• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Financing should always be provided as a loan or as a share purchase (company does a secondary offering) this way the government gets the money back OR if the goal wasn’t too get it back, they have stakes in the company and can have some level of control over them to force them to do what the money was provided to do… And they can sell the shares when the project is completed!

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This is how funding for a lot of infrastructure projects around the country (US) works. Federal agencies dole out cash to their state counterparts, who then loan it out (usually with insanely good terms and often 0% interest and principal forgiveness. But fuck college students I guess) to municipalities to bid their infrastructure projects out to local contractors.

      There’s also usually strings attached like prevailing wage requirements, and requiring the use of American-made products where possible, so these contracts usually help boost the local economy in general. It varies by area, but prevailing wage can be very fucking high.

      It’s good stuff imo. It gets murkier when you start adding “public/private partnerships” and neolib shit like that.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Actually realising projects is very good for politicians because in the end what they want is to be elected and pleasing your electors is a very good way to get votes in your favor. As for lobbyists, the companies still get money to realize projects that will be profitable to them in the long run, sure it’s not the same as getting the money while not realizing the project but that’s an issue with the system itself (money should be refunding the project cost, not financing it).