This proposal would make much more sense after the bubble collapses.
50% of company X will be the same 50% of company X before or after a collapse. Doesn’t matter when you take it. Country would not be on the hook for a valuation loss.
It makes perfect sense at any time, given that Bernie is calling for nationalizing half the shares in these companies, with no compensation or payment to the previous shareholders.
Costs the government nothing, because they’re just seizing the shares.
It would give the government a controlling interest in these companies, thus ability to regulate them.
That makes sense at any point in time.
100%! Then we liquidate.
Me to Bernie:
What about this makes him not cool
Anything but universal health care and affordable rent innit?
Bernie is not proposing spending any money on acquiring these shares.
He is proposing simply seizing half of them.
So, the government gets a half stake, a controlling interest in these companies, for free, because we are the government and we say so.
So, that would mean the government can then directly regulate these companies, and if they become profitable, those profits can be poured into a soverign wealth fund, which could fund ubi or universal healthcare, etc.
Ok so uh… that’s a fucking AWFUL idea. That’s an excellent way to just hand our taxpayer dollars to the LLM fuckwits and watch it evaporate. This is, without exaggeration, perhaps the worst idea I’ve ever heard out of Sanders.
Ok looks like I get to do this again on another thread.
Bernie is proposing the goverment seize half the equity, half the stock shares in these companies.
As in, no compensation, nationalize half the stake in these companies.
No public investment, the government would just do the equivalent of a stock split except half of the split stocks become government property.
Again, no public/government money would be used to purchase these shares, they would be seized.
Everybody calling this a bailout, the worst idea ever, is just showing that they either didn’t read the article or didn’t understsnd the words it used.
or didn’t understsnd the words it used.
lol murdered em with that one
Yeah, most people can read through simple typos and understand them correctly.
Fair point - but at the same time, in the US, as much as I wish it were not the case, outright seizure of corporate assets outside of flagrant criminal abuse is simply a non-starter. And even then, it often ends up being a non-starter. Sure, they may be forced into bankruptcy, but the government generally never does an actual takeover of a company, because tHaT’s cOMmUniSm. And there are a number of companies that deeply deserve to be taken into custody by the state, at either the federal or state level (PG&E immediately comes to mind).
So your stance is ‘this is bad because other people wont go for it’ and ‘but also there are some other companies/organizations this should happen to’.
… ?
I say maybe the government ‘doing a communism’ in the colloquial, horrendously innacurate sense of the word, is infact exactly what we need.
I don’t care that other people get the ick from this.
I get the ick from corporations fiscally and environmentally raping us all to death.
You want a New, New Deal?
This is approximately what that would look like, at least a part of it.
How would this hand over taxpayer dollars? The 50% stake would come from a one-time tax on stock that hands over that stake; it doesn’t call for forcing the companies to sell to the government.
Don’t worry, we will all own these companies anyway when the government has to bail them out during Financial Crisis 2: Artificial Computer-do
I guess you weren’t around for the bailouts that happened during the 08 recession, because exactly zero corps who got bailed out are even fractionally owned by the public.
GM was for a while, but good point. The US won’t own the AI companies, but the people will have the privilege of giving them gobs of money and having nothing to show for it, other than another billionaire getting away with unlimited fraud. I remember ‘08 very well, thanks for the reminder.
That is, in fact, my entire original point.
That it is.
True. Maybe tax the ever living fuck out of them instead
I guess Bern went full commie for a minute. Never go full commie
he misspelled abolish ai companies
Right! Don’t give them more incentives to push to build data centers! “But everybody benefits”
As a non-american who’s content was stolen to train AI, that’s not enough.
What’s ‘enough’?
More than nothing? Ai companies scraped the whole web, not just the American websites.
Ok, what’s ‘more than nothing’?
Like, what is the actual thing that you want to happen?
What is your preferred policy, law, government action?
Bernie’s entire idea is that since these things functionally plagiarized everyone, ‘everyone’ (via the government) should own a controlling interest in the companies… if they are profitable, if their stocks go up, use that to start a soverign wealth fund that can help out thr government’s budget, maybe be used to fund social service improvements, healthcare, ubi, etc.
That’s his idea of ‘more than nothing’.
What is yours?
I don’t want to own those garbage companies, indirectly or otherwise.
Not even if the government just seized half the shares, at zero cost to the government?
You’d rather have only wealthy shareholders directly in charge of the company?
If the government just seizes half the shares, they get a controlling interest and can therefore directly regulate/run these companies.
Those are not the only two options.
Oh well I’m talking about the one Bernie is proposing.
What’s your idea?
Just… continue to let the AI companies ‘self regulate’?
Don’t worry, we’ll take public ownership of the bailouts, costs and losses. It’s the American Dream!
Not what is happening.
Bernie is proposing the government simply seize half the shares.
Pay nothing for them, nationalize them, because the government is the government and can just do that.
Unless it’s a controlling stake it’s worthless
It is a 50% share thus it is a controlling interest.
It would also simply be seized, not paid for.
A 50% share is not a controlling interest. A majority would be 51% or 50% + 1 share.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/controllinginterest.asp
A controlling interest occurs when a shareholder or group gains enough shares to exercise major influence over a company’s governance and strategic direction.
No, it is, you’re wrong.
we dont want any stake. remember when hegseth threw a fit because anthropic wouldnt let hom use their models for weapons. if the goverent owned it they could male them comply.
This is um… Very CCP-like
well he is a socialist
if there is no way for me to get my $0.25 share directly out of it immediately, Bernie can fuck right off.
That’s a good idea, if the public stake is somewhere north of 99.99%. It should be something close to the ratio of non-AI company research, development, writing, journalism, entertainment, hobbies, and leisure activities efforts that have produced the training data to the amount of effort directly expended by the AI companies.
