SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump Eyes Government Control of Quantum Computing Firms With Intel-Like Deals
Donald Trump is eyeing taking equity stakes in quantum computing firms in exchange for federal funding, The Wall Street Journal reported.
At least five companies are weighing whether allowing the government to become a shareholder would be worth it to snag funding that the Trump administration has "earmarked for promising technology companies," sources familiar with the potential deals told the WSJ.
IonQ, Rigetti Computing, and D-Wave Quantum are currently in talks with the government over potential funding agreements, with minimum awards of $10 million each, some sources said. Quantum Computing Inc. and Atom Computing are reportedly "considering similar arrangements," as are other companies in the sector, which is viewed as critical for scientific advancements and next-generation technologies.
No deals have been completed yet, sources said, and terms could change as quantum-computing firms weigh the potential risks of government influence over their operations.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Tuesday October 28, @05:26PM (7 children)
The companies get to choose whether or not to take the investment of their own free will. And unlike the CHIPS act handouts, the US taxpayers get a piece of the company in exchange for their money. That's a win-win.
(Score: 5, Touché) by epitaxial on Tuesday October 28, @07:02PM (4 children)
Seizing the means of production is what the commies call it.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Tuesday October 28, @10:15PM (3 children)
If Trump was "seizing the means of production", why would he offer for the government to become shareholders in the companies, in the same manner as you or I would, through purchase of shares on the open market?
The only president I can remember who seized the means of production was Barack Hussein Obama, who nationalized General Motors back in 2009.
https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/obama-reluctant-shareholder-in-gm-023165 [politico.com]
https://www.thelantern.com/2009/05/obama-nationalization-of-gm-to-be-short-term/ [thelantern.com]
(Score: 2) by datapharmer on Wednesday October 29, @06:27PM (1 child)
because once you are a shareholder you get votes and can 'vote' to do whatever makes the Trump family and fiends rich.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Friday October 31, @10:38AM
Wow! That's some serious TDS you've got going on there. You do realize that whatever vote would make Trump's shares more valuable would make all the other shareholders' stock more valuable as well, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29, @08:34PM
It was wrong then and it's wrong now. This is should not be a partisan issue.
The mingling of state interests in corporate welfare distorts the free market and automatically puts any competitors at a disadvantage. Once the government owns a stake in a company it will do what it can to protect that investment. It doesn't matter whether that means propping it up through cash injections with grants and loans, favorable regulations, or awarding government contracts. The instant that stake is made, the government will do whatever it takes to ensure they make a profit. Other investors will follow because they know this is how things work. It's the ultimate in racketeering and it protects the selected corporations to the detriment of others.
It doesn't matter what party does it. That's not freedom, it's market manipulation.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28, @10:34PM
Yeah, well, it's better to assume they got an offer they can't refuse.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday October 29, @03:58AM
That's bullshit.
First, the US government is a lousy shareholder. Even if Trump were somehow a good investor that would positively contribute to these companies, which he isn't, we'd lose him the next election, assuming he doesn't leave the presidency early. Then who is in charge of that government investment? Even if you think Trump is hot stuff, the previous presidents were Biden, Obama, and Bush. None with any competence in investment (aside from leveraging their political power for profit?). Maybe Clinton would be that knowledgeable investor who'll make this win-win last longer than the next election? Dumb politicians using ownership in the companies as more tools to implement dumb ideas and policy.
Second, it's a waste of taxpayer money. The US government would get a piece of the action anyway through income and capital gains taxes. Any such investment becomes a hungry mouth to feed (for example, socialize the cost, privatize the profit) and a large avenue for corruption.
My take? Don't do it and then I won't have an opportunity to say "I told you so!"