The same way SEC stops market markers from manipulating the stocks

They are open enough about thinking some kind of late USSR, fixed against its deadlocks and broken feedback, would be the best system for them. I mean, having a one party system is very attractive, LOL.

And yeah, that crowd is about seizing whatever they want to build their idea of a better nation, with re-industrializing and so on. There are pits on the road, though.

And, honestly, never in history were many US politicians willing for the USSR to die as it did. They would, of course, ridicule the broken system and ideology, but the whole idea seemed more understandable than most European nations. And flattering.

It was never, ever even once about states rights. It was never about fighting communism. It’s all racism, always has been.

It's honestly funny, so - in Eastern Europe, when comparing ourselves to the USA, it's very easy to get sympathetic to these points. Also to color blindness and being against affirmative action, and such.

Because information travels non-linearly. From here many people really think that the racism problem is solved in the US, and it's just lazy Blacks not willing to work honestly, and that last point is racist, but if you say that American racists still think it's wrong for a white person to marry a black person, those same people won't believe you, it's not part of their own kind of racism, or that American racists actually exist in huge enough numbers, they think it's like calling others fascists here, something devalued by common usage. They'd be livid.

So - what I'm thinking is that USSR's dead hand was, in fact, not its nuclear shield, but its ideology and state architecture, and some people want to break their own bad, but functional system in favor of their imaginary picture of USSR. Which is just as detached from reality. USSR's checks and balances had a downside of stalling development and conserving the balance of power, nothing big got actually done. It would seem that they might actually come to the same result with far less blood, jump to 1960s USSR without a passing through 1920s-1950s, but wasting a few decades on that with a pretty clear end result would seem a bad idea.

That's about political systems, arguing against my imagination on what they think. With re-industrialization I agree completely. In general, oursourcing labor is directly opposed to labor rights, and labor rights are what guarantees political rights.

10% is not "nationalized". It's "19.99% nationalized". Need to have a majority stake (like 50.01%) to call it "nationalized".

Or maybe I'm wrong.

There's literally Intel Management Engine or how is it called.

And they are literally an American corporation that has always benefited from American governments pressuring competitors from other countries, and that was important for MIC since 70s.

So that kind of trust was a clear no since long before I was born.

By your maths it's 10/50.01=19.99% nationalised, actually.

B-b-but Starlink doesn't build infrastructure for normal broadband, does it? So they basically got a load of free money for doing nothing on a state level, just their satellites flying someplace above? I mean, there are Starlink ground stations, so there is infrastructure, just how many people would use it instead of a normal service. You know, GPON to the door, no antenna suffering in bad weather, no exorbitant prices.

China's internal market is far more cutthroat and "capitalist" than that of the USA. And less regulated. And less monopolized, except for a few services which, ahem, are mandated (WeeChat, yes).

That was their "unique path", to move all hierarchical stuff into political entities. It look interesting on a large scale, from more "peasant-oriented" communism, kinda changing the initial Marxist picture of worker-capital relations, to this.

Isn't he mimicking the typography of oldish "wild west style" newspapers and other print? Both with different fonts, and varying capitalization, and sizes. Yelling at you from monochrome photos.

(Never been in the USA.)

It wouldn't, they are one big criminal family after all.

That part of his behavior his fans, I think, approve of.

That's why free market is how we call a market where anti-monopoly laws exist, work and are enforced in full.

While what you are talking about isn't called market, it's called jungle.

Self-correction in a market is an illusion crafted people either desperate to salvage a broken system, or those who seek to exploit them.

Self-correction exists when anti-monopoly laws exist, work and are enforced in full. It doesn't exist when they don't, because self-correction relies upon competition providing a choice and the consumer using it.

Also trade unions and customer associations are part of what we call free market. Both are voluntary, in public interest, and work when they exist. No coercion involved, thus no violation of market laws.

Also on large enough scale of the market and small enough scale of all businesses it may sometimes seem, that anti-monopoly laws are not needed. Especially since when anti-monopoly laws work, the market appears such.

... Dick ...

They were already providing capital without the seizure. So yeah, this is seizing.

I wonder what things would look like today if the government had taken some portion of control over all the auto manufacturers, airlines, banks, etc it has bailed out over the years instead of just giving them unsecured loans

Would look like normal capitalism of the early XIX century, give or take. Bad, but not atrocious. Bailouts definitely wouldn't be abused as much, because, eh, they wouldn't be free.

And the old argument that public sector management is inefficient - well, it's not always a bad thing. It would then make sense for the government to re-privatize some of those shares, and use others for a source of income and a lever. And the companies bailed out this way would sink in power (which is good for competition), but not completely (which is good for their employees and economical stability). And, of course, I'll repeat about source of income. Perhaps there will be no more raising taxes with such a system in place. Perhaps even some taxes it'll be possible to simplify - any complex tax system works in favor of those who can afford to apply expertise, so those richer, and not poorer.

Also partial or full nationalization may sometimes work to good outcomes, while nationalized companies are less efficient, they also tend to retain institutional knowledge better, have more people working long on the same positions, follow labor regulations. For the telephone company or the train company or the central heating company or the public bus company it makes sense to be nationalized.

Yes, I've already fixed myself, it was sad

so they wont?

You're as bad as centrists/swing voters

10% is a controlling share. The government (Trump) owns enough to make major decisions about how the company is run.

i just got an amd card in response

Years of failed management rewarded with government bailout.