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.

---

Jesus. I think we agree on something.

It means you are being reasonable.

Seriously though, we solve a whole host of issues with term limits and making congress a place of true public servants or those with the ways and means to serve at their leisure.

Like it was intended 250 years ago.

Concerned Moderate Ag said:

---

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.

---

Jesus. I think we agree on something.

---

IHIOGA that FTC != Jesus, not even the Mexican ones.

As to the subject of the OP...

...I can't find in the Constitution where it allows this, for anything. I was against "investing" taxpayers' stolen monies for **** like Solyndra, etc., and I'm against funding this, on principle.

What about Hotep Jesus? Cause I like that Jesus.

BigRobSA said:

---

As to the subject of the OP...

...I can't find in the Constitution where it allows this, for anything. I was against "investing" taxpayers' stolen monies for **** like Solyndra, etc., and I'm against funding this, on principle.

---

It's one of the few things that the gubmit has done that got results in a profit.

flown-the-coop said:

---

What about Hotep Jesus? Cause I like that Jesus.

---

"Ho", I believe.....



....the rest?

Ehhhhhhh.....

flown-the-coop said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

As to the subject of the OP...

...I can't find in the Constitution where it allows this, for anything. I was against "investing" taxpayers' stolen monies for **** like Solyndra, etc., and I'm against funding this, on principle.

---

It's one of the few things that the gubmit has done that got results in a profit.

---

Cool story. Done via what powers granted the FedGov?

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

As to the subject of the OP...

...I can't find in the Constitution where it allows this, for anything. I was against "investing" taxpayers' stolen monies for **** like Solyndra, etc., and I'm against funding this, on principle.

---

It's one of the few things that the gubmit has done that got results in a profit.

---

Cool story. Done via what powers granted the FedGov?

---

Article 3 Section 8 of the Stock Market Investment Clause.

What gives the government the power to build a road, building, park, reflecting pool, etc?

I have not looked into this but there has to be some funding appropriated that POTUS can dig into to "invest" in these companies.

But let's not pretend they don't have the authority to spend or invest money.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

As to the subject of the OP...

...I can't find in the Constitution where it allows this, for anything. I was against "investing" taxpayers' stolen monies for **** like Solyndra, etc., and I'm against funding this, on principle.

---

It's one of the few things that the gubmit has done that got results in a profit.

---

Cool story. Done via what powers granted the FedGov?

---

Article 3 Section 8 of the Stock Market Investment Clause.

What gives the government the power to build a road, building, park, reflecting pool, etc?

I have not looked into this but there has to be some funding appropriated that POTUS can dig into to "invest" in these companies.

But let's not pretend they don't have the authority to spend or invest money.

---

Never heard of that, so I used Al Gore's interwebz and found nothing. It pointed me to similarly named things that don't give the gov power to do anything but regulate investing and investment companies not use stolen money to "invest" in them.

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.

---

Since his stock trades are public knowledge, why don't you go find where he bought those companies before the announcement?

We'll wait.

I hope Trump isn't blowing up our tax money on the stock market.

infinity ag said:

---

I hope Trump isn't blowing up our tax money on the stock market.

---

Well if he is, it'll beat returns on the Green New Steal.

You always crack me up, but I respect your taxation is theft, fiscal hawkishness and "Don't Tread on Me" tattoo because you ultimately will vote, support the best worst option.

Our form of government requires compromise no matter how bad it tastes sometimes.

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

Since they're using taxpayer money to do this, do we all get to claim a loss on whichever companies lose in this quantum race?

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

Backyard Gator said:

---

Since they're using taxpayer money to do this, do we all get to claim a loss on whichever companies lose in this quantum race?

---

Even If they all were to crap out, then we could claim about $11.

Don't spend it all in one place.

Where in the Constitution is the authority for this BS? I know, I know, you could say the same thing about most of what the federal government has done in the past century.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Where in the Constitution is the authority for this BS? I know, I know, you could say the same thing about most of what the federal government has done in the past century.

---

Exactly. Where is the constitution is most anything the fed government does. At least this is public vs the mountains of fraud people have/had no idea about.

Texas12&0 said:

---

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.

---

So its ok when your guy does it and its something you approve of? Got it.

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

---

Damn Eric, that's actually a pretty good take on SSTF.

If SSTF had been traded by Paul Pelosi we would not even be worried about it for years and there would be no population crisis to keep it running.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Where in the Constitution is the authority for this BS? I know, I know, you could say the same thing about most of what the federal government has done in the past century.

---

How is there NOT authority for this under the US Constitution?

flown-the-coop said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Where in the Constitution is the authority for this BS? I know, I know, you could say the same thing about most of what the federal government has done in the past century.

---

How is there NOT authority for this under the US Constitution?

---

Because it doesn't give them (FedGov) authority to do it.

Pretty simple. It literally outlines the specific powers granted to the federal government. This isn't one of them. It's no different than "investing" in Solyndra.

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Where in the Constitution is the authority for this BS? I know, I know, you could say the same thing about most of what the federal government has done in the past century.

---

How is there NOT authority for this under the US Constitution?

---

Because it doesn't give them (FedGov) authority to do it.

Pretty simple. It literally outlines the specific powers granted to the federal government. This isn't one of them. It's no different than "investing" in Solyndra.

---

Defense Production Act, CHIPS & Science Act, IEEPA and a whole host of various programs enacted by congress under its Article 1 powers that are then carried out by the Executive under its Article II powers. It would be up to the judiciary under its Article III powers to rule that these either did not follow the congressional acts or that those acts are themselves unconstitutional.

You know this, you just don't like it. Not liking something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

---

Exactly what should they invest in that is guaranteed to make money?

I keep hearing/reading people say the government should be investing in private companies for different reasons. 1) The returns are better than federally guaranteed investment (bonds and FDIC, etc), and 2) It is in the national interest to invest in certain enterprises and technologies.

What happens when these companies and fail and we taxpayers lose money, or when the technology does pan out? Don't get me wrong. Most of my money is tied up in equites, but it is MY MONEY. It isn't EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY TOO.

The problem when the government intervenes like this is it hinders existing players not getting government money and discourages new entrants because they are essentially competing with an entity with unlimited pockets and control over the rules of the game. I think this makes us less likely to succeed as the country that dominates in quantum computing not increases it.

Set the rules of the game up to encourage companies to invest in this area and remove all of the regulatory crap and watch those greedy CEOs and investors do what they have time and time again in this country which is to beat the ever luvin Hell outta the rest of the world.

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

---

Exactly what should they invest in that is guaranteed to make money?

I keep hearing/reading people say the government should be investing in private companies for different reasons. 1) The returns are better than federally guaranteed investment (bonds and FDIC, etc), and 2) It is in the national interest to invest in certain enterprises and technologies.

What happens when these companies and fail and we taxpayers lose money, or when the technology does pan out? Don't get me wrong. Most of my money is tied up in equites, but it is MY MONEY. It isn't EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY TOO.

---

If you wait long enough the S&P 500 always grows over time. There may be down years but over time it goes up. Focusing on individual companies is not the way to do it.

The answer to my question about what happens if the government loses money on an investment is that the government simply creates more money because they can. That kind of screws all the investors who have to be a little more judicious regarding risk because the resulting inflation from"just creating more money" diminishes everyone else's returns.

Burdizzo said:

---

Exactly what should they invest in that is guaranteed to make money?

---

If there was a way to invest in a system that marketed/bet on the chance that the govt, regardless of whether it's the progressives (Dems) or liberals (Repubs), would interfere in markets, that would be a 100% return. Other than that? Nada.

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

---

Exactly what should they invest in that is guaranteed to make money?

I keep hearing/reading people say the government should be investing in private companies for different reasons. 1) The returns are better than federally guaranteed investment (bonds and FDIC, etc), and 2) It is in the national interest to invest in certain enterprises and technologies.

What happens when these companies and fail and we taxpayers lose money, or when the technology does pan out? Don't get me wrong. Most of my money is tied up in equites, but it is MY MONEY. It isn't EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY TOO.

---

Index funds would be better than what it does now.

Yeah. There is no guarantee and in the short term, it can easily lose money, but if you ride can ride out a short term down market, you shouldn't lose any money.

Shoulda done this decades ago w the social security trust funds

eric76 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

---

Exactly what should they invest in that is guaranteed to make money?

I keep hearing/reading people say the government should be investing in private companies for different reasons. 1) The returns are better than federally guaranteed investment (bonds and FDIC, etc), and 2) It is in the national interest to invest in certain enterprises and technologies.

What happens when these companies and fail and we taxpayers lose money, or when the technology does pan out? Don't get me wrong. Most of my money is tied up in equites, but it is MY MONEY. It isn't EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY TOO.

---

Index funds would be better than what it does now.

Yeah. There is no guarantee and in the short term, it can easily lose money, but if you ride can ride out a short term down market, you shouldn't lose any money.

---

I don't disagree. A big part of my retirement is in index funds, but that means taxpayer money is controlled by a cloudy group of financiers who decide what securities get to be in the cool kids club of being listed in the index.

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

eric76 said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/white-house-makes-bold-2-billion-bet-on-quantum-stocks

Quote:

---

White House makes bold $2 billion bet on quantum stocks

The government just became a shareholder in nine companies racing to build the next computing breakthrough.

For most of American economic history, the federal government has been a customer of innovation, not an owner of it.

The Pentagon writes checks for fighter jets. NASA pays contractors to build rockets. The Energy Department funds the national labs that work on science nobody else will pay for. But the government has rarely owned the upside.

That changed during the 2008 financial crisis when Washington took stakes in banks and automakers, then quietly unwound most of them. It changed again last year when the U.S. took a 9.9% stake in Intel as part of an earlier CHIPS Act agreement, according to Reuters.

And it changed in a much bigger way in the third week of May.

---

Outstanding. Glad to see investment partnerships like this and I can't help but think tech will benefit as a result.

The nine companies are IBM, Global Foundries, QBTS, Rigetti Computing, Infleqtion, Atom Computing, PsiQuantum, Quantinuum, and Diraq.

Quote:

---

The kicker is the deal structure. The Department of Commerce will receive "a minority, non-controlling equity stake in each company as a condition for receiving the funds to enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer,"

---

Heck yeah! Let's make a profit off this for taxpayers.

---

More likely, they are giving handouts to politically connected people.

---

By federal ownership of stock in a company? I don't think you understand what a handout is. USAID and unions dealt in handouts.

---

It depends on the real reason for the investment.

To be fair, investments in companies would have been good if it was for the Social Security Trust Fund. If the government had invested that money instead of using it as a low cost of funds, the Social Security Trust Fund would have been in very good shape.

---

Exactly what should they invest in that is guaranteed to make money?

I keep hearing/reading people say the government should be investing in private companies for different reasons. 1) The returns are better than federally guaranteed investment (bonds and FDIC, etc), and 2) It is in the national interest to invest in certain enterprises and technologies.

What happens when these companies and fail and we taxpayers lose money, or when the technology does pan out? Don't get me wrong. Most of my money is tied up in equites, but it is MY MONEY. It isn't EVERYONE ELSE'S MONEY TOO.

---

Index funds would be better than what it does now.

Yeah. There is no guarantee and in the short term, it can easily lose money, but if you ride can ride out a short term down market, you shouldn't lose any money.

---

I don't disagree. A big part of my retirement is in index funds, but that means taxpayer money is controlled by a cloudy group of financiers who decide what securities get to be in the cool kids club of being listed in the index.

---

Considering the massive success of index funds I'm not sure what the complaint is here? Index funds give investors almost an absurd number of options to invest their money in almost any slice and dice strategy you want. How else would you do this?

Or do you just mean in context of the government investing these particular funds and are not meaning retail investors?