Last reading post for Agenda for a Economy

After finishing Agenda for a new Economy, it has left me with surprises as well as many questions. I agree with the author's point that giving too much power to Wall Street could lead to a disastrous situation like it already happened not so long ago. Professor Hansen's explanation during the lecture, which was what the author meant by Wall Street is not the entire Wall Street but big investment companies like Goldman Sachs helped me to understand the author's point better. However, thinking of the lecture today, it made me wonder if the author falls into the Either-or fallacy.

From my understanding, Korten argues that we should get rid of Wall Street and redesign the entire economy. I believe Wall Street also has its favorable functions (its original purpose) such as raising capitals for companies and managing people's 401K and insurances. For this part, he made his point in Ch.14 What about my...? and What you aren't supposed to know about the stock market section, which I was not fully persuaded. For example, a point he made was "Even more surprising, Federal Reserve data reveal that during the twenty years from 1981 to 2000, the overall net flow of money to corporations from stock sales was a negative $540 billion, meaning that the corporations spent more money from their treasuries to buy back their own shares than they raised by selling new shares." Like Korten said, there are various reasons for repurchasing the stocks, but there is no surprise in buying them back for the higher price than it issued because when companies repurchase their stocks, the price is usually higher than its issue price. Therefore, I wonder why doesn't he argue cutting out the rotten part of Wall Street but argue removing the entire Wall Street. No one claims that we should remove the entire government because of the political corruption. This is just my opinion, and I could've misunderstood the author's point.

Overall, I was impressed by the points he made and how he explained complicated concepts in a language that everyone can understand. But, I wish he showed us different aspects as well than the author's and what people with opposing view think. That could make his argument solider.