Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

moeonmargin.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#41

Post by alephnerd »

asimpson wrote: post #39

The investments listed here in the article make this seem like an effort to shore up or incentivize industries or companies that are integral to national defense. One example, in the ongoing US-China trade war one of the strongest moves China did was put [export controls on rare earth minerals][1] which are essential components across technology, defense, and healthcare to name a few. The government investing in thes…

Yes. This is called industrial policy, and there is bipartisan support for this. 2008 changed thinking on both sides of the aisle around leveraging state power to build industries.

Plenty of us Obama and Biden alums are industrial policy fans, and there is a similar cohort across the aisle.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#42

Post by dofm »

burningChrome wrote: post #29
moregrist wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. For all the current US administration has complained about the opposition being “socialist,” they’ve certainly gone all-in on the state partially owning private companies. Almost like cries of “socialism” have become a dog whistle instead of what the term actually means.

[flagged]

Those people haven't been elected at all, yet.

And at what level are they? Aren't there over half a million elected officials, one way or another, in the USA?

There are nearly twenty thousand at state level or above.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#43

Post by UncleOxidant »

bilsbie wrote: post #37

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be against this but it seems like if the percentage is limited and they’re non voting shares then it should be ok. I guess preferential treatment could be the only issue?

> I guess preferential treatment could be the only issue?

I'm not sure it's the only issue, but for now focusing only on this issue: it's a really big issue. The R's often complained about Dems choosing winners and losers (IIRC related to the solar industry). This is now way beyond what the Dems were trying to do by advancing solar. The gov can use it's buying power to sway things towards Intel, for example, over AMD. Huge potential for conflict of interest that will distort the markets.

The other tangential issue is that in some cases these can look like bribes. For example, OpenAI "offering" 5% of their stock to the gov.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#44

Post by thehoff »

alephnerd wrote: post #41
asimpson wrote: post #39

The investments listed here in the article make this seem like an effort to shore up or incentivize industries or companies that are integral to national defense. One example, in the ongoing US-China trade war one of the strongest moves China did was put [export controls on rare earth minerals][1] which are essential components across technology, defense, and healthcare to name a few. The government investing in thes…

Yes. This is called industrial policy, and there is bipartisan support for this. 2008 changed thinking on both sides of the aisle around leveraging state power to build industries. Plenty of us Obama and Biden alums are industrial policy fans, and there is a similar cohort across the aisle.

I'd be curious as to how much the executives at these firms earn (whether it be through salary or equity or whatever else).

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#46

Post by alephnerd »

thehoff wrote: post #44
alephnerd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. This is called industrial policy, and there is bipartisan support for this. 2008 changed thinking on both sides of the aisle around leveraging state power to build industries. Plenty of us Obama and Biden alums are industrial policy fans, and there is a similar cohort across the aisle.

I'd be curious as to how much the executives at these firms earn (whether it be through salary or equity or whatever else).

In most cases, same as an L6/7/8 SWE at Google MTV but at the upper rungs closer to L8/9/10 EM ar Google MTV. Use levels.fyi to look at the Google payscale.

Heck, I earn less as a VC today than if I remained a SWE or PM in my niche but with more stress and worse working hours.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Do y'all actually even know PE/VC and leadership salary scales?!?

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#47

Post by dismalaf »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #43
bilsbie wrote: post #37

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be against this but it seems like if the percentage is limited and they’re non voting shares then it should be ok. I guess preferential treatment could be the only issue?

> I guess preferential treatment could be the only issue? I'm not sure it's the only issue, but for now focusing only on this issue: it's a really big issue. The R's often complained about Dems choosing winners and losers (IIRC related to the solar industry). This is now way beyond what the Dems were trying to do by advancing solar. The gov can use it's buying power to sway things towards Intel, for example, over AMD…

> The gov can use it's buying power to sway things towards Intel, for example, over AMD.

Well, Intel is actually important for national defense because of their foundries...

Whereas AMD sold their foundries long ago so now they're just one of many fabless chip designers.

Re: The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

#49

Post by asimpson »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #43
bilsbie wrote: post #37

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be against this but it seems like if the percentage is limited and they’re non voting shares then it should be ok. I guess preferential treatment could be the only issue?

> I guess preferential treatment could be the only issue? I'm not sure it's the only issue, but for now focusing only on this issue: it's a really big issue. The R's often complained about Dems choosing winners and losers (IIRC related to the solar industry). This is now way beyond what the Dems were trying to do by advancing solar. The gov can use it's buying power to sway things towards Intel, for example, over AMD…

> The gov can use it's buying power to sway things towards Intel, for example, over AMD

Pretty sure that's the goal: the government wants a competent cutting edge chip maker on US soil.

Post reply on HN