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

121–130 of 131 posts

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

#121

Post by thesmtsolver2 »

Hikikomori wrote: post #108
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? It is quite fashionable to call the US fascist while going gaga at other countries that have similar or worse conditions. Let me bring receipts. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/263159/1/1815112018.... The most striking difference is that top investors in Europe hold much higher stakes than in the United States. The top ten in Europe features several governments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:…

Far from the same thing. Most of these are ex government monopolies, some still are. We also don't have dictators taking over all parts of our governments. Hitler did join forces with industrialists.

> Most of these are ex government monopolies, some still are.

It makes them even worse if you are defining fascism. Look up Italy when fascism was alive.

> We also don't have dictators taking over all parts of our governments

Because they are already in charge.

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

#122

Post by JKCalhoun »

pixelready wrote: post #110
SoftTalker wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to China it's best to remember the Boy and the Rattlesnake Story.

We’ll need a more apt parable for dueling superpowers and the effect on their citizens. Perhaps “The Giants and the Ants”, where the ants beseech the giants to stop stepping on them as they fight in the fields where they have built their nest. Each of the giants argue that if they look down to avoid stepping on the ants, their rival will gain advantage and win the duel. When the ants ask the giants why they must duel…

Belling the Cat comes to mind.

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

#123

Post by palmotea »

ceejayoz wrote: post #64
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?

> And you think this is that? Oh dear.

I don't care how it starts. I'm tried of the kind of people who ideologically oppose government control.

> Freudian slip?

Autocorrect typo for companies, obviously.

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

#124

Post by throwaway27448 »

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #99
iamnothere wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, few would oppose a stake in rare earths mining or something, but the more likely endgame of this is a government stake in companies like Google and Palantir. Which will inevitably lead to even more influence and “special access” privileges. Edit: others have pointed out that the government likely already had investments in most of these tech firms through In-Q-Tel, which is also a potential issue, but that’s…

I'm against the government having stake in any private company. It incentivizes the wrong behaviors. Regulations need to be written by a neutral party. Policy decisions need to be fair and balanced between the players in the market, not favoring one that they "own".

Right, it should simply compete on the open market with zero-margin public companies. A very straightforward way to incentivize efficient markets when other mechanisms fail. Not every industry and certainly not every process benefits from innovation—schumpeter, the father of the modern vc industry, was very emphatic about this.

There are many issues to have with this too, of course—the devil is in the details. If we implemented it today this process would look like paying five guys billions of dollars to pay northrup grumman slightly less to subcontract producing basic products to firms overseas anyway

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

#125

Post by Hikikomori »

thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #121
Hikikomori wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far from the same thing. Most of these are ex government monopolies, some still are. We also don't have dictators taking over all parts of our governments. Hitler did join forces with industrialists.

> Most of these are ex government monopolies, some still are. It makes them even worse if you are defining fascism. Look up Italy when fascism was alive. > We also don't have dictators taking over all parts of our governments Because they are already in charge.

Fascism is just this one thing right?

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

#127

Post by exe34 »

ryanisnan wrote: post #92
exe34 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did. you failed to understand.

I'll bite, because this is HN and I think there's more space for genuine discussion here, not because I desire to be right. First, addressing my first point about how this is "the modern equivalent of an ad hominem attack". The commenter is complaining as if Claude basically came up with this entire thing itself. Very very seldom is that actually how things get created, at least in my experience. Yes there's the pote…

In that case I'll have my ai read it and decide if it's worth informing me of any key points.

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

#128

Post by contagiousflow »

anon7725 wrote: post #77
contagiousflow wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Corporate taxes don't work What does this mean?

I am not the original commenter, but I interpret it to mean that large corporations can almost always arrange it so that they don't pay tax or don't pay their fair share of tax. 88 companies paid $0 tax on $105B in profit in 2025[0] [0] https://itep.org/88-profitable-corporations-paid-zero-income...

I agree that corporate taxes are not working at this time for one specific country. But the claim of "corporate taxes don't work" is much more broad and not something I've seen specific evidence for. My understanding was that historically corporate taxes have been extremely effective, even if those taxes aren't paid the profits of a company are instead redirected as other investments.

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

#129

Post by ceejayoz »

palmotea wrote: post #123
ceejayoz wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> And you think this is that? Oh dear. I don't care how it starts. I'm tried of the kind of people who ideologically oppose government control. > Freudian slip? Autocorrect typo for companies, obviously.

> I don't care how it starts. I'm tried of the kind of people who ideologically oppose government control.

Agreed to the latter; ooof to the former. I absolutely think government can, and should, do more for the people. But the what of it matters.

> Autocorrect typo for companies, obviously.

Obviously. I just thought it was funny.

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

#130

Post by robocat »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #120
robocat wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investment is about voting/control, not just money. From a purely financial perspective, federal taxation on companies would be similar to owning shares (except ≈preferential since the government usually gets paid first). From a voting and control perspective, we usually don't want the government getting involved (the government should be using industry regulations, and avoiding trying to pick winners). In New Zealan…

Ack. Here’s the podcast if you’re interested. I know the host shares more of your view so it was an interesting discussion though I don’t remember the details. https://www.econtalk.org/mariana-mazzucato-on-the-value-of-e... AI summary: Mazzucato argues that: * Governments do far more than correct market failures—they actively create markets. * Public investment has been essential to many major technological breakthro…

Thanks for the link - started listening but not my cup of T.

Most thought gets hyperfocused on money, however value is mostly invisible - economic utility and externalities.

Can a government get dollars from progress? No: for example the returns from science or open source are hard to value. The idea of a government owning shares to get a return on investment is extremely silly.

Secondly governments often make huge mistakes if trying to decide on purposeful investments.

Much of the world's wealth has come about despite government choices, and bureaucratic red tape usually hinders true wealth creation.

It is a very hard topic to think about.

And discussion seems to get derailed by focusing on dollars and how to cut the pie up.

We are all deeply irrational.

Post reply on HN