‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

An AI sovereign wealth fund isn't progressive – it's techno-imperialism

90 points · 65 comments · Anon84

  1. baron816 · · focus · HN ↗
    Summary of why sovereign wealth funds are generally a bad idea: the governments don’t like to do things that could potentially harm their investments. If a government has large stakes in cigarette companies, they’re going to be resistant to regulate them.

    There’s also plenty of opportunity for corruption. But even with safeguards, there’s going to be opportunities to steer investment towards favored companies and industries and away from those that oppose the administration or otherwise do things the administration doesn’t like (think of efforts to divest from Israel or fossil fuel companies).

    “Just invest in the S&P”. Something like this would give substantial power to the index makers. But it also gives preference to already huge companies. Small, unlisted companies would be indirectly penalized by having to compete against companies with government funding.

    1. aeternum · · focus · HN ↗
      In the grand scheme of things, the gov claiming a perpetual 21%+ of all income of AI (all) companies is not all that different from owning a small percent of said AI companies. The financials and even incentives are basically the same.

      It's somewhat entertaining to watch both sides argue about this as if it's some major difference when both are actually aligned on wanting bigger gov and more gov ownership/control of corps (one party via taxes the other wants it direct).

      1. jfyi · · focus · HN ↗
        > gov ownership/control of corps

        Corporations are literally government sponsored entities. Where do you think they get their limited liability and separate legal personhood from?

        We should own a piece of every single one for that service we provide.

        1. scottyah · · focus · HN ↗
          Who is we and what is ownership? Taxes are nice because it's just straight cash, no meddling (other than the myriad of laws they must follow). "Ownership" meaning you want whatever political party/group in power in the moment to able to directly command businesses on top of adding laws and taking money seems a bit like overreach to me, in addition to being costly resource-wise.
          1. jfyi · · focus · HN ↗
            We the people who the government represents as a whole, and it can take many forms, yeah, but I am pretty partial to direct ownership of a percentage. The value we provide to these entities deserves it.
            1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

              [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.