Not great when these operations are carried out by the executive branch imho.
Too politicized, too corruption prone, too volatile, too personal. Questionable benefits for taxpayers, on taxpayers money. This isn't a videogame.
In general, I really dislike how much budget and power the executive in US has, it's scary, and unstable. One president sets some goals, then the following one undoes everything.
But that's a flaw of presidential republics in general, not US in particular. Kinda prefer systems like the British, German or Italian one, sure, governments last less, but you're one vote of confidence away from having to resign. Whereas this personification of power in a single person like in US/Russia/Hungary/etc without having to depend on votes and coalitions is a danger for democracy.
We need to dramatically shrink the power of the federal government as it is too far from most of us to be accountable. Move the spending and power to cities and counties. Then we get diversity of ideas as well and can see what works and doesn't been jurisdictions.
From the article, if you want to be able to build rockets, planes and jets to defend your country and freedom... I'd say yes, the public will benefit from it. It appears this wealth fund is mainly protecting our interests in rare earths and critical minerals.
This is only true to the extent that it effectively accomplishes those goals. For example, taking a stake in Intel isn't categorically unacceptable but it's only a good use of taxpayer funds if it actually changes something positively for the company.
In this case, the question is going to be whether restarting tungsten production in Kazakhstan is a net defense win for the United States compared to investing in other countries like Canada, Australia, Bolivia, Spain, etc. or restarting mining in the United States. If it takes a while for that production to come online, or if China can disrupt something which is inside their sphere of influence, this deal doesn't help us nearly as much as it helps Cove Capital's investors.
Once the word 'freedom' is used in an article, I automatically default to the assumption it's propaganda that might sound ok to good. But really, it's against my interests.
Too politicized, too corruption prone, too volatile, too personal. Questionable benefits for taxpayers, on taxpayers money. This isn't a videogame.
In general, I really dislike how much budget and power the executive in US has, it's scary, and unstable. One president sets some goals, then the following one undoes everything.
But that's a flaw of presidential republics in general, not US in particular. Kinda prefer systems like the British, German or Italian one, sure, governments last less, but you're one vote of confidence away from having to resign. Whereas this personification of power in a single person like in US/Russia/Hungary/etc without having to depend on votes and coalitions is a danger for democracy.