Trump the socialist...or nationalist.

anonymoose said:
How does owning stocks make me a socialist?
Click to expand...
The government taking stock, outside temporary extreme situations when they are forced to use taxpayer dollars to bail out what they call 'too big to fail' companies, is a form of socialism.

It is the type you see in China and Russia where they have ownership stakes in most big successful companies coming out of China, like Tik Tok or Russia (see most big resource companies).

It creates what is called great 'Moral Hazard' because now the US government is a shareholder in Intel, what happens when Intel bids on a government contract against a superior tech company who the government has no equity in? does the government give the contract to Intel anyway because that boosts their share value and thus they end up worse technology and harming the better company.

it is the government picking winners and losers and one of the core things generations of republicans were absolutely against.

But as i always say, there is no prior moral or principle that the right held that todays magats will not abandon instantly if Trump tells them to. Pedophilia ... grooming... neocon... corporate socialism... all things that now...


abwrh4.jpg
 
QP! said:
The government taking stock, outside temporary extreme situations when they are forced to use taxpayer dollars to bail out what they call 'too big to fail' companies, is a form of socialism.
Click to expand...
There’s advantages and disadvantages to government ownership in private companies.
This is nothing new and many other western and capitalist countries do this.
 
anonymoose said:
There’s advantages and disadvantages to government ownership in private companies.
This is nothing new and many other western and capitalist countries do this.
Click to expand...
Sure. and America has always argued as to why that is a mistake and why the American model of avoiding do it is superior.

The main reason being the moral hazard.

Again if the US government now owns equity in INtel and Intel is struggling to survive again and bidding on a big government contract that could really boost them, does the US gov't give them the contract to protect their equity and hope to increase its value even if that means getting second or third rate technology? What if losing the deal hurts better and stronger US companies that the gov't does not own equity in?

That the right cries 'communist' over Mamdani saying he wants the city to own and operate a handful of grocery stores in the middle of thousands of private ones, when not one person would ever be forced to shop in the gov't stores, while they clan like seals at Trump putting their tax payer dollars into private companies competing with other private companies, tells you why the right is so very broken.
 
Hume said:
So now you Republicans are socialists.
Click to expand...
Is government ownership of private companies like Intel a form of socialism or state capitalism?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, government ownership of private companies like Intel represents state capitalism rather than socialism. The sources consistently distinguish between these two economic models:
State capitalism is characterized by government involvement in private enterprise while maintaining market-based structures and private ownership [1] [2]. In Intel's case, the US government has taken an $8.9 billion investment representing a 9.9 percent stake in the company [3], with some sources reporting it as a 10% stake [4]. Importantly, this is structured as a passive, non-voting ownership stake [2], meaning the government maintains financial interest without direct operational control.
Socialism, by contrast, would involve complete government ownership and control of the means of production. The analyses emphasize that in the Intel arrangement, ownership remains in private hands and the goal appears to be centralizing power rather than redistributing wealth [5].
Multiple sources frame this development within the context of Trump's approach to state capitalism, comparing it to China's model where the government plays an active role in business operations [6] [7]. https://factually.co/fact-checks/ec...e-companies-socialism-state-capitalism-194975
QP! said:
The government taking stock, outside temporary extreme situations when they are forced to use taxpayer dollars to bail out what they call 'too big to fail' companies, is a form of socialism.

It is the type you see in China and Russia where they have ownership stakes in most big successful companies coming out of China, like Tik Tok or Russia (see most big resource companies).
Click to expand...
.
 
anonymoose said:
Is government ownership of private companies like Intel a form of socialism or state capitalism?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, government ownership of private companies like Intel represents state capitalism rather than socialism. The sources consistently distinguish between these two economic models:
State capitalism is characterized by government involvement in private enterprise while maintaining market-based structures and private ownership [1] [2]. In Intel's case, the US government has taken an $8.9 billion investment representing a 9.9 percent stake in the company [3], with some sources reporting it as a 10% stake [4]. Importantly, this is structured as a passive, non-voting ownership stake [2], meaning the government maintains financial interest without direct operational control.
Socialism, by contrast, would involve complete government ownership and control of the means of production. The analyses emphasize that in the Intel arrangement, ownership remains in private hands and the goal appears to be centralizing power rather than redistributing wealth [5].
Multiple sources frame this development within the context of Trump's approach to state capitalism, comparing it to China's model where the government plays an active role in business operations [6] [7]. https://factually.co/fact-checks/ec...e-companies-socialism-state-capitalism-194975

.
Click to expand...
Sure then all the issues with China based socialism with companies is all BS too then as they do not own 100% of the equity but do typically have some form of Golden Share, as Trump demands which gives the government control over many key decisions.

You guys can spin, spin, spin while screaming about Mamdani and socialist grocery stores.
 
QP! said:
You guys can spin, spin, spin
Click to expand...

Factually – Bias and Credibility​

LEAST BIASED​

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

  • Overall, we rate Factually as Least Biased due to its balanced sourcing strategy and neutral presentation. It is rated Mostly Factual because, despite good sourcing, its reliance on AI introduces the potential for error. The platform is fully transparent and demonstrates good methodological intent, but its automated nature warrants caution regarding factual precision.

Detailed Report​

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (3.8)
mediabiasfactcheck.com

Factually - Bias and Credibility

LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com
QP! said:
!
Click to expand...
I guess you're going to tell me mediabiascheck.com is a far right propaganda site.
lol
 
anonymoose said:

Factually – Bias and Credibility​

LEAST BIASED​

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

  • Overall, we rate Factually as Least Biased due to its balanced sourcing strategy and neutral presentation. It is rated Mostly Factual because, despite good sourcing, its reliance on AI introduces the potential for error. The platform is fully transparent and demonstrates good methodological intent, but its automated nature warrants caution regarding factual precision.

Detailed Report​

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (3.8)
mediabiasfactcheck.com

Factually - Bias and Credibility

LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or
mediabiasfactcheck.com mediabiasfactcheck.com

I guess you're going to tell me mediabiascheck.com is a far right propaganda site.
lol
Click to expand...
you are guessing wrong as i cannot see what you are checking for bias?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top