A common distinction between socialism, democratic or otherwise, and social-democracy is the question of public ownership. There is a sense that only collective ownership of “the means of production” (‘MoP’) is adequate to solve the problems of society. It sounds more radical, and as radical as possible is thought to be necessary in the face of our myriad of problems. This formulation leads to all sorts of confusion.
I'm a bankster by trade, so this topic is of great interest to me. Banking doesn't have much of a public-private distinction. There is a nascent state banking movement, drawing inspiration from the Bank of North Dakota. The idea behind it seems to be that financial capitalism does a poor job of financing actual businesses, especially small ones. The Bank of North Dakota has certainly been a success. OTOH, the Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico failed. It's also worth noting that the Federal Reserve competes in the wholesale payment space with an entity that it oversees: the New York Clearing House. Believe it or not, all parties involved are reasonably content with this strange relationship. Anything that can happen probably does happen, somewhere.
I'm a bankster by trade, so this topic is of great interest to me. Banking doesn't have much of a public-private distinction. There is a nascent state banking movement, drawing inspiration from the Bank of North Dakota. The idea behind it seems to be that financial capitalism does a poor job of financing actual businesses, especially small ones. The Bank of North Dakota has certainly been a success. OTOH, the Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico failed. It's also worth noting that the Federal Reserve competes in the wholesale payment space with an entity that it oversees: the New York Clearing House. Believe it or not, all parties involved are reasonably content with this strange relationship. Anything that can happen probably does happen, somewhere.