About OpenAI's proposal to donate 5% of its shares to the U.S. government—Sam Altman actually proposed a similar idea back in his 2021 blog post, 'Moore’s Law for Everything': https://moores.(samaltman.com)/ He introduced a concept: Capitalism for Everyone. A lot of people think he’s talking about UBI (Universal Basic Income), but that’s not it at all. Altman’s (2021) perspective was this: In the future, AI will keep boosting productivity, but the ones who truly benefit won’t be workers—it’ll be those who own AI, data, land, and corporate equity. In other words, labor will get cheaper, while capital becomes more valuable. If AI ends up doing most of the work, GDP might keep growing, and corporate profits could hit record highs, but regular wages might not grow at the same pace. For people who rely solely on wages, it could become harder and harder to share in the benefits of economic growth. His solution isn’t to raise wages or endlessly expand welfare programs—it’s to make sure everyone becomes a capital owner. Specifically, he suggested creating an American Equity Fund. Large corporations would transfer a small percentage of their equity (e.g., 2.5%) to the fund each year, and landowners would contribute a portion of their land value. The fund would hold these assets long-term, rather than selling them off. As AI companies continue generating profits, the fund would earn dividends and see asset appreciation, then distribute the returns equally to all adults. This means the money you receive wouldn’t be printed by the government—it would come from the capital returns of assets you own. So, this is fundamentally different from UBI: - UBI: The government directly hands out money through taxes or fiscal spending. - Capitalism for Everyone: The government helps everyone own capital, which generates income over time. Altman argues this isn’t socialism—it’s about getting more people involved in capitalism. Companies would still operate in a market-driven, competitive environment, but now everyone would be a partial shareholder. This idea isn’t just pulled out of thin air—it can be seen as a combination of the Alaska Permanent Fund, Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, and Henry George’s land value tax philosophy, but expanded to include the wealth created in the AI era. In my opinion, the most thought-provoking part of this article isn’t the specific tax rates—it’s the fundamental question it raises: If AI ends up creating the majority of wealth in the future, and humans rely less and less on labor, then how should ordinary people participate in wealth distribution?