As an appeals court affirms the decision of a lower court addressing the legality of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs—staying the enforcement until mid-October in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal—jeopardising some hundred billion dollars in duties collected from exporters, which in reality is a tax on the consumer, that may need to be refunded, the presidency has meanwhile been taking another tactic on revenue-generation which some economists are acknowledging a generational shift away from free-market capitalism and some critics regard as a dangerous pivot toward socialism by MAGA and the conservatives. Of course the US economic landscape is ripe with subsidies and tax-incentives for choice businesses, engaging what outsiders may classify as protectionism for vital industries—and what America would definitely call barriers to trade and given domestic businesses an unfair advantage—and the US has become stakeholders in businesses beforehand—primarily with its bailouts and interventions for banks and automakers during the 2008 Financial Crisis and for small businesses during the COVID pandemic, but government ownership through a controlling share of a public company is a bit unprecedented in non-emergencies.
First the US Defence Department bought stock in a rare-earth metals operation, then Trump conceded to a large microchip maker’s argument that sales of less advanced components to China would increase competition and innovation and most recently ten percent of chip maker Intel—the latter tech firms settling up with mildly extortive deals. Whilst not uncommon practice elsewhere with government invested in private industry, the US has generally eschewed such involvement, heralding the above free-markets (albeit the source of dissatisfaction for billions, exploitative and destroying the world) as the driver of progress and the hallmark of capitalism, and if the trend continues—and perhaps it should—one must come to terms with redefining what open competition means. Governments would be partial to businesses and bidders that they own in one way or another, and while previous administrations saw a significant return on investment with bailouts, grants and other aid but the public, aggressively attacked on other fronts—in believing it’s getting back from these companies and contractors, an indirect tax on corporations which Republicans would never own up to—may end up more impoverished and indebted if investment decisions are carried out poorly or in the spirit of cronyism.

synchronotpica
one year ago: union label (with synchronopticรฆ) plus assorted links worth the revisit
twelve years ago: a visit to Offenbach plus prunk and posh
thirteen years ago: the castles of Thรผringia plus a botched restoration job
fourteen years ago: large demoninations
fifteen years ago: immigration debates in Germany