Foxmeister
Well-Known Member
I say no because it's a slippery slope. If the government owns a stake in a private industry, it will pump money into it to ensure it remains profitable. Now think about how that effects the economy.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should the government have ownership stake in private corporations?
- Thread starter Foxmeister
- Start date
Ascetic X
Well-Known Member
Understanding Federal Equity Investments in Strategic Companies
The Trump administration has marked a significant shift in U.S. industrial policy. The U.S. government is now a direct shareholder in private companies, moving beyond traditional market-based approaches to competitiveness that have marked U.S. policy in the postwar period.
The Trump administration has marked a significant shift in U.S. industrial policy.
In addition to providing subsidies such as loans and grants, the Trump administration, in its second term, is now acquiring equity stakes in private companies in sectors deemed critical to national security. The U.S. government is now a direct shareholder in private companies, moving beyond traditional market-based approaches to competitiveness that have marked U.S. policy in the postwar period.
So far, $10 billion in federal funds has been committed in exchange for equity stakes in private firms, although most of that sum is associated with the “investment” in Intel.
Seen more broadly, the Trump administration is acquiring a strategic portfolio of investments in companies directly related to national security, spanning minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, among other sectors. These equity positions aim to support key U.S. firms and thus reduce U.S. dependence on China, help reshore critical manufacturing and provide reputational and financial support for innovative domestic firms.
At the same time, equity held by the government when not sufficiently constrained can also pose risks, potentially including the politicization of corporate decisionmaking.
A local village, Solvay, has its own electric company.
And rates are cheaper!
Is that any different from a govt providing water service?
And rates are cheaper!
Is that any different from a govt providing water service?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
This is interesting. In the grand sceme, 10 billion isn't a lot compared to total government spending. But, as was mentioned, the slippery slope argument is valid.Understanding Federal Equity Investments in Strategic Companies
The Trump administration has marked a significant shift in U.S. industrial policy. The U.S. government is now a direct shareholder in private companies, moving beyond traditional market-based approaches to competitiveness that have marked U.S. policy in the postwar period.www.csis.org
The Trump administration has marked a significant shift in U.S. industrial policy.
In addition to providing subsidies such as loans and grants, the Trump administration, in its second term, is now acquiring equity stakes in private companies in sectors deemed critical to national security. The U.S. government is now a direct shareholder in private companies, moving beyond traditional market-based approaches to competitiveness that have marked U.S. policy in the postwar period.
So far, $10 billion in federal funds has been committed in exchange for equity stakes in private firms, although most of that sum is associated with the “investment” in Intel.
Seen more broadly, the Trump administration is acquiring a strategic portfolio of investments in companies directly related to national security, spanning minerals, nuclear energy, and semiconductors, among other sectors. These equity positions aim to support key U.S. firms and thus reduce U.S. dependence on China, help reshore critical manufacturing and provide reputational and financial support for innovative domestic firms.
At the same time, equity held by the government when not sufficiently constrained can also pose risks, potentially including the politicization of corporate decisionmaking.
The Federal government already has deep influence on all companies via regulations, but to have an ownership stake in a private company seems a clear conflict of intetest.
Peace to you
Foxmeister
Well-Known Member
The Trump administration's strategy of requiring equity stakes in private companies in exchange for federal funding has sparked an active debate over whether this represents economic nationalism or a slide toward state control.
Go back to when Obama used federal dollars to invest in Chrysler and GM. $48.5 billion was injected into GM, giving the government a 60% majority ownership stake. The Republicans were sounding off against it. They aren't sounding off against it now because they're hypocrites.
What's going to happen the next time the Dems have the WH and the majority in Congress and they start to do this by investing or should I say borrowing money to invest in corporations owned by people like Soros and Buffet? I can tell you what will happen. They Republicans will be yelling their heads off against it.