←back to thread

607 points givemeethekeys | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
alephnerd ◴[] No.44989996[source]
Good. It's very much a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" situation.

If Taiwan's NDF has ownership share in TSMC and UMC, China's CICIIF in SMIC, Japan's Master Trust in a majority of enterprises, and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala in GlobalFoundries, then we should as well.

The recent (50ish years) aversion to Industrial Policy in America has been pigheaded and ideological to a certain extent. If we wish to build capacity domestically, especially in high capex and low margins industry, some amount of government support is needed.

Funds that are overwhelmingly sourced via private capital cannot take the same risks to build an ecosystem that a Soverign Development Fund can. This is what the Master Trust (Japan), NDF (Taiwan), and Temasek (Singapore) did to build their own domestic industries in semiconductors and REE processing - industries with high capex, high IP barriers, and low margins.

This now sets the precedent to develop at sovereign development fund.

If we did this with GM and Solyndra a decade+ ago we would have been in a better position to protect our automotive and renewable industry, but ofc the GOP of that era along with a portion of the DNC was not ready to take such a risk.

The CHIPS and IRA acts were steps in the right direction, but couldn't really take full advantage of the stick.

Edit: Surprised that a forum that largely supports single payer healthcare opposes sovereign development funds, even though they themselves could help enforce pricing in a less complex manner than that which the CMS does today.

At some point this is just reflexive hatred.

replies(4): >>44990051 #>>44990059 #>>44990112 #>>44991472 #
selimthegrim ◴[] No.44991472[source]
What if the government demands they start paying dividends?
replies(2): >>44996500 #>>45000241 #
1. alephnerd ◴[] No.44996500[source]
Ideally, a government or SDF holding is not a majority holding, but a controlling stake.

Generally, a SDF is expected to take decisions that help develop an ecosystem or market, and help act as a check against primarily profit-driven motives.

Assuming a stake is part of a well managed SDF similar to Temasek, Mubadala, or the Master Trust, then I'd tend to trust the decision being made.

That said, I also recognize that this administration is severely disorganized and amateur, so I wouldn't trust their choices. But, I do feel this sets a precedent to allow both the federal and state governments to build SDFs, especially in a post-Trump world.

For example, the CHIPS and IRA were able to be pushed thru by the Biden admin because of the trade norms the Trump 1 admin created and upended.