Trump Orders Creation of US Sovereign Wealth Fund, Says It Could Buy TikTok (reuters.com) 216
U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday ordering the U.S. Treasury and Commerce Departments to create a sovereign wealth fund and said it may purchase TikTok. From a report: "We're going to stand this thing up within the next 12 months. We're going to monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters. "There'll be a combination of liquid assets, assets that we have in this country as we work to bring them out for the American people."
Trump had previously floated such a government investment vehicle as a presidential candidate, saying it could fund "great national endeavors" like infrastructure projects such as highways and airports, manufacturing, and medical research. Details on how exactly the fund would operate and be financed were not immediately available, but Trump previously said it could be funded by "tariffs and other intelligent things." Typically such funds rely on a country's budget surplus to make investments, but the U.S. operates at a deficit.
Trump had previously floated such a government investment vehicle as a presidential candidate, saying it could fund "great national endeavors" like infrastructure projects such as highways and airports, manufacturing, and medical research. Details on how exactly the fund would operate and be financed were not immediately available, but Trump previously said it could be funded by "tariffs and other intelligent things." Typically such funds rely on a country's budget surplus to make investments, but the U.S. operates at a deficit.
Math genius! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's ordered the creation of an investment account funded by surplus government revenue. The US runs a deficit.
So that diverted money will make the deficit worse, and I'd bet a lot of money it will 'invest' in things that put a lot of money in his and certain others pockets.
It's Trump. It's another grift. And if you don't believe it's a grift it's going to be another astoundingly bad Trump financial disaster.
List of countries with sovereign wealth funds (Score:3, Interesting)
- Is it acceptable for a country to have a sovereign wealth fund? (Yes/No)
- Can a sovereign wealth fund operate, if at all, if the country has a budget deficit for decades? (Yes/No)
- What provisions are on a sovereign wealth fund for investing in the country's own debt? Or debt from other countries? Or strategic industries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Countries having sovereign wealth funds
- United States - State-level sovereign wealth funds for Alaska, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Texas, Alabama,
Re:List of countries with sovereign wealth funds (Score:5, Informative)
Your analysis is disingenuous right out of the box:
That is not a country having a sovereign wealth fund.
Though since you bring it up, several of those states aren't serving the basic needs of their citizens, so they have no business claiming to have excess wealth.
Re:List of countries with sovereign wealth funds (Score:5, Insightful)
Sovereign wealth funds are a very good strategy for many countries to handle financial challenges. It's a socialist approach to managing public and private investments. Countries and other government entities (like the US states you mentioned) usually put them into place to manage public assets like resource (oil) extraction, but they are also often used for government and/or citizen pensions
But it's always done for one of three reasons: 1. The government has a large (and probably temporary) surplus of natural resource revenue that they want to invest for when those resources run out, 2. The government is heavily socialist and wants significant control over private markets, or 3. A country feels it's better off investing in the prosperity of other countries instead of building more prosperity at home.
None of those apply to the US. It is a deeply bad idea for the US government to do this because there are no benefits, but it opens the country up to significantly more corruption risks. To have the first US president who is a felon be the first president to try this should speak volumes to anyone who isn't highly partisan.
Re:List of countries with sovereign wealth funds (Score:5, Insightful)
In the United States, socialism is only for billionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true and it makes complete sense for Trump to do this since he and his supporters are ardent socialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimers: I used to live in Alaska and get the PFD. I was moving out when oil revenue was dropping and the government was being forced to either drop services or cut into the PFD. BIG scandal and disagreement. I support having similar for the federal government though.
I have to disagree with #3. A sovereign wealth fund can invest at home and still do it's purpose, without expressing significant control over private markets. It could act like a index fund, for example.
