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

61–70 of 131 posts

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

#61

Post by iAMkenough »

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.

As long as we're socializing the gains just the same as we're socializing the losses (through taxpayer-funded bailouts), I have no problem.

That's unfortunately not been the reality through Obama, Trump and Biden policies.

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

#62

Post by jazzyjackson »

lantry wrote: post #32
dachworker wrote: post #20

Corporate taxes don't work and taxing the rich is super hard. Could this be a way for the state to suplement tax revenue?

It creates a lot of perverse incentives, and is probably a bad idea in the long run. If the govt makes more money when intel is successful, then the govt is incentivized to sabotage Intel's competitors (e.g. through tariffs, export controls, and many other powers). This distorts the free market that is (allegedly) at the center of America's success

See also: confessions of an economic hitman, the mysterious affair of Olivetti

US government has always had a policy of sabotaging international competition

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

#64

Post by ceejayoz »

palmotea wrote: post #59

I am happy with this. There needs to be more democratic control of the economy, as the people who have been running American countries have been consistently making decisions that are against the national interest. There's risk to it, but the status quo is not something to be happy about either.

> There needs to be more democratic control of the economy…

And you think this is that? Oh dear.

> the people who have been running American countries have been consistently making decisions that are against the national interest

Freudian slip?

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

#65

Post by pohl »

skybrian wrote: post #23

If the US government got nonvoting shares in startups along with VC's then that could bring in lots of revenue from capital gains without calling it "taxes." If it were in return for a tax break then they might even do it voluntarily. The key would be to get in while valuation is low.

The government would need to sell their position in order to have gains.

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

#66

Post by ks2048 »

ck2 wrote: post #17

this is why democrats are so stupid to use the word socialist even though it's accurate sovereign funds, federal ownership making companies "too big to fail" is 100% socialism but republicans are devious enough to know not to call it that so do we get to idiotically slur the current administration and call them communists?

It’s “100% socialism” in your definition and 20% in someone else’s. Its pretty tiring constantly debating these words.

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

#68

Post by ceejayoz »

alephnerd wrote: post #31
cjoelrun wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Repeating outdated tropes ad nauseum is dumb. There is bipartisan support for industrial policy. 2008 shaped our thinking on this and most of our policymakers in the 19th century were influence by Alexander Hamilton and Fredrich List. Our allies (Japan, South Korea) as well as our competitors (China) use this as well, and so did the US until the 1990s. I support the CHIPS Act and IRA. I also support building an Ameri…

> There is bipartisan support for industrial policy.

For this specific industrial policy? The Intel deal was an outright shakedown.

There's bipartisan support for healthcare, too. Unfortunately, quite a bit of serious dissension on exactly what that means.

edit: Yes [0][1][2][3].

So, no. Not the "pick random companies and extort shares out of them" approach.

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

#69

Post by nafey »

vizzier wrote: post #38
lantry wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It creates a lot of perverse incentives, and is probably a bad idea in the long run. If the govt makes more money when intel is successful, then the govt is incentivized to sabotage Intel's competitors (e.g. through tariffs, export controls, and many other powers). This distorts the free market that is (allegedly) at the center of America's success

The answer is probably an automatic state in any company over a specific size given to the government. The only competition is then international.

Reinventing Socialism from first principals
Post reply on HN