I remember when Republicans would be against government picking winners and loosers. Trump for love or hate is the most powerful man in the world he can make people see the good in every action. On the good side maybe with this and the Iran war he has paid back the people he owes favors and we can get back to campaign promises and America first.

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

How many of those are on Trump's 278-t form? Bet it's all of them.

---

Fortunately all stock picks by pols are public knowledge. Many an investor has followed them to reap some benefit.

---

So the blatant corruption is fine as long as the rest of us have the ability to enjoy some of the table scraps. Got it.

I don't love this idea but it's not nearly as bad as most of the crap the feds do.

I'm sick of us funding research and that company/university gets all of the benefits. WE paid for it, WE should own that patent (or the great majority of it)

I already made a 13.6% gain on a day trade with $INFQ. In at $15.80 and out at $17.95 in just a few minutes Friday morning.

Loren Visser said:

---

I don't love this idea but it's not nearly as bad as most of the crap the feds do.

I'm sick of us funding research and that company/university gets all of the benefits. WE paid for it, WE should own that patent (or the great majority of it)

---

Remember when Obama dumped our tax dollars into failing Solar companies? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Solid grift play for the grifters, though.

Yesterday said:

---

Meh. Seems ripe for fraud and abuse. What will the government do to other companies or individuals to make sure that stock is a winner?

---

Nope. These companies are actually the future.

techno-ag said:

---

lb3 said:

---

Clear regulations and incentivize risk taking but keep the government out of the equity markets.

---

Put the government in equity markets and get them out of the federal grant business. At least here everyone can see where the tax dollars go and we hopefully get a good return on our investments.

---

This right here.

It feels to me like there is some confusion or ignoring of history with moonshot type stuff. We didn't privatize the bomb nor the first 50+ years of space.

Quantum computing is mind bending crazy **** that will likely dwarf the impact of both of these examples. Kind of can't fault the government for wanting to have some equity in that considering whoever wins that race is going to conquer the world. Not that they can't ultimately f* it up and likely will to some degree.

Considering the government has invested in several different companies I'm looking at this as seed funding to nudge this along...at least as far as how it's been communicated. If government were to fully take it over, it would fail anyway because we aren't the same culture that we were when we built the bomb or first went to space.

ts5641 said:

---

I mean it would be great if the federal government found a way to make money other than stealing it from its citizens.

---

Like they are doing here. Glad you approve.

Haleyscomet50 said:

---

I remember when Republicans would be against government picking winners and loosers. Trump for love or hate is the most powerful man in the world he can make people see the good in every action. On the good side maybe with this and the Iran war he has paid back the people he owes favors and we can get back to campaign promises and America first.

---

I remember when Dems were not obsessed with transitioning my 5 year old, men competing in women's sports and globalizing the intifada and putting Zionists in internment camps. Trump is fixing those things as well as saving us from nuclear holocaust with Iran. And making some money for the US Treasury on the side.

How about a nice thank you?

Quantum computing is a farce just like string theory being the theory of everything.

samurai_science said:

---

Quantum computing is a farce just like string theory being the theory of everything.

---

Petaflops and mattressflops all just Greek to you I guess.

samurai_science said:

---

Quantum computing is a farce just like string theory being the theory of everything.

---

Quantum computing can be both a farce and a major breakthrough.

Neither the church nor the corporation is better run with government oversight. Government bureaucrats understand and respect neither God nor commerce.

But Trump understand both of those just fine so we okay here.

And this is investing, not controlling.

Usually these investments specifically EXCLUDE the investment from having any say.

How many investors here would buy a stock if they knew the government was going to buy it too?

How many investors here would buy a stock if they knew the government was a large shareholder and was about to sell?



After you have answered those questions for yourself, start substituting Nancy Pelosi into some of those scenarios and ask yourself why this is such a good idea.

YouBet said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

Quantum computing is a farce just like string theory being the theory of everything.

---

Quantum computing can be both a farce and a major breakthrough.

---

IYKYK

- Schrodinger

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

How many of those are on Trump's 278-t form? Bet it's all of them.

---

Fortunately all stock picks by pols are public knowledge. Many an investor has followed them to reap some benefit.

---

So the blatant corruption is fine as long as the rest of us have the ability to enjoy some of the table scraps. Got it.

---

How is it corruption?

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

How many of those are on Trump's 278-t form? Bet it's all of them.

---

Fortunately all stock picks by pols are public knowledge. Many an investor has followed them to reap some benefit.

---

So the blatant corruption is fine as long as the rest of us have the ability to enjoy some of the table scraps. Got it.

---

How is it corruption?

---

It's not remotely. It's actually open and transparent. Can still disagree with it but it's not corruption.

I think TDS may apply here though.

Burdizzo said:

---

How many investors here would buy a stock if they knew the government was going to buy it too?

How many investors here would buy a stock if they knew the government was a large shareholder and was about to sell?



After you have answered those questions for yourself, start substituting Nancy Pelosi into some of those scenarios and ask yourself why this is such a good idea.

---

Presumably these are LTHs. When they sell years down the line it will hopefully be after considerable appreciation making the bolded moot.

As for the first point I imagine the answer is similar to a stock joining the S&P 500.

Now that I've answered those questions for myself I'll look at Pelosi. Oops that's dealing with fields involving legislation. This is a national priority area and a different ball of wax than an individual politician placing bets on companies their votes may affect.

I'm okay with it. Thanks for the mental exercise. It validates my position nicely.

YouBet said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

How many of those are on Trump's 278-t form? Bet it's all of them.

---

Fortunately all stock picks by pols are public knowledge. Many an investor has followed them to reap some benefit.

---

So the blatant corruption is fine as long as the rest of us have the ability to enjoy some of the table scraps. Got it.

---

How is it corruption?

---

It's not remotely. It's actually open and transparent. Can still disagree with it but it's not corruption.

I think TDS may apply here though.

---

Most assuredly. If O'Biden had done this, his side would be cheering.

US still owns 10% of Intel and a large stake in a rare earths company, no?

This stuff is being done to secure strategic supply chains in industries and companies critical our national interests.

They are not taking a flyer on the new Ivanka fashion brand or Don Jr resorts and hotels.

Strategic stakes in companies that make a lot of sense from a national security perspective to have strategic stakes
In.

flown-the-coop said:

---

US still owns 10% of Intel and a large stake in a rare earths company, no?

This stuff is being done to secure strategic supply chains in industries and companies critical our national interests.

They are not taking a flyer on the new Ivanka fashion brand or Don Jr resorts and hotels.

Strategic stakes in companies that make a lot of sense from a national security perspective to have strategic stakes
In.

---

Yep, COVID was the wake up call here. Even European governments were decrying dependency on global supply chains once that happened. One primary example is that we should be incentivizing the hell out of pharma to come home. We are highly dependent on China for this right now which is horrifically stupid.

If someone wants to cry about the US government doing that because "free markets!", then know you are simply cheering for more globalism where we have zero control over our own fate.

There are a handful of sectors where we need to control our fate - food, water, energy, tech, and pharma likely being the top 5. We are sitting pretty compared to the rest of the planet on this topic, but we are woefully at the mercy of others on a lot of raw materials and pharma stuff.

We are incentivizing the heck out of medical supplies and pharma to restore critical supply chains.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/regulatory-relief-to-promote-domestic-production-of-critical-medicines/

YouBet said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

How many of those are on Trump's 278-t form? Bet it's all of them.

---

Fortunately all stock picks by pols are public knowledge. Many an investor has followed them to reap some benefit.

---

So the blatant corruption is fine as long as the rest of us have the ability to enjoy some of the table scraps. Got it.

---

How is it corruption?

---

It's not remotely. It's actually open and transparent. Can still disagree with it but it's not corruption.

I think TDS may apply here though.

---

If he purchased stocks beforehand knowing he was going to make them blow up, that's 100% corruption. It would be corruption if Biden did it. It was insider trading when Nancy did it.

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

How many of those are on Trump's 278-t form? Bet it's all of them.

---

Fortunately all stock picks by pols are public knowledge. Many an investor has followed them to reap some benefit.

---

So the blatant corruption is fine as long as the rest of us have the ability to enjoy some of the table scraps. Got it.

---

How is it corruption?

---

It's not remotely. It's actually open and transparent. Can still disagree with it but it's not corruption.

I think TDS may apply here though.

---

If he purchased stocks beforehand knowing he was going to make them blow up, that's 100% corruption. It would be corruption if Biden did it. It was insider trading when Nancy did it.

---

Did he though?

Wrong debate.