Let's add a couple more factors
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Alaska, and I claim my PFD. I look upon Norway's with envious eyes. But hey... let's buy tiktok. And $TRUMP coin. FML.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Countries having sovereign wealth funds
>> Canada
Incorrect. Only one Canadian province (Alberta) has a sovereign wealth fund which like Alaska's is funded by oil revenues.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point you are trying to make? That the president is allowed to do this because other countries do it?
Re: (Score:2)
"What is the point you are trying to make? That the president is allowed to do this because other countries do it?"
No, other countries actually don't live from loans.
Re: (Score:2)
USA doesn't live from loans. The loans only exist to reduce inflation.
Re:List of countries with sovereign wealth funds (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes no sense for the US. Sovreign wealth funds make a lot of sense because they can take surplus income from tax revenues and invest it in a productive country like the US. Or they can be used even out income from a limited resource so that one generation doesn't get all of the oil revenue while future generations have to make up the deficit in revenue once that literally dries up.
But the US is in a very different position because we have such a large and diverse economy that if we need dividends from successful business enterprises, we can simply tax our domestic businesses and citizens.
Look at two scenarios.
1A) The government gives you $200 tax break thanks to tariff revenues.
2A) You put that $200 into an S&P500 fund.
3A) You get taxed $20 later to pay for a new aircraft carrier.
1B) The government puts $200 of tarrif money into an S&P 500 fund.
2B) The government takes $20 out of the S&P 500 fund to pay for their new aircraft carrier.
Scenario A is actually the traditionally conservative argument: the state should give people any left over money and the people should decide how to spend/invest it.
The problem with Scenario B (The fund) is it's practically engineered to funnel money to the wealthy. IF the government gives me $200, I might spend it on a SPY etf, or I might go down to my local small business and buy $200 in books and "invest" in their business by boosting their sales.
The only organizations that a US Wealth Fund would invest in are going to be public traded large corporations who probably don't even need any higher valuations and will only serve to boost the stock portfolios of the upper class. Aka they're going to boost the likes of Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla and Apple.... hmmm, who was it at the inauguration? Coincidence? The CEOs will see their stock options blossom. The small business that could use local cash being spent will get nothing.
Why would a country like Singapore though have a wealth fund? Because as a micro-nation they have a lot of cash from their ports coming in but not a lot of opportunities to invest domestically. The US can just tax Google profits. Singapore can't just tap Google profits for tax revenue.
Re:Math genius! (Score:5, Insightful)
He's ordered the creation of an investment account funded by surplus government revenue. The US runs a deficit.
So that diverted money will make the deficit worse, and I'd bet a lot of money it will 'invest' in things that put a lot of money in his and certain others pockets.
It's Trump. It's another grift. And if you don't believe it's a grift it's going to be another astoundingly bad Trump financial disaster.
The entire point of Trump's second run, aside from avoiding the potential for continued legal woes, was to make sure that *ANY* money he could wring out of the US government would be directly funneled to him and those who actually have as much wealth as he pretends to have. This whole thing will be a direct conduit of taxpayer money straight to the broligarchy. They may pretty it up as infrastructure spending, but the infrastructure will end up being Musk's daydreams, Zuckerberg's Fantasyland (in the name of VR), and a deluge of other pipedream bullshit so the money can go to the uber-rich.
With Musk getting his hands directly on the Treasury, I would expect there to be "issues" with the average American receiving their tax refunds this year. They're really throwing the grift into high gear in the early days this go-round. No slowing down now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
broligarchy
You sir/ma'am, have just introduced me to my new favourite word.
Re: (Score:2)
broligarchy
You sir/ma'am, have just introduced me to my new favourite word.
One of the other smartypants folks around here said it a week or two ago and it stuck in my cranium. Too on-the-nose for the current round of Trump clingers.
Re: (Score:2)
"He's ordered the creation of an investment account funded by surplus government revenue. The US runs a deficit."
Now that Canada, Mexico, China and the EU pay tariffs (snicker) that money will be used for it.
I guess he STILL doesn't know that his voters will pay those.
