- 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 these companies isn't ideal from a free enterprise perspective but seems rational from a national security perspective.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earths_trade_dispute
- I know it is not the same thing, but in case people aren't already aware, Alaskan residents have long owned stocks in private companies.
It is called the Alaska Permanent Fund and a constitutionally established sovereign wealth fund invested in a diversified portfolio and managed by a state-owned corporation, the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation.
Earnings help fund the state government and annual dividend checks are distributed to residents.
by scottfits
1 subcomments
- i think an important nuance and the reason we don't suddenly have a sovereign wealth fund is it’s not a centralized US Gov buying stakes. It’s a bunch of different government entities using different pools of capital
- Commerce dept: Intel, IBM quantum, GlobalFoundries, D-Wave, Rigetti, xLight
- Dept of "war": MP Materials for rare earths, L3Harris rocket motors for munitions
- Energy dept: Lithium Americas / Thacker Pass, Westinghouse nuclear
- White House: U.S. Steel golden share
by therealdrag0
2 subcomments
- There was a really interesting episode of EconTalk podcast about 6 years ago which had a guest (woman, if it helps find it) arguing that the US gov should invest in and have ownership of a lot more startups, similar to how they funded Tesla.
- 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?
by dachworker
3 subcomments
- Corporate taxes don't work and taxing the rich is super hard. Could this be a way for the state to suplement tax revenue?
- If the left had done this, they would have been attacked for "socialism." But since it's a right wing administration doing it, it becomes "national security industrial policy."
This isn't communism. It's state capitalism that socializes losses and privatizes profits.
It's bad communism and bad capitalism at the same time.
I'd like to call this 'Napoleonism,' after the pig Napoleon in George Orwell's Animal Farm
by ChrisArchitect
0 subcomment
- Related today:
OpenAI ‘in early talks to give 5% stake to US government’
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48759623
- Isn't that just socialism without the social benefits?
by throwaway27448
0 subcomment
- At least we might get better nuclear out of this, assuming it's not as hilariously corrupt as our government contracting schemes are.
- How many casinos?
- I still wonder if the CAFR CONSPIRACY is true.
The story is that states have some very large number of little bits of money with and without purpose all parked with investment companies. The total sum was argued to be so large the government owns a large share of the economy.
- Can we get a breakdown on how this benefits the average US citizen? Other than vibes and "better us than them"
by josefritzishere
0 subcomment
- More here
https://www.cfr.org/articles/washingtons-growing-portfolio-t...
by throw0101d
3 subcomments
- Capitalism with American characteristics:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_charact...
- Owning the means of production is so capitalist now...
by zacharyjradford
0 subcomment
- [dead]
by meetingthrower
0 subcomment
- I like the idea of getting a slice of the action for the country. I mean, to have a nice slice of profits or something would be really nice. You know the equity is nice in that only pays off if there are profits. What would be even nicer is just a nice permanent claim on profits, like 20% or something like that....don't we call that a tax rate? /s
- 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?
by thisislife2
1 subcomments
- Have we come full circle now with China inspired by American Capitalism to create their own model of it, that now inspires the Americans to imitate the Chinese?
- > Article research and generated imagery enabled by AI tools including Claude by Anthropic.
*sigh*
by dolphinscorpion
0 subcomment
- Hey, we're gonna buy 10% of ....in a week.
Thanks dad.
- VEB OpenAI next?
Shall I dig out my Auferstanden aus Ruinen vinyl?
- 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.
- 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.
Hacker News