A state-owned enterprise is a business enterprise where the government or state has significant control through full, majority, or significant minority ownership. During the 2020 Coronavirus outbreak Larry Kudlow, the White House’s top economic advisor, said the Trump administration would consider asking for an equity stake in corporations that needed taxpayer aid. “One of the ideas is, if we provide assistance, we might take an equity position,” Kudlow said Wednesday at the White House, adding that the 2008 bailout of [the automaker General Motors] had been a good deal…
Read moreNarrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Zipcode:
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
Yes
@B7BQKYW2wks2W
When the government takes ownership in bailouts, it can save jobs. For example, the 2008 bailouts cost $426 billion but ended with a $15 billion profit, and the auto bailout saved over 1.5 million jobs. Without action, recessions tend to hit harder, like the Great Depression ,when unemployment hit 25%. State ownership makes businesses safer and fairer for the public.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No
@ShortTimeNoSeeLibertarian 9mos9MO
The U.S. gov took a 60% equity stake in GM during the financial crisis. GM eventually recovered but taxpayers lost $10.5 billion on the deal because the government sold its shares at a loss anyway.
The U.S. gov also acquired an 80% stake in AIG. AIG's executives were allowed to keep their bonuses even after mismanaging the company.
When the government takes equity in companies, it creates unfair advantages for bailed-out firms, distorting competition. Thisdiscourages private investment, do see the 1990s, when Japan's gov propped up failing companies by acquiring stakes and offering… Read more
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
No, and the government should never bail out companies during a recession
@B7BQKYW2wks2W
If the government never helps companies in a recession, many could go bankrupt all at once. That means workers lose jobs, families lose income, and the whole economy declines. Sometimes, helping big companies also protects small businesses that depend on them. If the government takes part ownership when it helps, taxpayers can get money back later whenever the company recovers. So, bailouts aren't just about saving businesses they can be about protecting regular people and keeping the economy from crashing.
@B7BKPGF2wks2W
We have an extremely complex interconnected economy. The government needs to be a backstop against the economy suffering massive problems in healthy sectors due to problems in unhealthy ones. The alternative is a lot of avoidable economic destruction that doesn’t decrease long term risk
@B6YX3T94wks4W
I think the US government should be abolished and governance transferred to a coalition of responsible governments in other countries
@B6Q9JY41mo1MO
If they did bail them out during recession the goverment can make money back when they are out of it.
@ISIDEWITH6yrs6Y
No, this impedes technological progress due to competition being stifled
@9FNVWFJ2yrs2Y
Corporations stifle competition, government involvement in large companies, creates opportunities for smaller businesses to gain a foothold in the market and create more competition
@ISIDEWITH5yrs5Y
Yes, but divest over time after repayment is obtained.
@ShortTimeNoSeeLibertarian 9mos9MO
Government taking equity stakes in bailed-out companies distorts markets and invites corruption, and has always kept politicians meddling where they do. not. belong.
@B25M6DF10mos10MO
Giving government stakes in private business incentivizes the government to increase bailouts of companies, not only leading to increased spending of tax dollars, but also leads to government control of the private sector, a step that inevitably leads to corruption and loss of liberty.
@8D7DWRB5yrs5Y
@8GBD2L6Constitution5yrs5Y
I don't have a stance on this question
@8KWZYCX5yrs5Y
Yes, but the government should sell that that to the public.
@9F39NT32yrs2Y
If it requires a bail out, it should be nationalized.
@9D6FSPZ2yrs2Y
Yes, until money given is fully given back
@InsecureXerus2yrs2Y
What mechanisms should be in place to ensure the government disposes of its equity shares once the bailout money is fully repaid?
@8HNBFMV5yrs5Y
Yes, the government should receive equity for any financial aid they provide to companies until the loan is paid back, with appropriate interest.
@8JPFN5K5yrs5Y
I don't understand this question.
@8LBP76W5yrs5Y
No. The government should be able to restrict shareholder friendly activities for a period of time following the financial aid, but the government shouldn’t be a part of business decisions.
@8D7CVTK5yrs5Y
Only until the companies can repay the funding it received from the government (with appropriate interest) and put into place steps to prevent the situation from repeating (then the government should divest itself from the company). Executives should not receive separation benefits greater than other employees of the company, especially if their actions/inactions led to the situation where they needed a bailout.
@8KT28WP5yrs5Y
No, but the companies bailed out by loans from the government during a recession should not be allowed to make a profit or increase executive pay while still paying back said loan. In addition, the highest paid employee should receive a total compensation package no larger than 10 times the median total compensation package for the company.
@8KKQ77Y5yrs5Y
The government should never own part of private companies, but should require the money to be more of a loan which should be paid back eventually
@9QZB7YX 2 days2D
Yes, but only temporarily, with the intent to sell the government’s stake back once the company stabilizes. If public money saves you, the public should profit too.
@B48NLL56mos6MO
No, the government should only interfere financially during a recession if it concerns our infrastructure
@B425TCL7mos7MO
No, but if the company's recklessness leads to them needing a government bailout, their bad behavior should be punished with excessive regulation, more than those other companies get, for at least the next decade
There shouldn’t be bail outs when you don’t bail out everyday people from their debts. As a matter of fact, there should be some additional laws created for credit card companies with the gouging they do
@9TQCYVC 1yr1Y
Yes, but the government should ensure that there is no "too big to fail" business where they do not need to bail out any businesses during a recession.
@9TQCYVC 1yr1Y
No, government should ensure that there is no "too big to fail" business where they need to be bailed out.
@9TQ8JH61yr1Y
The notion of government bailing out private companies is a slippery slope. How can we determine which companies should receive these bailouts and which should not? It could be a license for companies to engage in risky behavior. Any such payments should require the companies to severely limit executive compensation until the funds are repaid, with interest, in full.
i think yes because it is not the companies fault that we are going through recession and they also have work hard to get to that place and they have people woking for them and it is not fair they would not get paid when they ave familys and bill to pay.
@9T878VZ1yr1Y
There is nothing wrong with the government holding a stake in a company but I believe if they do they should not have a say in what the company does. Obviously laws already set in place should stay active when it comes to the government intervention in businesses
@9SGT5CW1yr1Y
No, but companies that are bailed out should be required to address social needs. Moreover,, this should be required of all companies.
@9S8LPDV 1yr1Y
If a corporation is "too big to fail" and our economy is at least somewhat dependent on it, it's an oversight on the government's part and should've been broken up as a monopoly.
@9S64M3Q1yr1Y
Financial aid should come with short-term oversight to prevent reoccurrence, and that oversight should be paid for by the company, not the taxpayer. The government should not gain control over decisions but should recoup a % of its investment.
@n35w101Independent 1yr1Y
No, the government shouldn't bail out failing companies. That's what bankruptcy laws exist to deal with. And if a company is "too big to fail" then it should have been broken up as a monopoly long beforehand.
@9RX2F35 1yr1Y
The government should have some sort of contract with the company that requires the company to pay the government before paying dividends to shareholders.
@9RPMT3VIndependent 1yr1Y
Yes this can be an option; if the last resort for a company staying afloat is funding from the government, they first should try to fund via government debt (no ownership); but if cannot, I'm ok if the government take an equity stake rather than the business go bankrupt.
@9RPMFVL1yr1Y
If WE THE PEOPLE pay for a company to keep its doors open then WE THE PEOPLE deserve dividends until the companies debt is re-payed. Use us as your bank, and we will act like a bank.
@9RG9BK31yr1Y
No because although this sounds like nationalizing an industry, it sounds more like the government would then turn around and provide those companies some kind of advantage in order to increase their own return on investment.
companies should stop being bailed out. if they fail, they fail. it shouldn't be on the taxpayers to keep them afloat if they can't manage their own companies.
@9R8D5SX1yr1Y
No, government shouldn’t own stake in a company, but any bailouts should function as a high interest rate loan for the company
@9QWCW8P1yr1Y
No, but reducing the availability and size of government bailouts would be a better standard of practice
@9QRYQZ31yr1Y
I feel the idea is sound, but the outcome is uncertain. I fear that the Government owning shares in private companies could lead to corruption within the government. All I ask for is there to be public awareness and polices put in place to prevent such events.
@CurvyletterConstitution 1yr1Y
Yes, and ensure transparency, accountability, and temporary equity stakes to safeguard taxpayer interests while promoting economic stability and market integrity
@9P2LFJ5Libertarian 1yr1Y
Government should never bail any company out, recession or no. Recessions clean house of inefficient providers, not matter how much the provider has contributed to the politician or party.
@9PY7ZWH 1yr1Y
No but companies should pay back the money with interest. Like a lone. Like normal people have to do.
Yes, in proportion to the amount of money the government puts into the company and with the ability of the company to buy shares back
@ghillthrow 1yr1Y
The government should acquire an interest in these companies but should then sell it (basically not holding on to these shares for an extended period of time but still being compensated for the bailout)
@9P7MH8N1yr1Y
A business accepting a bail out should be turned over to the employees of the company, and the officers who were in charge leading up to the bail out should be banned from executive positions for the remainder of their lives.
@9NPSVCT 1yr1Y
Yes, but the equity stakes received during bailout should go into a universal fund and then paid out to the citzanery through dividend.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 1yr1Y
Yes, the government should get equity for all public funding given to corporations, including R&D grants
@9M9V9VS1yr1Y
The state, the people and the companies should work together to avoid a recession. Teamwork makes the dream work
@9LN9HLLRepublican1yr1Y
No, the government should only bail out companies crucial to jobs and the economy and should have no part in it but preserving it.
@9LN4NZMLibertarian 1yr1Y
No, because their should be enough competition in the marketplace that no company should ever be bailed out by the government. So since no company should ever be bailed out, then they government should never own equity in a company.
@9LF2C971yr1Y
After a long enough time, yes. After a long enough time for the company to pay them back because all debts should be replayed in full.
@9LB8N6D2yrs2Y
Yes, but for the purpose of ensuring the return of the bail out funds. Other conditions can be agreed upon to keep government out of business decision making process
@9L3RBRV 2yrs2Y
To be honest, I don't even know what this exactly means. Even after reading further, I don't. I think sometimes the stance gets lost in typical citizens not aware of or keeping up with the terminology used in discussions such as this.
@9KX9VJ82yrs2Y
No, the government should never transfer funds to business companies when no contract for a service exists.
@9KMGS8Z2yrs2Y
No, the government should not bail out any companies. Any company that is "too large to fail" should be broken up.
@9KKSHMQ2yrs2Y
No, government shouldn't bail out anything that is not essential to the country's ability to function and should NEVER own shares of companies
@9KC7KKX2yrs2Y
No, it will aggravate the recession for the companies when they dedicated the money for their purpose
@9K2PM5YLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, the government should not bail out private companies in a recession; therefore, it should not receive equity stakes for an act it does not engage in.
@9JVRWQW2yrs2Y
Only non-voting equity and should be required to divest itself of this equity over a period of no more than twenty years.
@9JSJTVH2yrs2Y
Gov should be allowed to bail out companies but, the management of those companies need to be replaced.
@9JG455B2yrs2Y
No but the companies should be required to pay back the government like a loan at .5% less than the current loan rates.
@9JDGJQB2yrs2Y
Private and publicly owned businesses should not be bailed out…it creates an artificial safety zone for businesses to act recklessly
@9JBB9KS2yrs2Y
No, but an incentive needs to be established for the company to expedite repayment of any bailout provided
@9J7V33P2yrs2Y
No, the government should never bail out a failing company. If we are going to be a capitalist society then we need to abide by its rules. A failing company should be allowed to fail so that a new stronger company can take over. It is not the government's job to hold up these failing companies. They have failed for a reason and it is time for a new company to rise up.
@9J7HCRD2yrs2Y
Make it so that the government never needs to bail out these company's in the first place. Our economy should not be dependent on the success of company's that are too big to fail.
@9J6N5962yrs2Y
No. The government should NOT bail out companies. But rather prevent monopolies, so that when companies do fail competitors can absorb the demand.
@9J4RTBP2yrs2Y
Yes, the government should receive equity but then should sell its portion as soon as funds are recouped.
@9HZR9JB2yrs2Y
Possibly, but to a limit. Once the govt has recouped the cost of the bailout with interest, as long as the money is used in a transparent way to innovate as a country, then the equity is sold back to the company and the employees receive the proceeds as a distribution.
@steven_adkins 2yrs2Y
No, and the government shouldn't provide any bail outs. We are too economically dependent on businesses as it is.
@9HSJFJXIndependent2yrs2Y
Rivate companies should never be bailed out by the government. A private company should be able to stand or fail on its own.
@9HSGSGP2yrs2Y
No, but it should be allowed to set up temporary additional restrictions and controls on the business.
The government cries about helping out common people during any hardships, Big corporations should not be getting bailed out at all!
@9HR7GNT2yrs2Y
The government shouldn't bail out companies. They should let them fail if they can't support themselves.
@9HR3KKG2yrs2Y
Yes, but for a limited time with the government taking no active decision-making in the company but receive regular payments until the bailout is fully repaid with interest.
@ChaseOliver 2yrs2Y
No. The government should not bail out private companies, who should rise and fall according to market forces.
@9HNMJ862yrs2Y
Technically, the government cannot interfere with businesses. Government can only support what they can control. That’s the point of deregulation. Unless these companies strongly support the nation in certain ways that is necessary for the nation to survive.
No, the government should just be repaid the financial aid they provided to the company within an established time frame
@9G8XC2XRepublican2yrs2Y
Yes, but the government should receive equity for any financial aid they provide to companies but only for a selected amount of time. After such time, they should be required to sell their equity share.
@9FVJF7B 2yrs2Y
Yes, a company that is bailed out by the government should now be owned by the government. If they wanted to remain private the market solution is to fail.
@9FPK5RG2yrs2Y
Depends on the business at hand.
@9FPHT6M2yrs2Y
The tax payer should acquire equity stakes, since the companies are bailed out using their money
@Yaunti2 2yrs2Y
Yes, but be easier if the government abolished private property
@9FPCCYV2yrs2Y
Yes, But the Government should not be bailing out companies. This should only be done as an extreme exception.
@9FNBX5W2yrs2Y
I think that the government should own equity stakes in communizes always, so they can be there to help out when needed.
Yes, but these can be bought back from the government until they get the money they invested plus interest
@9F7SNL52yrs2Y
No, the government shouldn't be bailing out failed companies.
Socialism people should get paid for what they do for the company and it should be equal fix everything
@9DZF9492yrs2Y
The only companies that will fail in a recession are small ones. They shouldn't have to give money to the government just because they kept them from dying in their own economy
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