A slush fund (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the fascist wet dream. trump will use federal money to buy up assets which he will then control unconditionally. "may purchase TikTok" and any other social media he happens to desire.
Re:A slush fund (Score:5, Insightful)
And not just "assets" but what would be literally and actually "state media" like the MAGAts think PBS is.
He could not be a more obvious fascist.
He also could not be a more obvious hypocrite after all the shit talking he did about forcing the sale of TikTok, as if we needed more examples.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
PBS is pretty damned close to state media.
Oh no, they share FACTS and INFORMATION! They must be liberal cucks!
Re:A slush fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A slush fund (Score:5, Informative)
How so? It gets a very small amount of funding from the government, and in return the government ends up with zero control.
Re:A slush fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he'll direct the fund to buy that fledgling site "Truth Social" for a boat-load of $$$. Who owns that? Hmm... /s)
(Remember, he now has complete immunity for any official acts while President. Thanks SCOTUS!
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he'll direct the fund to buy that fledgling site "Truth Social" for a boat-load of $$$. Who owns that? Hmm... (Remember, he now has complete immunity for any official acts while President. Thanks SCOTUS! /s)
Indeed. Though in this case I don't think there actually are any laws that would prevent him from directing the government to invest in his company even if SCOTUS hadn't given him immunity. In a sane era, a president who did that would be impeached and removed from office, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump will use federal money to buy up assets which he will then control unconditionally. "may purchase TikTok" and any other social media he happens to desire.
The main problem with this idea is Trump thinking he can actually make someone sell anything. TikTok is for sale as much as Greenland. They have the option of simply stop serving the U.S., or they can close up shop completely if they want. There is no "have to" give to someone else. This isn't a company in bankruptcy with outstanding debts to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the fascist wet dream. trump will use federal money to buy up assets which he will then control unconditionally. "may purchase TikTok" and any other social media he happens to desire.
I'm guessing on the last day of office, after he pardons a bunch more people for committing crimes for him, he'll sell TikTok to himself for 100,000,000 Trump coins. Of course, the trump coin will be worthless.
The media will lavish him with praise for being so altruistic, 100 million trump coins he paid, they'll say.
Re:A slush fund (Score:5, Informative)
The word means exactly what I implied that it means.
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I checked your cites;
"the fund's classification as a sovereign wealth fund is contentious"
"a French public sector investment bank"
"Many companies are excluded by the fund on ethical grounds"
"Its purpose is to invest in strategic Italian companies to help them to compete"
"catalyse capital into the country and support its growth needs across sectors of importance"
No mention of buying TikTok because Dear Leader wants it.
Because nothing says free market... (Score:5, Insightful)
...like the US government owning a service like this.
The law that Congress passed was to force the Chinese government to not own it. If the free market isn't willing to step in to a platform with millions upon millions of users then the US government shouldn't either.
Re:Because nothing says free market... (Score:5, Informative)
...like the US government owning a service like this.
The law that Congress passed was to force the Chinese government to not own it. If the free market isn't willing to step in to a platform with millions upon millions of users then the US government shouldn't either.
The law says the owners of TikTok (technically not the Chinese government, but whatever) must sell to a US entity or shut down.
The Chinese owners of TikTok have not (yet) sold the platform because they don't want to, not because they can't find a buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
...like the US government owning a service like this.
The law that Congress passed was to force the Chinese government to not own it. If the free market isn't willing to step in to a platform with millions upon millions of users then the US government shouldn't either.
Then China will pass a law requiring the U.S. to divest TikTok and we'll sell it back to them -- profit!!! /s
Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sovereign wealth funds are for managing surplus revenue of a country. The US has a deficit. So in this case it could never be anything more than a meaningless and slight change to the federal government's accounting ledgers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can do like the UK and have a sovereign poverty fund (AKA national debt) funded by economic incompetence
OK, you already have one, and It is a safe bet that Trump would win in an incompetence competition.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is a safe bet that Trump would win in an incompetence competition."
