Honestly, I have no clue, I just read up on this stuff. Sounds like some solid questions for @Undisciplined and @denlillaapan!

I agree what ever happened to smaller government?

Should the government be stockpiling gold? Bitcoin?

Oil and other commodities I can understand but gold has been monetized thus I think the government shouldn’t hoard it .

BlokchainB

Chinas state capitalism based mixed economy is decimating the US crony capitalism economy and the petrodollar is now dying.

China won the trade war and Iran won the war of Hormuz.
The world has changed and US power is no longer omnipotent- it is in decline.
Zionist war criminals own the US Fed Res and most of its politicians. 

Neoliberalism has failed- it is a toxic illusion cultivated by rentseeking corporate parasites who have financialised everything but who produce almost nothing of any value.

It is the combined effort of private enterprise and the states strategic development of infrastructure, human capital, law and order and power projection that decides the wealth of nations.

China is rising - they learned the lessons of The Opium Wars also initiated by the EIC.

Solomonsatoshi

From semiconductors to artificial intelligence, modern proposals for public ownership risk repeating the mistakes Smith identified 250 years ago.

With 2026 marking the 250th anniversary of both the American Revolution and Adam Smith’s 

, it is worth remembering the role the East India Company played in both. It was the Company’s monopoly on legal tea imports to the colonies that helped spark the Boston Tea Party, and much of Book IV of Smith’s work is devoted to a devastating critique of the Company, particularly the perverse incentives created by its structure as a public-private hybrid.

This is not merely a historical curiosity in this semiquincentennial year. Today, public-private hybrid companies are a favored tool of industrial policy on both the nationalist right and the progressive left. Proponents argue that public ownership stakes in strategically important firms can harness private enterprise for public purposes. Whether it is the Trump administration’s equity stakes in firms such as Intel or Senator Sanders’s proposal for a public sovereign wealth fund to acquire 50 percent ownership of leading AI companies, the intent is the same. Yet Smith’s warnings about the East India Company should remind us that this arrangement is bad for commerce, bad for government, and bad for constitutional accountability.

Politics_And_Law

history

econ

> **From semiconductors to artificial intelligence, modern proposals for public ownership risk repeating the mistakes Smith identified 250 years ago.**
>
> With 2026 marking the 250th anniversary of both the American Revolution and Adam Smith’s *Wealth of Nations*, it is worth remembering the role the East India Company played in both. It was the Company’s monopoly on legal tea imports to the colonies that helped spark the Boston Tea Party, and much of Book IV of Smith’s work is devoted to a devastating critique of the Company, particularly the perverse incentives created by its structure as a public-private hybrid.
>
> This is not merely a historical curiosity in this semiquincentennial year. Today, public-private hybrid companies are a favored tool of industrial policy on both the nationalist right and the progressive left. Proponents argue that public ownership stakes in strategically important firms can harness private enterprise for public purposes. Whether it is the Trump administration’s equity stakes in firms such as Intel or Senator Sanders’s proposal for a public sovereign wealth fund to acquire 50 percent ownership of leading AI companies, the intent is the same. Yet Smith’s warnings about the East India Company should remind us that this arrangement is bad for commerce, bad for government, and bad for constitutional accountability.
>
> [**...read more at thedailyeconomy.org**](https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/america-doesnt-need-a-new-east-india-company/)