Stuff like this is why I laugh at people who blame capitalism for everything that is wrong. We haven't had free markets for a century at least and it just keeps creeping further towards the .gov controlling everything. It's been picking winners and losers for our entire lifetimes.
Au contraire. Most government intervention in the marketplace is to maintain a free market, not to limit it. Yes, the regulatory burden is overwhelming in some ways, and that is a big problem. While that over-regulation has the effect of making capitalism more difficult, that isn’t a socialism-capitalism issue.
Gov't taking an ownership position in a company isn't the same thing as the intervention you claim is to keep markets free.
Any type of gov intervention is the opposite of a free market. I am in Hayek's camp on free markets and gov't intervention, meaning the only role of government is to enforce contracts, protect individual's rights, and maintain rule of law.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
Stuff like this is why I laugh at people who blame capitalism for everything that is wrong. We haven't had free markets for a century at least and it just keeps creeping further towards the .gov controlling everything. It's been picking winners and losers for our entire lifetimes.
Au contraire. Most government intervention in the marketplace is to maintain a free market, not to limit it. Yes, the regulatory burden is overwhelming in some ways, and that is a big problem. While that over-regulation has the effect of making capitalism more difficult, that isn’t a socialism-capitalism issue.
Gov't taking an ownership position in a company isn't the same thing as the intervention you claim is to keep markets free.
Any type of gov intervention is the opposite of a free market. I am in Hayek's camp on free markets and gov't intervention, meaning the only role of government is to enforce contracts, protect individual's rights, and maintain rule of law.
I think laws against price collusion and anti-trust protect free markets.
@snarlcakes I don't think that's empirically true, even if some economic theory suggests it. Barriers to entry or the value of network effects and the first mover, I think, can cause them.
Free markets are deflationary. They have to be because consumers demand it. Monopolies don't exist in free markets. As the margins increased, the barrier to entry would decrease. Eventually capital would attack the market deficiency.
I think the Model T is a great example of free market capitalism. Prior to that, automobiles were only for the well-to-do. The Model T brought the price of automobiles way down and put cars in the reach of almost everyone. Is that deflation? I don’t believe it is, but I’m willing to listen.
Yeah, it's an example of deflation. Everything trends to zero in a true free market. However, the fact it's not happening shows we don't have a free market.
What does “trends to zero” mean? I thought free markets trends to equilibrium which isn’t zero.
I'm being slightly hyperbolic with zero, but the purpose of innovation is to provide better services/goods for lower costs. For example what does a calculator cost now? Or a map? It's basically free, because it's a line of code now.
The equilibrium changes based off of cost (or amount of innovation is another way to think about it).
It's not free if I have to spend $800 for the platform it requires to run.
The only thing that trends toward zero is post-scarcity. It has nothing to do with the structure of the markets.
I think laws against price collusion and anti-trust protect free markets.
So did Hayek in some instances.
The original topic was government taking an ownership position in a business. Do you approve of that?
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@goat The point is nice calculators use to cost a decent chunk of money. They don't anymore. I'm not paying 800 dollars for the calculator. It's an add on that Apple includes because it's basically free for them to make now. If Apple didn't do that, there would be more of a market for calculators and they would be a lot cheaper today than they were 25 years ago. Feel free to pick another good as an example.
My kid had to buy a graphing calculator for his class last year. $125. 😘@goat The point is nice calculators use to cost a decent chunk of money. They don't anymore. I'm not paying 800 dollars for the calculator. It's an add on that Apple includes because it's basically free for them to make now. If Apple didn't do that, there would be more of a market for calculators and they would be a lot cheaper today than they were 25 years ago. Feel free to pick another good as an example.
My kid had to buy a graphing calculator for his class last year. $125. 😘@goat The point is nice calculators use to cost a decent chunk of money. They don't anymore. I'm not paying 800 dollars for the calculator. It's an add on that Apple includes because it's basically free for them to make now. If Apple didn't do that, there would be more of a market for calculators and they would be a lot cheaper today than they were 25 years ago. Feel free to pick another good as an example.
They really do need laughing emojis.
My kid had to buy a graphing calculator for his class last year. $125.
LOL. That's what he wants you to think.
Trump takes 10% stake in Intel, a company that’s been floundering for over a decade.
This is not a good path.
I'd add sex after marriage to this category.The only thing that trends toward zero is post-scarcity.
Watched Kevin Hassett on Squawk Box this morning. He said these are non-voting shares and the govt will not be exercising any control. Said this money had already been set aside for Intel under the Chips Act under Biden, and all Trump did is get something back for the US taxpayer for that money for basically nothing. Also said this might not be the last of this type of tactic, and that Trump has been clear since the election that he thinks a SWF makes a lot of sense.Trump takes 10% stake in Intel, a company that’s been floundering for over a decade.
This is not a good path.
Cramer afterwards thought it a good play, that Intel is crucial to our national defense and they needed this lifeline. Compared it to the loan guarantees made to Chrysler in '78 that led to Chrysler staying afloat and developing the K-car and minivan.
Others on the show worried that the govt will want to justify this move and so make regs easier on Intel which might disrupt the market.
…
—-
I miss the conservative Republican COH.https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/07/10/pentagon-rare-earths/
Private company now partially owned by the federal government. It won’t be long now.
I think this move is a Master Class in out of the box thinking. You would never see this move from deep staters who are steeped in “how government works” kind of thinking. I congratulate all involved with this move. Hegseth? Trump?
As for this being a step towards socialism, I think that is an arguable point. But whatever the argument is, it is outweighed by the strategic importance of rare earths and ensuring that those stay in our hands. Uncle Sam participating as an investor is far different from simply seizing control of the operation with condemnation or other authority.