It's not even a competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, Trump could create a sovereign wealth fund and it would be very useful. To Trump and his cronies. In this case the problem isn't that Trump's proposal is laughably idiotic, it's that the idea is another laughably obvious mechanism to pad Trump's and his allies' pockets.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sovereign wealth funds are for managing surplus revenue of a country. The US has a deficit. So in this case it could never be anything more than a meaningless and slight change to the federal government's accounting ledgers.
I'm surprised you don't see it.
Musk has unfettered access to the federal payment system now. He's also systematically shutting down this-that-and-the-other federal departments and programs. What logically follows is that funding for all that can now be diverted, sans-oversight from Congress or anyone else. Trump orders money spent on $SOMETHING, Musk just jacks into the payment system and grabs the funds """freed up""" by shuttering all those departments and services; it becomes a fait accompli at that poi
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereign wealth funds are for managing surplus revenue of a country. The US has a deficit. So in this case it could never be anything more than a meaningless and slight change to the federal government's accounting ledgers.
I'm surprised you don't see it. Musk has unfettered access to the federal payment system now. He's also systematically shutting down this-that-and-the-other federal departments and programs. What logically follows is that funding for all that can now be diverted, sans-oversight from Congress or anyone else. Trump orders money spent on $SOMETHING, Musk just jacks into the payment system and grabs the funds """freed up""" by shuttering all those departments and services; it becomes a fait accompli at that point. Hell, Musk could just embezzle federal funds and presumably no one would be able to stop him or even know it's happening. The entire Federal Budget could be completely bankrupted and no one would be the wiser until Federal workers and anyone else who gets checks from the government discovered that their paychecks were bouncing.
I've been wondering if our federal tax returns would even show up, but you propose a much more interesting scenario. Tax return checks that bounce. That could cause a true circus.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been wondering if our federal tax returns would even show up, but you propose a much more interesting scenario. Tax return checks that bounce. That could cause a true circus.
Do you remember the stimulus checks that George W issued? Mine bounced. Yes, really.
I re-submitted it and it was paid, but it still cost me the $25 returned check fee.
Re:Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:5, Interesting)
Taxes on rents do not exhibit deadweight loss, thus they have no Laffer Curve, it means they do not effect the strength of the economy. This is because rents are nonproductive (by definition) and are effectively already "taxing" productive enterprise, so taxing them simply diverts them from whoever was collecting them before (which is a nonproductive act) to the government. In fact, taxes on rents can have NEGATIVE deadweight loss because they are potentially offsetting other taxes that DO have a Laffer curve.
The economically optimum thing would be to create a sovereign wealth fund, fund it by taxing the shit out of rents, enjoy the improved economy that results, and distribute any surpluses as public works and/or a dividend like the Alaska permanent fund (which taxes resource extraction rents). This tax-rents-to-fund-UBI was proposed by Henry George in the 1870s and is basically the core of Georgist economics. It was also proposed by other first-wave progressives including Winston Churchill with this "people's budget" that would come from taxing land rents. In reality, it's not going to happen, because if they were going to tax rents, they would already be doing it.
Re:Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:4, Informative)
The economically optimum thing would be to create a sovereign wealth fund, fund it by taxing the shit out of rents
Perhaps, but to clarify for others who might not know, the term "rent" here has quite a different meaning than the term in common use. "Rent" in this context is any government-granted monopoly that enables ongoing extraction of payments without doing work or otherwise adding value. Rental real-estate can indeed fit this definition, but only the part of it that applies to the land, not to any improvements, (e.g. buildings). This is what led Henry George to propose land value taxes, which are like property taxes that apply only to the value of the land, not to the value of any buildings or other improvements.
