The US Government Is Now a Shareholder in 26 Companies

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Definitions: Socialism, Fascism, State Capitalism

  • Several argue this looks less like “socialism” (workers owning production) and more like:
    • State capitalism: government as investor/owner within a market system.
    • Fascist-style corporatism: close state–corporate integration without worker control.
  • Others note the word “socialism” is used inconsistently and mostly as a political label, not a precise description.

Industrial Policy & National Security Rationale

  • Many see the stakes (chips, quantum, rare earths, nuclear, defense) as classic industrial policy.
  • Framed as response to China, securing supply chains and critical technologies.
  • Some are comfortable with this in narrow, strategic sectors; others fear it will steadily expand.

Market Distortion, Conflicts of Interest, and Oligarchy Risk

  • Major concern: once the state owns stakes, it is incentivized to favor “its” firms via regulation, procurement, and trade policy.
  • Examples raised: preference for Intel over AMD, or future stakes in big tech (Google, Palantir, BlackRock).
  • Worry this accelerates an oligarchic “military‑industrial” style system, not a neutral regulator.

Taxation, Revenue, and Alternatives

  • Some suggest equity stakes as a substitute or supplement to corporate taxes and capital gains.
  • Counterarguments:
    • Not enough revenue compared to straightforward taxation.
    • Government only benefits if it sells or receives dividends; structurally similar to taxes anyway.
    • Corporate taxes “don’t work” mainly because large firms can avoid them, but others dispute this is universally true.

Comparisons to Other Models

  • References to China, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Alaska Permanent Fund, and In‑Q‑Tel as analogues or precedents.
  • One commenter notes U.S. stakes are fragmented across agencies, not a unified sovereign wealth fund.

Democratic Control, Legitimacy, and Public Benefit

  • Some welcome more public ownership as a counterweight to corporate decisions “against the national interest.”
  • Others argue agency ownership does not equal democratic control and often leads to mismanagement.
  • Repeated question: how, concretely, does this benefit the average citizen beyond vague “strategic” gains?