Posted on 02/04/2025 7:50:07 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
I see there is an idea being floated by President Trump regarding a "sovereign wealth fund" wherein taxpayer monies, controlled by a federal government entity, would be used to buy interests in private business.
Trump says maybe the SWF would invest in Tik Tok, and other companies.
Someone help me make sense of this: what is this if not socialism, or direct government control of what ought to be a private sector interest.
I don't like this idea.
After the Patriot Act (which I initially supported) I am VERY SUSPICIOUS of giving ANY more power to the federal government. Regardless of the good intentions of anyone promoting the Patriot Act, the law eventually became a weapon that was used to bludgeon Americans and their liberty.
thoughts? (I posted this in general chat, so don't get mad like I did it without a link...)
You nailed it. It is socialistic. It’s just a different way of doing a bailout.
Imagine poopy-pants Biden in charge of a few trillion of fun money.
That’s where this will end up.
I guess it depends on the nature and extent of any dividends the sovereign citizens will enjoy.
I don’t like it either. It’s hard to believe Trump would propose such a thing.
I don’t think federal governments should have sovereign funds. I get the idea and I like the idea, at a good faith level. However, it will just end up being a slush fund for the Democrats. Unless some iron clad law can be written to keep it at hands length, it’s going to end up being a source of corruption.
Even counting for welfare and every social benefit, you wouldn’t have a debt if it weren’t for the corruption in the federal government if all its other spendings had been done honestly and for the benefit of the American people.
I can see Heaven having a Sovereign fund of its own, but that’s the only place I could trust in having one.
I hope it was a trial balloon.
I’m not wild for it either. I don’t like the govt being an investor in private enterprise.
It’s fascistic. Any cooperation of government and business is, by definition, fascism. No matter how clean and unauthoritarian it is, it’s fascism.
The primary problem is it exposes further the somewhat lack of meaning money has.
Norway has the largest SWF in the world. Over $1T and yes, they own stocks (I think largest Nestle’s shareholder). KSA has a large one, too. They were a big buyer of the Saudi Aramco IPO years ago.
The big issue here is . . . Norway and KSA both fund their SWFs from real money, from oil.
If we were to do such a thing, it would come from borrowed money given the deficit is $2T and our oil exports are miniscule compared to Norway and KSA.
They are used more as pension funds than as market moving entities. When you have all that oil export, you don’t need to care about stock prices. You have plenty of money for your populace without deficit printing a penny.
if it’s tax money then it should be returned to the tax payers ...
Somebody whispered in Trump’s ear. Let’s call it a Sovereign Wealth Fund . . .
That’s one balloon bound for a short ride, I hope.
Basically the Dims will destroy their own arguments for why we should keep around things like USAID that is nothing but a leftist slush fund.
Bookmarking for later. My wife was telling me about this last night, and I want to show her what FR thinks later.
I like the idea of the fund because it is like a 401k. I do not like the idea of the government purchasing and taking over a private company with it.
The economic term for it is actually fascism. And before people go nuts, I am not calling them nazis. It is the model where the government doesn’t own all of the means of production. It is where the government is a “partner” with businesses—in essence the government decides which companies are their most favored. It creates a fiduciary tie with the private sector that quashes competition. Even shorter: The government, by their actions, picks winners and losers.
Now some will say that the government already does this with companies like Lockheed and Boeing or General Dynamics. In terms of building critical defense infrastructure it makes sense.
Strategic Reserves are a different animal. Having a government reserve of gold, silver, platinum, oil, and other major currencies is an essential part of national banking systems.
Does “owning” Tik-Tok fall into those categories? I don’t think so.
I don’t trust any government to do these things objectively. It leads to corruption and misconduct.
On paper it does seem like a good idea.
But can you avoid its eventual corruption?
It is a bad idea. I hope it never amounts to much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.