5 ms·
There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. I think it is reasonable for subsidies
by oersted 11mo ago
There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. I think it is reasonable for subsidies to be structured just like private investments rather than a donation. The public should reap the rewards of the money they invest in their country through taxes, just like wealthy investors do.
It's a question of perspective. I've spent my life in countries where I've seen my taxes being spent relatively well, I feel the benefits of it daily both as a private citizen and a founder. Everywhere I've lived, when transport, utilities, healthcare and education, even part of the media, were publicly managed, they were simply better and cheaper.
But I understand that this is not universal and that most governments don't operate effectively for their taxpayers. And that, yes, if the whole system is set up for it, private solutions can also thrive and be superior. I suppose it's hard to privatize public services effectively in an ecosystem that doesn't support private enterprise as much.
- jhonof 11mo ago> There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. Interestingly, Quebec in Canada has been loosely following this model recently and it's working great. Long video but interesting if you like infrastructure stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHqqA0onn0&t=532s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHqqA0onn0&t=532s TLDR: CDPQ invests on behalf of the Quebec Pension Plan, and has been building infra on behalf of the pension plan across Quebec (and Canada) to great success comparatively.
- ant6n 11mo agoCDPQinfra deals in Quebec are wonky at best.
- BJones12 11mo agoThose infrastructure "investments" will almost certainly not generate the same return for pensioners as putting the money in an index fund.
- Arrath 11mo agoMaybe so, but I would contend it is worth considering the broader implications of those investments and the effects that new and upgraded infrastructure could have on the greater economy. Speaking only for myself, I would be okay with a lower return if it also means we as a society have good public transit, roads that aren't more pothole than asphalt, water that doesn't have to be boiled on occasion, reliable power, modern internet, and so on.
- jhonof 11mo agoSure but pensioners care about consistency vs. gross returns. You really don't want your pension to lose a ton of value in a downturn because people are constantly drawing from it, it's a risk off investment. Bonds are also poor investments compared to an index fund from a gross return perspective, but that's not why people/funds buy them, they buy them to lower risk.
- buellerbueller 11mo agoPerhaps not, but you also get the infrastructure, which is worth something. Would you get the same net result if you put the money in an index fund and then bought the infrastructure? That's the actual comparison.
- exasperaited 11mo ago> There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. This is in fact the situation in major parts of the UK rail network now; much has been renationalised or has the DoT as sole shareholder. The UK rail system is not now truly privately held; this has been slowly unpicked by both the previous Conservative government and the current Labour government.
- jdietrich 11mo agoNearly a third of Train Operating Companies are now under state ownership; LNER has been state-owned since 2018 and Northern since 2020. I don't know about LNER, but punctuality and reliability on Northern has significantly worsened since nationalisation. Last year, we had the absurd spectacle of the Department for Transport notifying the Department for Transport that the Department for Transport had breached their contract with the Department for Transport, because the Department for Transport didn't meet the performance standards set by the Department for Transport. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl2j364kxzo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl2j364kxzo
- roguecoder 11mo agoThat's interesting: it reminds me of the results we're seeing from workplace democracy in Germany. Companies with workers on their boards are significantly less likely to go bust than companies where only investors' opinions matter. But of course, whenever someone else's opinion matters, investors use their wealth to try to change that. Rich people seem to prefer worse outcomes as long as they get to be in charge.
- Ar-Curunir 11mo agoYes, the desire for power is as important as the desire for capital.
- iso1631 11mo agoIf you have $100m your life isn't going to measurably change if you increase your wealth to $1b or $10b At that point you start trying to accumulate power instead of money, and of course money is a by-product for power.
- pipes 11mo agoThat's a pretty broad statement about rich people. How do you define rich?
- linkregister 11mo agoLaughable that this is interpreted as a slur against r*ch people. It is a banal observation that power corrupts. Societies with constructs to check power experience better overall and individual prosperity in general.
- CGMthrowaway 11mo ago>There is a middle ground that is quite common across Europe: a private company that has the government as a shareholder. Becoming more common in the US too, because of Trump's policy of US re-industrialization and national security. Intel Corp (10% equity), MP Materials (15%), Lithium Americas(5%), Trilogy Metals (17.5%), US Steel (golden share), Vulcan Elements, ReElement Technologies
- PaulDavisThe1st 11mo agoBut when the Obama administration tried to do this for renewables, it was called "communism" by the conservative right wing in the USA ...
- oersted 11mo agoA lot of the things the administration is doing seem a bit socialist because socialism has some overlap with populism. The main difference is that it is framed as Trump doing favours to certain groups of people, with expectation of reciprocity or at least personal gratitude and loyalty, instead of more institutional wealth redistribution or subsidy policies. Depending on who he is doing favours to, it looks right-wing or left-wing under the traditional political lens, but it's more about Trump doing whatever he wants with the governments resources.
- CGMthrowaway 11mo agoObama used loan guarantees and grants, not equity stakes. Solyndra $500M loan guarantee (defaulted 2011) Tesla $500M loan (repaid early 2013 with interest) First Solar $3B loan guarantees (currently being serviced) SunPower $1.2B loan guarantee (bankrupt 2024 but loan repaid) ARRA (2009) $25.6B grants disbursed No equity positions taken. Trump's policy is direct equity stakes as condition for industrial subsidies/tariff relief. It's statist, but I wouldn't call it communist.
- guiriduro 11mo agoCome come now. Elon has built Tesla on something closer to $38bn of taxpayer largesse/avoidance according to the Washington Post.0 I doubt many people would fail to create public entities with healthy casino ponzi stock trading if they had umpteen billion $ of govt funny money propping them up. Hell they might even start a rocket business as a sideline... 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/elon-musk-business-government-contracts-funding/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/e...
- nandomrumber 11mo agoWhere are these mythical countries you proclaim to have well managed public services and utilities?
- cycomanic 11mo agoSweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Singapore... People like to complain about public systems as if problems wouldn't exist in privately owned ones.
- nandomrumber 11mo agoOne of those is a city state, and two of them have a population comparable to Sydney, one comparable to New York. In other conversations it’s widely argued that those four probably don’t map very well to the larger, more diverse in every way, Western Democracies. That leaves Germany, which has its problems. If Germany hadn’t shut down their nuclear power plants they could have had 94% low emissions electricity by now, rather than 64% and much more costly. The German economy is so well managed they’ve introduced rent-control in some cities. Absolute paragon of a Western Democracy!
- cycomanic 11mo agoAh yes, not a real scotsman
- nandomrumber 11mo agoHaha, yeah true. I did have a self critical thought along those lines. Maybe there’s an argument to be made that large countries should be broken up in to smaller, more manageable geographic / population sizes. Trust busting style.
- cycomanic 11mo agoJust seeing your reply now and wanted to say that I really appreciate your humorous self-reflection. Too often we just argue aggressively against the others standpoint without any self-reflection of our own (I've certainly been guilty of it). Also the idea of smaller units for creating a closer feeling of belonging is something I've been thinking about quite a few times. I think countries/nations etc. try to use patriotism and a us vs them (because there is often not enough real connection otherwise) mentality to artificially create this.