Governments owning stocks feels like double dipping with a touch of socialism.

I get why the idea seems sane, you want to get returns on investments, right? But with governments the vehicle for returns is taxes and investments are often called "grants" (but also loans, credits, etc). The tax system means you can make investments and always get some return. FFS you could invest in a company going nowhere and you still recoup through taxes. The only way you lose in this system is by tanking the entire economy. Idk why this is so hard to understand. Why people think things like research grants is akin to tossing money into a pit and burning it.

I know the current party is anti tax but aren't they also anti nationalization (Words, not actions)? Changing (or adding) your returns vehicle to be through stock only creates nationalization. It increases returns but also puts an additional thumb on the scale. It's very short sighted.

Who knew socialism would come to America wrapped in an A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶n̶ capitalism flag?

▲ petralithic 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

What about this situation is related to workers controlling the means of production at Intel?

▲ godelski 3 days ago | parent [-]

  > workers controlling the means of production

Well... usually that is done through a government. There isn't a single type of socialism just as there isn't a single type of capitalism. The government being a public entity, being a representative of the government, is in fact one way to handle said social ownership.

▲

petralithic 3 days ago | parent [-]

Given other examples worldwide, it's a minor form of state capitalism, not socialism because again there is nothing about workers (not just any taxpayers) controlling the means of production.

▲

godelski 3 days ago | parent [-]

Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time reading this in any way that isn't equivalent to you declaring Scottland as fictional. It's not like there is exactly one form of socialism and anything that deviates from it in the slightest is capitalism.

	▲	petralithic 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is in the definition of the word. I never said anything that deviates is capitalism though because one can make the same argument against that too.

▲ 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ LudwigNagasena 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Governments make regulations that command how companies operate and take taxes from companies. Governments already own significant stocks of companies in all but name.

If you make targeted grants, rebates, subsidies, etc, it even seems more fair to make taxing also targeted.

And is giving Intel subsidies and making Intel pay for it more socialist than giving Intel subsidies and making everyone pay for it?

	▲	godelski 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes