{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018595703751202307, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036870791920487335, 'mean_word_length': 5.327586206896552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public Private Trust Policy Explanation

A Public Private Trust originates through a variation of state capitalism where shares of stock from corporations are exchanged for state subsidies. However, unlike state capitalism the shares acquired through the exchange are relinquished by the state into private Individual Retirement Accounts of its citizens, through one time egalitarian distributions as collective ownership. The value of each citizen's fractional share is directly tied to the corporate title and to the portion of shares exchanged from the corporation. Individuals may sell or heir their fractional shares, although a deferred period may be required for their sale. A premise for the policy is that public ownership and state-owned enterprise are deemed formal communism, and all forms of bureaucratic collectivism are rejected - to its reduced category, and private collectivism is optioned for directions establishing individualism validated by informed consent contracts as required by libertarian ethos. An additional premise for the policy is to discourage corporate acquisition of state funds or, by consequence, establish long term vested interests in the private sector for the taxpayer, for the use of its tax dollars. Origin and Reason: The rational for the public private trust, in mixed economies or planned economies, is that state subsidies (grants) to corporations represent an unjust social system of special endowments, through taxpayer funds, which establish disproportionate and prejudicial benefits for the owners or principle share holders of private enterprise. Further, it is reasoned that special endowments are self serving to politicians and lead to crony capitalism and plutocracy, even as attention is redirected to delivery of jobs and tax revenue as justification. It is reasoned that egalitarianism and special endowments represent opposing social systems and an attempt is offered to dissuade and highlight the proposed unjust policies for corporate welfare through an application of the proposed unjust policies for social welfare. Economic Development: Advocates seek long term vested and national interests through a planned economy, through neomercantile policies, and through a technocratic analysis of production futures. Proponents propose the formation of a pharmaceutical manufacturing that is acquired in part or whole through a public private trust, which provides a staple of prescription medications, such as those for diabetes, and blood pressure, etc., which are out of patent and in common use. Proponents propose the formation of domestic manufacturing, to be acquired in part or whole through a public private trust, especially for alternative energies, such as wind turbines, tide generators, solar panels, fuel cells, or nuclear energy, including the deployment and residual income from energy production. Proponents contend that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which implemented the Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP" and was signed into law by George Bush on October 3, 2008.[147] after the Financial crisis of 2007–2010, would have more greatly served justice if banks were given an option of exchanging stock shares for cash infusions, that would have been transferred through a public private trust, or have been allowed to fail. Proponents contend that grant of public lands, without inclusion of the public private trust, undermines the principle and collective citizen ownership, panders to communism (common ownership) by bolstering the revenue and clout of government bureaucracies. Resource Terms: State Capitalism And Mixed Economy - State capitalism has various different meanings, but is usually described as a society wherein the productive forces that are controlled and directed by the state in a capitalist manner, even if such a society calls itself socialist.[1] Corporatized government agencies and states that own controlling shares of publicly-listed firms, thus acting as a capitalist itself, are two examples of state capitalism. State capitalism has also come to refer to an economic system where the means of production are privately-owned and the state exerts considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment. Common Ownership Versus Collective Ownership: In political philosophy, common ownership refers to joint or collective ownership by all individuals in society. Common ownership of the means of production is advocated, or asserted, by communism and some forms of socialism. Common ownership differs from collective ownership. The former means property open for access to anyone, and the latter means property owned jointly by agreement. Examples of collective ownership include modern forms of corporate ownership as well as producer cooperatives, which are in contrast to forms of common ownership, such as a public park available to everyone. Distributions Example: Public Private Trust - Restatements: The Public Private Trust plan proposes that infusions of tax moneys to corporations through public private partnerships is to occur through an exchange for shares of stock. Those shares of stock acquired are to be tied to the title of the corporation and, at the time of the exchange, a one time fractional distribution of shares to each tax payer is to occur. For example, suppose that 300 million dollars of tax payer moneys is invested into a corporation A by the government, assuming 300 million US citizens, each citizen would receive a fractional share of stock, via the Public Private Trust, worth a dollar that is proportionally tied to the stock value under title for corporation A. After a period of time, the shares of stock could be traded, sold, or transferred to heirs; that is unlike the complete loss of the six percent social security moneys by those who do not use them. The initial objective is to create a system where corporations are disinclined to accept infusions of cash from government, thus forcing a free market system; however, if that is not their choice, then the taxpayers would receive a greater long term interest through the use of tax funds. Such a system would balance the unfair social system of egalitarianism against that of special or selective endowments.