▲ 87 ▼ Bernie Sanders proposes bill to give the public a 50% stake in AI companies (mashable.com) submitted 4 months ago by cm0002@libretechni.ca to c/Aii@programming.dev 20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (7 children) 50% of a failing industry is a liability, not an investment. permalink fedilink source hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (6 children) It's not a liability if it's given to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (5 children) here's how that will work. US taxpayers own 50% of the industry. it fails. now taxpayers are responsible for bailing out the industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (4 children) If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry. The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value. That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (2 children) They get voting power and upside. They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out. If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash. Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (6 children) It's not a liability if it's given to you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (5 children) here's how that will work. US taxpayers own 50% of the industry. it fails. now taxpayers are responsible for bailing out the industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (4 children) If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry. The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value. That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (2 children) They get voting power and upside. They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out. If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash. Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (5 children) here's how that will work. US taxpayers own 50% of the industry. it fails. now taxpayers are responsible for bailing out the industry. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (4 children) If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry. The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value. That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (2 children) They get voting power and upside. They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out. If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash. Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (4 children) If you read the article instead of making a knee jerk assumption, you’d know that taxpayers would not be purchasing 50% of the industry. The proposal is for AI companies to pay a one-time tax. In stock. Which would go into a public sovereign wealth fund. If the companies succeed, the public benefits. If they fail, the public-owned shares lose value. That does not magically make taxpayers responsible for bailing them out. Owning equity is not the same thing as guaranteeing a company’s survival. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (2 children) They get voting power and upside. They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out. If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash. Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (3 children) tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (2 children) They get voting power and upside. They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out. If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash. Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (2 children) They get voting power and upside. They do not automatically inherit the company’s debts or become legally obligated to bail it out. If I own 50% of a corporation and it fails, my equity can go to zero. That is the risk of owning shares. It does not mean I personally owe the company’s creditors money, and it does not mean I am required to rescue the company with more cash. Stay in school, please. Still not convinced you've read the article at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (1 child) we both know that's not how this works anymore, right? look at how the 2008 financial crisis happened. taxpayers didn't even own 50% of any bank but they still got bailed out. but if we did, corpos would use that as the excuse to why it's taxpayers responsibility to eat the costs to "protect the economy". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* This is not making you sound smarter, my guy... The 2008 example is completely unrelated to your original claim. Taxpayers did not own 50% of the banks, and they still got bailed out. So clearly ownership is not what creates bailout risk...? Bailouts are political decisions made under claims of systemic risk. They are not an automatic legal consequence of owning shares. The AI proposal is about companies paying a one-time tax in stock, meaning existing owners (read: Billionaires) give up equity into a public fund. If the companies fail, those shares can go to zero. That is equity risk. It does not mean taxpayers become the company’s creditors, guarantors, or emergency piggy bank. You started by claiming public ownership makes taxpayers responsible for losses. Now you’re arguing that the government sometimes bails industries out even without public ownership. That’s a different argument, and it actually undermines your first one. Like dude you got some upvotes on your first comment and it had appeal to people but it didn't come from a person who read the article or knows what the fuck they're talking about. And every time you respond to me you give it away more and more. Quit while you're ahead and stay in school. permalink fedilink source parent