I listened to a radio interview with Bernie... apparently he wants this so that "citizens can block harmful policies". So that probably explains the 50% - they want voting shares in order to control the boards.

This is a bit more than just taking a stake in companies in order to give taxpayers an opportunity to share in the gains... this is basically nationalization without taking over the entire company.

So I guess I was wrong about where this was coming from. Too bad, since if the tech bros are right and this leads to the ultimate infinite money glitch, having a resource wealth fund that pays dividends would have been one way of softening the massive dislocation in labor allocation for both white and blue collar work.

Correct. Presumably if your investors don't like the idea of getting diluted by uncle sam, they'll cut off sales once you hit 199M a year.

You'd need to get tangible benefits for letting the government "buy in"... enough that your existing investors and share holding employees would be ok with crossing the 200M cutoff.

Probably a foreign held corporation in Ireland that owns all the IP and gets paid licensing revenue from all the sub 200M companies will serve as the controlling entity.

What's odd is you could accomplish something similar to Bernie's plan by funding AI startups and taking an equity stake. Upon IPO, you sell the stake and then take the money to go incubate more companies. The leftists complain about the massive imbalance of wealth, but are unwilling to go and take the risk that the VC funds are taking by backing a bunch of unproven companies that may never pay off.

Dilution is preferable to paying cash taxes on unrealized gains - the other socialist/progressive "solution" to people being successful. And, one would hope that negotiations would get things closer to a reasonable percentage from 50%, like the 10% the US government took in Intel.

It aligns the interests of the government with the company - you can't pay dividends on a wealth fund based on equity stakes if you take actions (policy or otherwise) that tank the value of the stock.

If anything, having the government as a partner (preferably a silent one) can help boost the stock price. If those shares aren't trading, then they aren't impacting daily price discovery. The only impact is that if the company ever pays dividends, half of the dividends go to uncle sam.

I'm not a proponent of nationalizing companies, but for AI companies to hit max velocity for spend, they need every advantage they can get to clear red tape and public opposition out of the way.

From an October 15th Pew Research report:

https://www.pewresearch.org/gl...

"But many are worried about AIâ(TM)s effects on daily life. A median of 34% of adults say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI, while 42% are equally concerned and excited. A median of 16% are more excited than concerned.

Concerns about AI are especially common in the United States, Italy, Australia, Brazil and Greece, where about half of adults say they are more concerned than excited. But as few as 16% in South Korea are mainly concerned about the prospect of AI in their lives."

Contrast this to Biden era view on AI - which was to legislate regulations and restrictions on development which most likely would have been only to the benefit of the largest players. Open source players in this space would remain unaffected, since the metric is 200M in sales.

That Bernie and Trump are talking similar language (US government taking a stake in AI companies) makes this at least a starting point in discussions. People talking about UBI without proposing a mechanism for financing UBI - this is one possible way of financing things.

Nevermind, I was reading the Ars Technica version of the article that leaves out the part where they take stock instead of cash under the 50% haircut, and are proposing to pay dividends based on that fund.

Strangely enough, I don't have any objections to this plan.

Either:

1. AI is a scam, in which case Bernie is proposing they rob the robbers before the public figures out that they're getting taken. Definitely a heist film.

2. AI is the real deal, in which case Bernie is skimming 50% off the top as part of their deal to let AI have their way with the American economy. Notice he's not promising that he won't came back later to take another 50% haircut.

I'm a little weirded out by the fact that you could also just take an non-voting equity stake in these companies, considering that their spending is powering the US economy. Yes, nationalization is bad, but getting in before the IPO sounds like a really smart idea if your goal is to maximize return the US taxpayer.

Surely the Commodore Callback will come to save us. Surely. Any moment now. Phone of the moment.

Similar to phones though, you don't have to buy every 18 months. The one thing it might do though is affect second hand prices more, which is likely a good thing for affordability.

Yes, often as a first step to legislation. In the sense that "we tried to let you self-regulate, you didn't, and so...".

I'm speaking here about EU and UK politics, can't speak for the US. It's actually quite usual to do it this way.

You also don't need anything so power hungry, a modern integrated GPU would be better.

"or even simulated depictions of those acts"

So they're going to be arresting thousands of actors and film crew now? This basically criminalises making movies or tv shows.

Depends on the country...
Many european countries have welfare and taxation systems that reward having children but punish higher earners.
This creates a situation where the higher earners can't afford to have kids as it would mean time off work, childcare costs etc. Meanwhile those on welfare have every incentive to have more kids.

They read a lot, it's just that the content they read comes from their peers rather than authors with an editorial team to ensure proper grammar and spelling.

Lower rates of teen pregnancy could also be caused by better education about contraceptives, and easier availability of contraceptives.

People should watch Dark Star. "How do I know you are not false data?" "Doesn't matter, the concept is valid no matter where it originated from".

Anecdote only from me of course.but for what it's worth...I'm left-handed. Subconsciously I consider left = "towards what I know" and right = "going further out". This applies to walking, driving...all of it.

I know it's not actually true of course, but if faced with an unfamiliar t-junction while driving or perhaps I'm just out on a walk to get some distance in, that's how I think of it.