these people have in common is they have funds and want to grow them, but they differ completely on risk preference, time preference, amount to invest, etc, etc. I.e., they all pursue their own individual self-interest, not some collective class interest.

Some of these entities fund lobbyists and some don't.

mythology ... opaquely-funded think tanks

I don't know if you are a Marxist, but this is a Marxist way of looking at the world, where each class pursues its collective interest, and funds propaganda to spread a self-justifying mythology.

[pjc50]

I'm not a Marxist, but I was wondering as I typed that if the class analysis would get pattern-matched that way.

My comment about think tanks was driven by http://whofundsyou.org/ , really. "Funds propaganda to spread a self-justifying mythology" is definitely something that happens to varying extents by various actors - that's effectively how "super-PACs" work in the US. And privatization has the characteristics of a mythology: it's asserted as a cure-all for problems in public services, and implemented even when extremely unpopular. It relies on creating pseudo-markets, often with only one buyer and tiny number of sellers, and the buyer is not the consumer of the service so the quality gets driven down.

[state_less]

> It is not morally wrong ("greedy") for investors to seek high returns. If an investment does offer high returns, investors will flock to it, the price will increase, and it will quickly offer average returns, relative to the amount invested.

Companies ask governments for favors all the time. The Carrier deal is a widely viewed example. If you do x, Carrier will invest in your state. Sometimes the investment isn't even open for the public to take advantage of. In other words, a single hyper-wealthy person can have his/her agents lobby for their own personal benefit.

> Nor do investors "demand" high returns - who would they demand them from? - they simply look for the best place to put their money. Investors are not a cartel that lobbies the government. Government services were privatised in the UK for political reasons.

They lobby the government, or whomever has the power to grant them the higher returns. Sometimes that means displacing the local population, for example poor oil rich countries.

Maybe you are thinking about the small investor. Someone who is passive and without the power to change the playing field?

[SomeStupidPoint]

> Investors are not a cartel that lobbies the government.

They most definitely are, especially in the UK and US. I'm actually a little unsure how you could honestly believe that investment institutions don't lobby governments.

[chillingeffect]

> It is not morally wrong ("greedy") for investors to seek high returns.

This is an example of isolating an action from a bigger picture. Of course, it's not morally wrong to seek high returns - in complete isolation from how they're sought.

What's more important is how the higher returns are sought. Is the investor privatizing water? Canceling funding for services like abortion? Or are they doing things that net benefit a society like building housing, designing and researching more efficient transportation.

Therefore the means through which the investment is sought can circumscribe morally wrong investments.