Posted on 10/23/2025 5:36:18 PM PDT by RandFan
When House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) lashed out at last weekend's "No Kings" rallies soon to arrive on Washington's National Mall, he reached for an old conservative refrain: "They hate capitalism. They hate our free enterprise system."
I am sure he's correct about some of the protesters. But the message rings hollow coming from a party leader that stands by as President Donald Trump does precisely what Johnson rightly decries: substituting political control for market choice and ruling by executive order.
Indeed, what began as a populist revolt against so-called elites has become a program of state ownership, price fixing and top-down industrial control. Take a look.
Recently, the Trump administration quietly converted CHIPS Act subsidies into an $8.9 billion equity purchase in Intel, making Washington a 10 percent owner of one of America's largest technology companies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick insists "this is not socialism." That's semantics.
Socialism is government control of the means of production. When the government becomes your largest shareholder, that's a strong first step.
The Intel case offends two basic economic truths. First, no group of officials can ever know enough to guide a complex industry better than millions of private investors, engineers, and consumers spending their own money. Second, the power to "partner" with business is the power to control it.
The more political capital the government invests, the more it demands in return. It's only a matter of time until politically favored locations, suppliers, or hiring quotas shape Intel's decisions. That isn't capitalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
That's a spending problem, not a revenue problem. And honestly, the idea that the federal (or any government) government can manage financial assets better than do private companies is kind of laughable to me.
Norway which has not had the most capitalistic governments has managed to ramp over $2 Trillion from their Sovereign Fund, with most of the money coming from North Sea oil.
But again, that's a matter of spending being controlled. Why wouldn't it have been more efficient to let private companies manage those assets, and then just get the taxes rather than managing the revenue directly?
We drill in ANWR we gotta have Sovereign Fund. Luckily Trump is already working hard on that.
Why didn't you address the point about how good this Sovereign Fund is going to be managed by the Bidens, AOC's, and Gavin Newsomes of the world? What would prevent it from being the boondoggle of all boondoggles, with the corpus raided and emptied the first time Democrats get back in power? Or the money being used to support left-leaning companies and ideas? How can you believe that won't happen?
Money is power, and taking more money out of private hands and putting into the hands of the government is just another transfer of power from private citizens to the state.
Ted Kennedy would have loved your kind of thinking.
The government should always try to step as lightly as possible given the need for an orderly society.
The government should not own share of companies. The government should never bet or take a financial stake against the interest of its citizens.
The government should not lend money or co-sign a loan. The government should not do what a market system would typically do better.
Should government employees get a pension? Yes, through their union pension fund, should they choose to be a member and participate.
The government shouldn’t let the country fall into a situation where 50% of the physically fit natives turn to crime because foreigners fearing for their lives or fleeing communism will work for 10% less.
Why do we have Social Security? Because in the 1930s the stock market and banks collapsed. However, once you are above the need of a future government handout you should be able to invest as you please. And even before, if your choice(s) are rational.
“The GOP’s ‘Capitalism’ is Central Planning with MAGA Branding”
Unfortunately, in a world of gangs called nations [PRC, RF] collective action is required to some extent.
There has to be rules, otherwise the Philadelphia Eagles might have 10,000 fans jumping out of their seats to score a touchdown.
There has to be rules to prevent the crooks that might run corporations from issuing 100% more shares at one cent each for dubious reasons.
The rules have to be rationally set with as much freedom as is consistent with good order and citizen need. The tragedy of the commons should be avoided.
Getting the balance fairly right can be somewhat unpleasant, but less unpleasant than if it is way off.
Ironically, so is the stock market...
I'm living in a giant game of financial Jenga.
BOTH!
“But again, that's a matter of spending being controlled. Why wouldn't it have been more efficient to let private companies manage those assets, and then just get the taxes rather than managing the revenue directly?”
The oil wells in Norway are run by private companies including big American oil companies.
The Norway government just imposes Sovereign tax on each barrel of oik mined that's all.
“Why didn't you address the point about how good this Sovereign Fund is going to be managed by the Bidens, AOC’s, and Gavin Newsomes of the world? “
None of them will be president.
Biden's gone.
AOC will never be president and Newsom will be crushed by J D Vance.
Plus of course strict laws will be passed on the Sovereign fund, to prevent politicians from grabbing it, similar to Norway and Singapore.
Strategic industries may need some government stakes.
This isn't Norway or Singapore.
Under our Constitution, any law, no matter how "strict", can be repealed as easily as any other law. The only exception are Constitutional Amendments, which Trump could never get enacted over Democrat opposition.
Nationalized industries and government ownership of production is something Republicans have always stood against, and rightly so.
Repealed with no Democrat majority in the US Senate which will not happen for a long tine?
In a war, you're going to have a war economy. Just as in WWII, although not as drastically, the US gov will need to act to recapitalize US industry.
Libertarians and libertarian "free trade" policies got us into this mess, so I would suggest they sit down and shut up.
Libertarians are allergic to victory. The purists of Reason would sooner see Democrat mobs loot and privilege than sacrifice their hypothetical, childlike principles. Given that their latest great white hope, the deeply odd, Javier Milei, has run the Argentine economy into the ground (not hard- one leader, left or right- seems to do it every 5-7 years or less), they should perhaps revisit some of their more dogmatic opinions, but they won’t- content to snipe from the sidelines as they did during the 2024 election, when they had a real chance of actually influencing national politics.
It'll happen within 6 years. Always does. And if you're passing laws that contain authority based on the assumption that Democrats will never regain power, you are making a horrible mistake.
The only "hypothetical, childlike" arguments being made are by those who naively assume Democrats will never have control over this monster Trump wants to create.
It is a terrible idea.
It won't sorry.
With the massive anti ballot fraud measures getting taken by Trump, the selling of Dominion to a conservative billionaire etc etc, you guys are going to find it hard to take control of the US Senate,
Don't forget Democrats once controlled the House for 40 straight years (1955 to 1995) and for 24 straight years another time.
Its our turn now.
Taking a 10% stake in Intel gives you no control of anything.
You don't control how the company is run, new plants , new technology development etc etc.
It gives you a possible big chunk of money if the stock goes up, instead of what Biden did which was give nearly $10 Billion away for free.
Here's a better idea -- don't give Intel the $10b in the first place.
Taking a 10% stake in Intel gives you no control of anything. You don't control how the company is run, new plants , new technology development etc etc.
Absolute control, no. A great deal of influence and the ability to bring pressure on the company to influence various decisions? Absolutely?
It already has happened, and here's a good article running down the problems:
https://www.cato.org/commentary/intel-again-unfortunately
Biden had already given them the nearly $10 Billion for free.
Trump managed to negotiate a 10% stake in Intel from that.
A pretty good negotiation.
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.