Georgism proposes that land values be taxed heavily, both to raise revenue and (more importantly) to discourage people from sitting on land that they're not using productively, especially high-value land. Note that this would apply to all landowners, not just landlords. That is, homeowners would also pay the land-value taxes. Some Georgists (though not Henry George himself, I think) propose that the land value tax should be high enough that it not only replaces almost all other taxes, but generates a surplus that is distributed equally to all citizens, i.e. some degree of universal basic income.
Fully applying Georgist ideas would require taxation of all resources that "naturally" belong to everyone and require government enforcement for private ownership to exist. This includes intellectual property, though I haven't seen any discussion on exactly how that would work -- probably it would require owners of IP to pay an annual fee to continue owning their IP. Also, taxation of harm to commonly-owned goods (air, water, etc.) is another obvious corollary. Ideologically-consistent Georgists favor carbon taxes, for example.
Do these ideas work? Land value taxes have been instituted in a few places, for short periods of time. Experience hasn't shown them to provide any fantastic benefits, nor to be problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
Sovereign wealth funds are for managing surplus revenue of a country. The US has a deficit. So in this case it could never be anything more than a meaningless and slight change to the federal government's accounting ledgers.
But wait until all the other countries pay all the U.S. tariffs, then we'll be rolling in cash.
Sarcastically noting that importers pay tariffs and usually pass those costs onto local consumers. In any case, the Administration will be getting poor(er) suckers to pay for things to support tax breaks for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that far from how our food supply is managed but don't tell anyone what they'll fuck with it and we will all starve
Re: (Score:2)
His smooth brain fans will read this story and think "Take that libs!"
Well, Biden reportedly liked the idea of a sovereign wealth fund too, so it isn't a uniquely Trumpian bad idea. I'm sure almost any president would have liked to have their own slush fund. But IMHO no other president thought they could get away with it.
Re:Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:4, Insightful)
His smooth brain fans will read this story and think "Take that libs!"
Well, Biden reportedly liked the idea of a sovereign wealth fund too, so it isn't a uniquely Trumpian bad idea. I'm sure almost any president would have liked to have their own slush fund. But IMHO no other president thought they could get away with it.
Well, to be fair, it's a hard sell to tell the American People: "We're going to create a spending fund to use up all our surplus money." Especially when we have the every few weeks threat of a full-blown government shutdown because we're about to slam once again into the debt ceiling.
It takes a special level of dumb to try and shove that idea into existence within our current federal government. And for some strange reason, we went ahead and elected that level of dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea of one.
I think social security should have essentially been purchasing whole US index instead of treasury notes with its surplus over the last decades.
I don't think it should pick winners and losers, but invest in the broad US economy as a whole.
Re: Sovereign Wealth Fund Without a Surplus? (Score:2)
Paying citizens is that. They then spend the money, which benefits working people.
Seems consistent. (Score:4, Interesting)
A sovereign wealth fund would be fine (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love for example to see United States by stock in companies instead of handing out subsidies. If Intel wants 60 billion of my tax dollars they can have it in exchange for stock and we get a say and how the company is run.. just like any other stockholder.
But that's not how this is likely to play out. It's just going to be another wealth transfer from me and you to Trump and his buddies.
Mark my words the main goal they have is to eliminate income tax for themselves and make you pick up that tab. Look at your taxes from last year. Now double it. That's the Trump tax plan. Everything else is in service to that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
literal fascist-communism
HJAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
Tell us more about how little you know about what words mean. You used all three of those words incorrectly.
Of course. (Score:2)
Starve everything meaningful and buy a social media company. From the people who brought you the profitable enterprises Truth Social and X. All else aside, this is a dumb idea.
Musk (Score:2)
Fund buys T's sh*t coin & make him rich (Score:2)
Big Brain Move (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to his statements and those of his cult followers, Trump is not a good business man. It's proven he would be richer today had he let his initial fortune ride in the S&P 500. https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... [forbes.com]
Re: Big Brain Move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Big Brain Move (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He thinks like a seven year old. A very angry seven-year old that like to beat up on five year olds at that. Off course he isn't a good businessman. And now he is thrusting the US into another depression, as tariffs are was triggered the great depression.
