all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 21 points 4 months ago

Fuck that, just tax them appropriately and enforce laws on them. Tax them enough to cover the damage they are doing.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    50% of a failing industry is a liability, not an investment.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    It's not a liability if it's given to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    tell me. what happens when an individual owns 50% of the shares of a company?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -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".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I don't trust a "sovereign wealth fund" of any kind in the US because look who the fuck is in office. It could be run by generations of faithful public stewards and then one day the antithesis of all that is good and faithful gets into office and loots the FUCK out of it.

    No- it would have to be a direct dividend like oil money in Alaska; and I'd argue it should be closer to 75% of AI companies but that's just me. Either way, a direct to taxpayer (not every person every TAXPAYER; if you want to be a fucker about it every citizen that pays taxes) dividend would be way way better than some kind of AI "wealth fund" that wall st or k street will find some way to pillage sooner rather than later

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago

    Can we short them by 50% instead?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    50% of zero is still zero.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Nop. Bad idea, sir

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    They destroy the whole planet, but now you too can make a buck. That's as american as school shootings

  • source
  • [+] -11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    no. i dont care how you feel about a company, the government should not be able to take ownership of a company.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    dot world coming in with government shouldn't own companies opinion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments