Could we be witnessing a shift away from the Bush/Cheney neocon era of defense privatization, including operations like Haliburton, Black Water, LANS, TRIAD, LLNS, Sandia Corporation (Lockheed) and Solutions of Sandia (Honeywell)? Do defense contractors have the best interests of shareholders or the US people in mind?
Lutnick says administration considering taking stakes in defense companies
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday the president should consider stakes in companies where the U.S. adds “fundamental value.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/26/trump-government-companies-defense-00524433
The Trump administration is “thinking” about taking an equity stake in defense and munitions companies, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
“There’s a monstrous discussion about defense,” he said Tuesday in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” when asked if there’s a “line” on government ownership of private companies. “I mean, Lockheed Martin makes 97 percent of their revenue from the U.S. government. They are basically an arm of the U.S. government.”
12 comments:
I cannot believe why Scooby is allowing such propaganda on this blog. Howard Lutnik, like the rest of the MAGA cabinet, are incompetent. They always have concepts but have done NOTHING to help those they are supposed to help! They are disfiguring America. Once the MAGA cult fizzles out, the next administration will take years to fix the damage. Isn't that the ways it has been the last 4 decades?
OK, you don't like Howard Lutnik. We can see that. But this was widely reported in virtually every media outlet. The question isn't whether this is a good idea or not. The question is will the Trump administration shift the trend toward defense privatization that we have seen over the past 20 years. That's a different question from whether Trump or Lutnik has good ideas or good policy.
The government taking stacks in companies is socialism.
8:16 -- There is a long history of government development, ownership, and control of strategic resources, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
Here is a list of so-called government corporations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_corporations_of_the_United_States
This article describes the topic in a more general context:
https://govfacts.org/analysis/can-the-us-government-own-american-companies/
Yes, and all such are considered as socialism.
1:00 -- I am not sure it matters. In the case of the TVA this was a success.
State governments also have a history in this area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_district_(United_States)
There are a variety of unusual examples such as the Bank of North Dakota:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota
Historically there was production of weapons at the Federal armories in Springfield and at Harper's Ferry (the site of John Brown's raid):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry_Armory
I just thought that all good conservatives/Republicans opposed socialism. How about the move on Intel? The attacks on Social Security? Medicare?
Conservatives are for socialism if it benefits them and the oligarchs. Period.
The Intel deal is very small compared to the size of the US stock markets : the total value of all US stocks is around $50 trillion whereas the government ownership of Intel is around $10 billion, or 0.02% of the US stock market as a whole. The shares are also non-voting with no board seats I believe. I am not sure how this would benefit conservatives in particular, or oligarchs. The government also did not really "seize the means of production" rather it paid for a stake in the company, which the company itself was free to refuse.
Yes, Intel is just one company; creaping socialism. So the shares are nonvoting. So what. Trump still forced the Ceo out.
9:34 -- I am not sure if it is really creeping socialism. Weren't there more dramatic examples in the past such as placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under receivship -- Fannie has trillions of dollars of assets, and for a number of years its profits were redirected to the Treasury to repay bailout money. This was done by George W. Bush's administration I believe to stabilize the housing market. In fact while highly levered this was and is the largest company in the US by total assets. It traded on the New York stock exchange prior to the problems and paid a dividend to investors. There is still a stock trading on the pink sheets which may have significant value at some point once it is recapitalized by retained earnings and the government exits the deal.
Post a Comment