- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 9,480
- Reaction score
- 13,684
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No core principles cons going all in on communism!
What other industries will they want government controlling production?
The government’s stake in Intel is part of a broader strategy to create a sovereign wealth fund that could include more companies, White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said Monday.
No core principles cons going all in on communism!“I’m sure that at some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry then other industries,” he said in a CNBC interview.
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
No core principles cons going all in on communism!
What other industries will they want government controlling production?
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
Hahahaha....look at MAGA trying to claim government ownership of means of production is not socialist, when that's the definition.
The government does not have the authority to interfere in private business.What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
OwnershipWhat's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill?
Shareholders dont control their own companies?You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
Not much now that we have a real BUSINESS MAN in the white house!Government ownership of the means of production. What could go wrong?
Remember when they lost their minds when barrack HUSSEIN obama gave a $500mil loan to solyndraIt’s astonishing to me what sniveling cowards Republican elected officials are. No one is speaking up about this. What a bunch of cowardly fascist ****s.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder.What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder.
There you have it folks. The open cheering of of the very definition of fascism by a cult member.
A truly scary post by a "small gubbermint" Republican.
The key is to just trust TRUMP using the gov to buy private business & put military on US streetsThe real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder.
There you have it folks. The open cheering of of the very definition of fascism by a cult member.
A truly scary post by a "small gubbermint" Republican.
Sovereign wealth fund… these MAGAs have no idea what they have wrought on our country.
No core principles cons going all in on communism!
What other industries will they want government controlling production?
Some don't. It depends upon the nature of the shares.Shareholders dont control their own companies?
Sovereign wealth fund… these MAGAs have no idea what they have wrought on our country.
I remember.Remember when they lost their minds when barrack HUSSEIN obama gave a $500mil loan to solyndra
LOL. It's OK for the gubbermint to take over business as long they make money from it.I remember.
What did the US taxpayer get out of that deal?
TlDRWhat's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?