I am a big fan of sunset clauses and exit plans. They force reevaluations at set times. I think that any legislation that the Supreme Court calls “major questions” should be subject to sunset/exit clauses. The lack of lets the Congress sit out controversies and blame the other party instead of keeping an eye on what is working and what is not.
I question the use of the term “partial nationalization” without a specific definition relating to control issues.
I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, we (through the government) spend a LOT of money "helping" many companies and industries (I use quotes intentionally because I'm not sure the money helps, hurts, or both, depending). It does feel like we should get some of that money back, especially given the size of the debt. On the other hand, maybe the real answer is to not spend that money and actually let the free market work the way it's supposed to--creative destruction, it's called. Yeah, jobs are lost in the short term (the biggest argument against capitalism); they are also created at the same time. On the whole, I come down on the side of capitalism.
If Trump were actually interested in paying down the debt, I'd be all for it. But so far he's shown no signs (other than words) that he'll do that. Like every other politician before him, regardless of what party they belong to or what philosophy they profess to adhere to, he is more interested in spending any additional revenue to pay for more goodies "for the people" (and himself, like every other politician before him) than bringing down the debt.
If you've never read "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke, you need to. It's a little out of date in terms of the characters and numbers, but it's entirely up-to-date in reporting how government really works.
These corporate acquisitions, each and every one of them, will either hit or miss. They won’t make a near-term difference either way to Trump and his supporters. They will all just celebrate the wins and ignore the misses.
There are only two ways that this maneuver makes a difference politically. Either the wins have a greater impact economically, or the misses do. If the former? It means that statist industrial policy is fully rehabilitated as a policy tool, freely available to every government in the United States from now on! We can have New Deals for all time, and not only in tech, defense, or (of the Green variety) in energy!
If the latter? Then it means that the Republicans have allowed their leader to push the entire economy into recession or worse. It means that Trumpism, largely due to its lack of fixed and accurate principles on economic management, has courted disaster at least one time too many.
I find it hard not to see this is not a long-run win for the mixed and managed economy, even if the market libertarians won’t immediately recognize it as such.
This is a very provocative situation. One that deserves real soul searching of the best form of government/business partnership that will serve our country into the future. Let's say for the next 100 years.
I believe that Govt, seperate from business, creates the opportunity for true watchdog supervision and is my preference. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. As govt has become a participant in more areas of the economy: mortgage banking, Education, through student loan ownership, and medicine, to name a few.
This participation, in my opinion, has been as detrimental to the middle class as industry, who typically gets all the blame. Our government already controls/is controlled by business through congress: lobbying, insider trading, kickbacks, employment of family members. Perhaps transparent, legitimate, ownership with controls would be better situation for taxpayers.
For example, If we shared in the profits of the Covid mRNA vaccines, payed for with billions of tax per funded grants, and mandated by our government,it could have lowered our national debt. Instead a small group of share holders benefited from the windfall and I suspect many govt officials are included on that list of shareholders.
This isn't even about Trump. It is about the American taxpayer having control and oversight over how government, it officials, and business interact going into the future.
I do like the idea of the federal government having a stake in some of these corporate profits, which seem wildly out of line to me. Because corporations seem to benefit from low taxation they should start paying into our system to benefit the country as a whole, not just the shareholders.
The idea that Trump just wanted to get back into business a bit and did this on a whim is about like his ending wars in 24 hours. We saw his faith in his ability to Bargain his way to the end of wars and we know his history of bankrupcies as a businessman. Let's hope there is someone among his throng that can be a Tump wisperer.
"Trump is a capitalist, or a socialist, or statist, or a so-called “MAGA Maoist,” or something else.”
How ever did you miss Fascist? Is it not, in part, the union of government and industry?
The issue you and his opponents miss is simply that he appears in charge ( you have to admit that was never a claim aimed at Biden), his critics on tariffs seem to have quieted down since they seem to be working( the EU now a vassal state of the US AND paying for their own defense) , HIS BIG BEAUTIFUL SPENDING BILL was passed over some ineffective Dem grumbling, and he’s winning the Immigration Conflagration , the Policing by Military fiat argument, as criminal activity in DC bloody disappears and the Dems rally once again around DEI principals as Minnesota erupts in a madman’s gunfire.
Maybe not the best week to invoke the overused, although seemingly appropriate moniker, of Red Headed Nazi.
It's all about the marketing Cracker Barrel got floored by their customers not Trump or any of his people If someone in WH really did talk with Cracker Barrel (and that's a big if) they were probably passing the phone around the room and the CB employee that was lowest on the totem poll ended up with it
Trump was not a good business man He did figure it out when he started selling his name But again that is about marketing
The U.S. needs to look for additional $$$ wherever it can given the 37+ trillion national debt. Today's commentary skipped over Lutnick's yesterday announcement that the U.S. was going to take a piece of federally funded university research. Why should the colleges get all the patent revenue.? Again, we need the money.
¡ W0W ! I'm impressed with the depth of the comments so far. I've always thought "government should be run more like a business", but have never really looked into or thought much about the implications. Reading your post, my mind went to : Perhaps the 2 Parties should each be required to invest and diversify (they might be able to curtail all the begging from constituents) and this would set up some good old capitalist competition. Then we could simply vote for which color had the most money $$$$$$$$$$$$$ ¡
I am a big fan of sunset clauses and exit plans. They force reevaluations at set times. I think that any legislation that the Supreme Court calls “major questions” should be subject to sunset/exit clauses. The lack of lets the Congress sit out controversies and blame the other party instead of keeping an eye on what is working and what is not.
I question the use of the term “partial nationalization” without a specific definition relating to control issues.
