Comment by asimpson
4 days ago
The investments listed here in the article make this seem like an effort to shore up or incentivize industries or companies that are integral to national defense. One example, in the ongoing US-China trade war one of the strongest moves China did was put [export controls on rare earth minerals][1] which are essential components across technology, defense, and healthcare to name a few. The government investing in these companies isn't ideal from a free enterprise perspective but seems rational from a national security perspective.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earths_trade_dispute
Seems like it'd be a lot cheaper to work with china rather than pretend like they're going to attack us.
When it comes to China it's best to remember the Boy and the Rattlesnake Story.
We are the country with the proven record as nefarious and backstabbing. This is, in fact, the reason why I am complaining in the first place and don't trust our state to represent our interests (long before I was born—this is a bipartisan problem).
It's quite amazing that we were the target of 9/11 and failed to learn a damn thing that might help us avoid another.
Is the USA the rattlesnake? Because who has china bitten? The USA is in constant war.
We’ll need a more apt parable for dueling superpowers and the effect on their citizens. Perhaps “The Giants and the Ants”, where the ants beseech the giants to stop stepping on them as they fight in the fields where they have built their nest. Each of the giants argue that if they look down to avoid stepping on the ants, their rival will gain advantage and win the duel. When the ants ask the giants why they must duel in the first place, the giants will not understand their question at all.
2 replies →
lmao who's the boy and who's the snake here? the US spent 40 years offshoring manufacturing to china for cheap labor to juice corporate profits, then acts shocked when china built industrial capacity we voluntarily handed them. if anyone got "bitten" it's because we sold the farm for fatter earnings reports.
I mean they could, they aren't a democracy and could easily fall back into Maoism with the next regime change
Yes. This is called industrial policy, and there is bipartisan support for this. 2008 changed thinking on both sides of the aisle around leveraging state power to build industries.
Plenty of us Obama and Biden alums are industrial policy fans, and there is a similar cohort across the aisle.
The issues with this are precedent/slippery slope. Today it's a small stake in a small number of companies, but empirically government initiatives almost always grow. Once entrenched, I would be willing to bet that the government will take larger and larger stakes in a bigger and bigger number of companies until this model becomes a non-trivial, potentially dominant, share of the economy. I can see myself becoming a single-issue voter to oppose that future (although given bipartisan support I'm unlikely to have any options; maybe Rand Paul).
Anything is a slippery slope if you resign to it. It's not like governments have never been willing (or forced) to privatize or reduce their roles in markets. We are exchanging ideas on a government initiative
1 reply →
Yeah, this is how you get an oligarch system.
We desperately need a third party to displace one of these two. Having a state interest in industry is of course a great idea—telecoms, power generation, a base level of healthcare providers, pharmaceuticals, base level tech manufacturers are obvious things that should be state owned—but this just seems like an extension of the defense industry corruption (the "military industrial complex") that's plagued our country for many decades. Why am I paying to protect myself from china? Who will protect me from this one?
Exactly, few would oppose a stake in rare earths mining or something, but the more likely endgame of this is a government stake in companies like Google and Palantir. Which will inevitably lead to even more influence and “special access” privileges.
Edit: others have pointed out that the government likely already had investments in most of these tech firms through In-Q-Tel, which is also a potential issue, but that’s funding for small growing companies. It’s another matter entirely when government owns a percentage of our mature technology infrastructure.
3 replies →
I'd be curious as to how much the executives at these firms earn (whether it be through salary or equity or whatever else).
In most cases, same as an L6/7/8 SWE at Google MTV but at the upper rungs closer to L8/9/10 EM ar Google MTV. Use levels.fyi to look at the Google payscale.
Heck, I earn less as a VC today than if I remained a SWE or PM in my niche but with more stress and worse working hours.
Edit: Why the downvotes? Do y'all actually even know PE/VC and leadership salary scales?!?
1 reply →
As long as we're socializing the gains just the same as we're socializing the losses (through taxpayer-funded bailouts), I have no problem.
That's unfortunately not been the reality through Obama, Trump and Biden policies.