←back to thread

Uncle Sam shouldn't own Intel stock

(www.wsj.com)
335 points aspenmayer | 3 comments | 24 Aug 25 21:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.697s | source
Show context
Animats ◴[24 Aug 25 22:07 UTC] No.45008237[source]▶
It's socialism, after all, for the Government to own an interest in a company.

Covered yesterday on YC.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989773

replies(4): >>45008264 #>>45008266 #>>45008301 #>>45013221 #
boredatoms ◴[24 Aug 25 22:12 UTC] No.45008266[source]▶
We can finally get that universal healthcare then
replies(2): >>45008297 #>>45010929 #
aspenmayer ◴[24 Aug 25 22:18 UTC] No.45008297[source]▶
The healthcare industry doesn't need a bailout, though, so the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks.
replies(5): >>45008352 #>>45008357 #>>45008643 #>>45010492 #>>45010836 #
kelnos ◴[25 Aug 25 05:23 UTC] No.45010492[source]▶
> the US has no leverage to demand 10% of healthcare companies' stocks

The US government doesn't need leverage. It just needs an act of Congress. Corporations are convenient fictions that exist at the pleasure of our legal system, which can be changed.

replies(1): >>45010559 #
aspenmayer ◴[25 Aug 25 05:35 UTC] No.45010559[source]▶
I agree that this could be done as it has happened before, but I don’t think anyone would go quietly. It’s expropriation without pay or eminent domain if it’s with pay, but I would expect a Supreme Court challenge if Congress came anywhere near this, either way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...

replies(1): >>45021359 #
hakfoo ◴[26 Aug 25 01:48 UTC] No.45021359[source]▶
A nifty play would just be "the corporate veil is no longer free. Issue the state stock for a 49% stake, or your investors have unlimited liability." Then there's a theoretical "trade" but virtually nobody's going to say no.
replies(1): >>45021422 #
1. aspenmayer ◴[26 Aug 25 01:58 UTC] No.45021422[source]▶
In such a scenario, the US gov is only ~2% away from a 51% attack hostile takeover against any/every public company, depending on the kind of shares.

This is not likely.

replies(1): >>45047083 #
2. hakfoo ◴[28 Aug 25 00:56 UTC] No.45047083[source]▶
That's the goal. Right now, public companies are far too governed by people who want the business to succeed at all costs.

The state could represent interests like "keeping high-paid jobs on-shore" or "avoid legal/labour/environmental standard arbitrage" that regular investors won't vote for.

replies(1): >>45047108 #
3. bdangubic ◴[28 Aug 25 00:59 UTC] No.45047108[source]▶
works for venezuela and all other commie countries so you know, why don’t we try to become that too :)