You're right that Trump is interested only in owning SOME things, but if he wants something, he really does want a piece of it ... or all of it.
"Look I own more pieces of more Fortune 500 companies than any president in world history!”
Remember when he stole the FIFA soccer trophy?
I go back and forth on this. On the one hand, we (through the government) spend a LOT of money "helping" many companies and industries (I use quotes intentionally because I'm not sure the money helps, hurts, or both, depending). It does feel like we should get some of that money back, especially given the size of the debt. On the other hand, maybe the real answer is to not spend that money and actually let the free market work the way it's supposed to--creative destruction, it's called. Yeah, jobs are lost in the short term (the biggest argument against capitalism); they are also created at the same time. On the whole, I come down on the side of capitalism.
If Trump were actually interested in paying down the debt, I'd be all for it. But so far he's shown no signs (other than words) that he'll do that. Like every other politician before him, regardless of what party they belong to or what philosophy they profess to adhere to, he is more interested in spending any additional revenue to pay for more goodies "for the people" (and himself, like every other politician before him) than bringing down the debt.
If you've never read "Parliament of Whores" by P.J. O'Rourke, you need to. It's a little out of date in terms of the characters and numbers, but it's entirely up-to-date in reporting how government really works.
These corporate acquisitions, each and every one of them, will either hit or miss. They won’t make a near-term difference either way to Trump and his supporters. They will all just celebrate the wins and ignore the misses.
There are only two ways that this maneuver makes a difference politically. Either the wins have a greater impact economically, or the misses do. If the former? It means that statist industrial policy is fully rehabilitated as a policy tool, freely available to every government in the United States from now on! We can have New Deals for all time, and not only in tech, defense, or (of the Green variety) in energy!
If the latter? Then it means that the Republicans have allowed their leader to push the entire economy into recession or worse. It means that Trumpism, largely due to its lack of fixed and accurate principles on economic management, has courted disaster at least one time too many.
I find it hard not to see this is not a long-run win for the mixed and managed economy, even if the market libertarians won’t immediately recognize it as such.
This is a very provocative situation. One that deserves real soul searching of the best form of government/business partnership that will serve our country into the future. Let's say for the next 100 years.
I believe that Govt, seperate from business, creates the opportunity for true watchdog supervision and is my preference. Unfortunately that ship has sailed. As govt has become a participant in more areas of the economy: mortgage banking, Education, through student loan ownership, and medicine, to name a few.
This participation, in my opinion, has been as detrimental to the middle class as industry, who typically gets all the blame. Our government already controls/is controlled by business through congress: lobbying, insider trading, kickbacks, employment of family members. Perhaps transparent, legitimate, ownership with controls would be better situation for taxpayers.
For example, If we shared in the profits of the Covid mRNA vaccines, payed for with billions of tax per funded grants, and mandated by our government,it could have lowered our national debt. Instead a small group of share holders benefited from the windfall and I suspect many govt officials are included on that list of shareholders.
This isn't even about Trump. It is about the American taxpayer having control and oversight over how government, it officials, and business interact going into the future.
Thank you, Mr. Fleischer.
ALOHA....
I do like the idea of the federal government having a stake in some of these corporate profits, which seem wildly out of line to me. Because corporations seem to benefit from low taxation they should start paying into our system to benefit the country as a whole, not just the shareholders.
The idea that Trump just wanted to get back into business a bit and did this on a whim is about like his ending wars in 24 hours. We saw his faith in his ability to Bargain his way to the end of wars and we know his history of bankrupcies as a businessman. Let's hope there is someone among his throng that can be a Tump wisperer.
"Trump is a capitalist, or a socialist, or statist, or a so-called “MAGA Maoist,” or something else.”
How ever did you miss Fascist? Is it not, in part, the union of government and industry?
The issue you and his opponents miss is simply that he appears in charge ( you have to admit that was never a claim aimed at Biden), his critics on tariffs seem to have quieted down since they seem to be working( the EU now a vassal state of the US AND paying for their own defense) , HIS BIG BEAUTIFUL SPENDING BILL was passed over some ineffective Dem grumbling, and he’s winning the Immigration Conflagration , the Policing by Military fiat argument, as criminal activity in DC bloody disappears and the Dems rally once again around DEI principals as Minnesota erupts in a madman’s gunfire.
Maybe not the best week to invoke the overused, although seemingly appropriate moniker, of Red Headed Nazi.
At least ths week.
It's all about the marketing Cracker Barrel got floored by their customers not Trump or any of his people If someone in WH really did talk with Cracker Barrel (and that's a big if) they were probably passing the phone around the room and the CB employee that was lowest on the totem poll ended up with it
Trump was not a good business man He did figure it out when he started selling his name But again that is about marketing
Yes, a change back to “Crackhead Barrel.”
WE'RE NOT FREAKING CHINA!!!!
At least not yet...
The U.S. needs to look for additional $$$ wherever it can given the 37+ trillion national debt. Today's commentary skipped over Lutnick's yesterday announcement that the U.S. was going to take a piece of federally funded university research. Why should the colleges get all the patent revenue.? Again, we need the money.
¡ W0W ! I'm impressed with the depth of the comments so far. I've always thought "government should be run more like a business", but have never really looked into or thought much about the implications. Reading your post, my mind went to : Perhaps the 2 Parties should each be required to invest and diversify (they might be able to curtail all the begging from constituents) and this would set up some good old capitalist competition. Then we could simply vote for which color had the most money $$$$$$$$$$$$$ ¡
How about three equal beaches of government without corruption; let’s start there.
Ya gotta love a dreamer