You should be debating which ones are next.

Corruption? Maybe. Or maybe this is the only way to get congress to pass inside trading laws. If Trump is gonna profit, maybe they'd rather make sure he doesn't than make money themselves. TDS. Lol yeah right.

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

US still owns 10% of Intel and a large stake in a rare earths company, no?

This stuff is being done to secure strategic supply chains in industries and companies critical our national interests.

They are not taking a flyer on the new Ivanka fashion brand or Don Jr resorts and hotels.

Strategic stakes in companies that make a lot of sense from a national security perspective to have strategic stakes
In.

---

Yep, COVID was the wake up call here. Even European governments were decrying dependency on global supply chains once that happened. One primary example is that we should be incentivizing the hell out of pharma to come home. We are highly dependent on China for this right now which is horrifically stupid.

If someone wants to cry about the US government doing that because "free markets!", then know you are simply cheering for more globalism where we have zero control over our own fate.

There are a handful of sectors where we need to control our fate - food, water, energy, tech, and pharma likely being the top 5. We are sitting pretty compared to the rest of the planet on this topic, but we are woefully at the mercy of others on a lot of raw materials and pharma stuff.

---

I agree that the US needs an industrial policy that is a little more advanced than magical thinking that "the invisible hand will take care of it." I also think I'm landing closer to a US Sovereign Wealth Fund being a good idea in theory, so long as it can have some guardrails that are as powerful as those protecting the Federal Reserve.

Cru said:

---

Wrong debate.

You should be debating which ones are next.

Corruption? Maybe. Or maybe this is the only way to get congress to pass inside trading laws. If Trump is gonna profit, maybe they'd rather make sure he doesn't than make money themselves. TDS. Lol yeah right.

---

I would support that. TDS works in our favor there.

I support lawmakers getting $500k + year in exchange for 100% of their investable assets in a blind trust so long as they are in public service.

Malibu said:

---

YouBet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

US still owns 10% of Intel and a large stake in a rare earths company, no?

This stuff is being done to secure strategic supply chains in industries and companies critical our national interests.

They are not taking a flyer on the new Ivanka fashion brand or Don Jr resorts and hotels.

Strategic stakes in companies that make a lot of sense from a national security perspective to have strategic stakes
In.

---

Yep, COVID was the wake up call here. Even European governments were decrying dependency on global supply chains once that happened. One primary example is that we should be incentivizing the hell out of pharma to come home. We are highly dependent on China for this right now which is horrifically stupid.

If someone wants to cry about the US government doing that because "free markets!", then know you are simply cheering for more globalism where we have zero control over our own fate.

There are a handful of sectors where we need to control our fate - food, water, energy, tech, and pharma likely being the top 5. We are sitting pretty compared to the rest of the planet on this topic, but we are woefully at the mercy of others on a lot of raw materials and pharma stuff.

---

I agree that the US needs an industrial policy that is a little more advanced than magical thinking that "the invisible hand will take care of it." I also think I'm landing closer to a US Sovereign Wealth Fund being a good idea in theory, so long as it can have some guardrails that are as powerful as those protecting the Federal Reserve.

---

Speaking of what could be next, SBR = MSTR stake?

If we pull it off, we just solved the national debt problem.

Malibu said:

---

I support lawmakers getting $500k + year in exchange for 100% of their investable assets in a blind trust so long as they are in public service.

---

Would have to think about dollar amount I would agree with but I'm probably ok with a salary increase coupled with blind trust.

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I support lawmakers getting $500k + year in exchange for 100% of their investable assets in a blind trust so long as they are in public service.

---

Would have to think about dollar amount I would agree with but I'm probably ok with a salary increase coupled with blind trust.

---

No, you get NOTHING but a per diem and a penance.

Being an elected representative is an honor and a service to your nation, it does not need to be highly compensated in order to make you be an honest ****ing person.

flown-the-coop said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Malibu said:

---

I support lawmakers getting $500k + year in exchange for 100% of their investable assets in a blind trust so long as they are in public service.

---

Would have to think about dollar amount I would agree with but I'm probably ok with a salary increase coupled with blind trust.

---

No, you get NOTHING but a per diem and a penance.

Being an elected representative is an honor and a service to your nation, it does not need to be highly compensated in order to make you be an honest ****ing person.

---

I think we are way past that being realistic.