Musk/Trump will be right up there with Smoot/Hawley; interesting the R's introduced S/H and the D's opposed it...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Smoot/Hawley tariffs were higher than Trumps, but Trump is threatening to go higher and certainly has to if he wants Canada to crumble since 25% won't do it. Also, it is much easier for Canada to simply trade across the ocean and forget about the US. 57% of the aluminum that America uses comes from Canada and that already looks like it is going to go to Europe instead. 25% of the oil America uses also comes from Canada and it won't be hard for Canada to find other buyers.
Last I saw it was more like 60%, mostly to refineries in the Midwest all the way to Texas and Rocky Mountains, which will raise prices, especially in the Rocky Mountain and upper Midwest refinery areas. I suspect it will be hard to replace that crude easily with imports from elsewhere without significant logistical issues given the pipeline infrastructure. If the tariffs remain in place and Canada retaliates against US farm exports as planned those areas could get hit with a double whammy.
Re: Big Brain Move - Left out link (Score:2)
Re: Big Brain Move (Score:2)
Socialism (Score:3, Insightful)
This is literally socialism, isn't it? What a fucking retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Government owned social media platform for US citizens to use?
Managed by Trump/Musk who only support "freedom of speech" until you disagree with them.
Sounds worse than socialism - more like some dsytopian totalitarian state. Even China & Russia haven't gone that far.
Re: Socialism (Score:2)
"Government owned social media platform for US citizens to use?
[...]
Sounds worse than socialism - more like some dsytopian totalitarian state. Even China & Russia haven't gone that far."
What? China absolutely has gone that far. TikTok is the US version of the censored social media service for Chinese residents.
Russia I'm not up on, they have state media though. I just don't know about social media there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is not socialist. They have a fund.
Trump will purchase TikTok and declare a NP (Score:2)
Trump will the the US government acquire TikTok and declare it to be a US National Park.
Small Government FTW (Score:2)
Thank God Republicans stick to their guns.
Tariffs = US tax (Score:5, Informative)
There seems to a widespread misunderstanding, and/or propaganda attempt, that tariffs are paid by the targeted country, but they are not - they are an import tax paid by the US importer. The goal is to make foreign goods more expensive, to reduce imports (address trade imbalance) or punish the exporting country (by reducing their ability to export. by reducing demand).
Anyways, at the end of the day tariffs are just an import tax, paid for by the consumer in form of increased prices. Trump is proposing that these import tariffs, collected by the US government from the importer, and ultimately paid for by US consumer, will fund his "sovereign wealth fund", so it's just a 25% sales tax that will go into a slush fund that Trump/Musk will control.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the whole point of getting elected (Score:2)
Use the taxpayers' money to buy Trump steaks and Trump t-shirts!
What's good for the Saudis.. (Score:2)
All of the SWFs that have gone bust were due to political instability. This should be fine.
The wealth of the United States is mostly in the hands of a few billionaires. Unless Trump is planning to tap that resource, he's got no money to start an SWF with. Tax the billionaires -> SWF. Tax stock buybacks -> SWF. Tax generational wealth -> you get the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, maybe the tariffs could be the source. So the billionaire's money is safe. The burden goes back to the people/public.
It's called... (Score:2)
Australia has one of these (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the government owns financial interest in a company, they will act to suppress competitors via the actions of one, or all three, of its branches.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of government-owned corporations that "compete" alongside private corporations, without "suppressing" the latter. Usually the corporations are created to fulfill a national interest that the private sector can't or won't. For example, public broadcasters like the CBC in Canada or the BBC in the UK.
However, I would agree that one must be cautious about government-owned corporations, and ensure they don't cause the harm you mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the BBC isn't owned by the government.
https://www.londonmuseum.org.u... [londonmuseum.org.uk]
The BBC was established by a Royal Charter as a public corporation in 1927.
