According to TechCrunch, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla proposed at the TechCrunch Disrupt 2025 conference that the U.S. government should take a 10% stake in all public corporations and redistribute that corporate wealth to the public. The Khosla Ventures founder said the idea was inspired by President Donald Trump’s decision for the government to purchase a 10% stake in Intel, suggesting this model could be expanded to all public companies. Khosla acknowledged the controversial nature of his proposal but argued that extreme measures are necessary to maintain social cohesion through the disruption of artificial general intelligence, predicting a “hugely deflationary economy” by 2035 that will displace many current jobs. This represents one of the most explicit endorsements by a prominent investor of government intervention in private industry to address AI’s economic impacts.
Table of Contents
The Intel Precedent and Economic History
Khosla’s proposal builds on the controversial government stake in Intel, which itself represents a significant departure from traditional U.S. economic policy. Historically, the U.S. federal government has taken equity positions primarily during financial crises or for national security purposes, such as the 2008 bank bailouts or strategic investments in critical industries. What makes Khosla’s vision radical isn’t just the scale—applying a 10% stake across all public companies—but the preventative rather than reactive nature of the intervention. He’s proposing this before the full economic disruption of AGI materializes, positioning it as a forward-looking wealth redistribution mechanism rather than a crisis response.
The Implementation Challenge
The practical implementation of such a proposal would face monumental hurdles. Valuing and administering stakes in thousands of public companies would require an unprecedented government infrastructure. More fundamentally, the mechanism for redistribution raises complex questions—would citizens receive direct dividend payments, would the funds support social programs, or would it fund a universal basic income system? The proposal also doesn’t address how this would affect corporate governance, shareholder rights, or market dynamics. Government representatives sitting on corporate boards could fundamentally alter how companies make strategic decisions, potentially creating conflicts between profit motives and public policy objectives.
Why a Venture Capitalist Would Propose This
What’s particularly striking is that this proposal comes from Vinod Khosla, a successful venture capitalist who has built his career on free-market principles. His position suggests that even those who have benefited most from capitalism recognize that AGI may require rethinking fundamental economic structures. From an investor perspective, Khosla may see this as necessary to maintain political stability—if AI creates extreme wealth concentration, it could lead to social unrest that ultimately threatens all economic activity, including venture returns. His comments about job displacement in fields like assembly work and farming indicate he sees some economic transitions as inevitable rather than preventable.
The Growing Consensus on AI Economic Impacts
Khosla’s proposal reflects a growing recognition among technology leaders that AI’s economic impacts require structural solutions. While many have discussed UBI or retraining programs, the government equity stake approach represents a more fundamental rethinking of ownership in an AI-driven economy. The key insight is that if AI systems can perform most economic functions, traditional labor-based income distribution mechanisms may become obsolete. Rather than taxing income or transactions, capturing value at the ownership level through equity stakes could become a more efficient redistribution method in an economy where human labor represents a shrinking portion of value creation.
The Political Viability Question
Despite the economic logic, the political challenges are staggering. The proposal would face opposition from across the political spectrum—from free-market conservatives who would view it as socialism to progressives who might prefer traditional tax-and-spend approaches. The implementation would require legislation that seems improbable in today’s polarized environment. However, Khosla’s timing is strategic—by proposing this before AGI becomes reality, he’s starting a conversation that may evolve over the coming decade as AI’s economic impacts become more apparent and public demand for solutions grows.
Other Models for AI Wealth Distribution
Khosla’s proposal represents just one potential approach to managing AI’s economic disruption. Other models include sovereign wealth funds funded by AI-specific taxes, mandatory employee ownership programs in AI companies, or creating new forms of digital assets that represent claims on AI-generated value. Each approach has different implications for efficiency, fairness, and economic growth. What’s clear is that as AI capabilities advance, the conversation about how to distribute its benefits will only intensify, moving from academic discussions to mainstream policy debates.