The BBC isn't technically owned by the government, and the charter gives it editorial independence.
But the government still has influence. Ministers are involved in choosing the BBC's chair. And the government periodically reviews and renews the charter, which sets out the BBC's mission.
Most of the BBC's funding comes from the public, who pay a licence fee for its content. How much you pay to watch, and therefore how much funding the BBC receives, is also decided by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
A "sovereign fund" is literal fascist (police state) - communism (suppression of enterprise).
Those are not what those words mean.
Fascisms are police states, but there are other kinds of police states.
Communism isn't about suppression of enterprise, it's about who owns enterprise.
It would help your accuracy if you knew what words meant before you used them. There are a lot of resources available to you for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
"Communism isn't about suppression of enterprise, it's about who owns enterprise."
That lunatic sentence right there is why I don't argue with morons. If government makes it so that an individual or private entity can't own a profitable enterprise, then it is suppressing enterprise.
Re: Fascist-Communism = "Sovereign Fund" (Score:2)
"If government makes it so that an individual or private entity can't own a profitable enterprise, then it is suppressing enterprise."
No, it is suppressing private ownership. It doesn't inherently prevent the enterprise. Those two things are different and you have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise by those who benefit from corporatism.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't start a business or waste my time developing anything if I couldn't own it. Elon would not have started SpaceX or Neuralink if he couldn't own it. Your theory disproven.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Politicians like to be vague about things and let the people read into it what they want. Trump can play that game too now that he's learned how to be a politician over the last 8 years.
I'm confused on what this fund is supposed to do any differently than all the other funds available to the federal government. If POTUS wants to build hospitals then there should be funds for that in HHS and VA. Highways and airports? There's Departments of Transportation, Commerce, and maybe also Defense, HUD, and DHS.
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, so we should spend government money on things like "green" energy instead.
Perhaps electric vehicles? Oh, right, that's money for the billionaires at Tesla.
Maybe grid storage? No, Tesla again. And Bill Gates with Terrapower and their thermal energy storage.
Windmills? GE Renewable Energy is big in this, and undoubtedly has investors and/or CxOs that are billionaires.
Nuclear power? Terrapower, GE, perhaps another company Elon Musk is running, and so many else.
Can you name an industry where the gove
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or ...?
The problem is not "rich people exist." The problem is "rich people running the government for their own profit." The people making decisions about how we invest taxpayer money should not have "put it directly in my pocket" as an option, because that means they have too little incentive to care about what's good for the country.
If you honestly can't tell the difference now, I guess you'll be finding out soon enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Could A Wealth tax be a solution?
Ultimately, the problem with a wealth tax is that the wealthy, pretty much down to the last one, have all of their wealth in investments of one kind or another. Some of those are already taxed, like land (although, we might want to look at some of the exemptions), others are only taxed when the investment is realized. So, someone might have a billion dollars in investments, but only gets 30 million dollars or so per year out of the investments as dividends or from selling the investments. Certainly the 30 m
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of the fund is obvious: to siphon federal money into the pockets of billionaires.
The fund will purchase a lot of DJT and Trumpcoins, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, Trump always made the campaign promise to create the External Revenue Service, a new organization to collect the money from tariffs, duties, and revenue from foreign service. Except that we ALREADY have a department to collect this, the US Customs And Border Protection! And tariffs are collected from US residents, not from foreigners. We do not send tax police to foreign countries to collect tariffs there; instead tariffs are an extra tax paid by importers within the US. Just more proof that Trump doesn't know how government works, despite having 4 years experience trying to do just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerberg is already on-side. Rational posts are quietly choked while right wing fascist drivel is appearing in everybody's news feed. Trump is a drooling moron with serious psychological problems, but he understands the importance of controlling information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "State controlled media" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kleptocrats are raiding taxpayer funds like its their baby sister's piggy bank.
Re: (Score:2)
He who controls the spice controls the universe.