Seizing the means of production!
Da, Comrade!
U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
41–50 of 765 posts
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#42I despite/abhor this administration and their politics, but this is a good move.
There should be more privatization where national interests are involved.
Instead of the ACA for example,the government could have taken a 51% stake in health insurers (forget subsidizing them, own them!) and we the voters would elect politicians to oversee health insurance instead of hoping and trusting CEOs.
So many problems are caused by companies chasing short-term shareholder satisfaction. If the government is a significant shareholder, then guess who they'll try to make happy?
The sheer threat of the government buying a controlling interest and running your company might make some companies behave in the interests of the public more. Especially, if the government is also engaging in policy to harm the company's revenue before buying stakes in it.
I'm not saying the US should be a full-on communist or socialist economy, nothing like that. This is capitalism. We the people get to use or tax dollars to our benefit. Think about it, the US sells bonds right? what if it paid for them by investing in company stocks and derivatives? that's revenue right?
The whole pearl-clutching over ideological extremes doesn't serve the public or the economy's interest.
Some privatization is good, none is great if everyone was decent and honorable. but in this society, moderate privatization where there is potential benefit to the public and national security makes sense.
Companies with government investment should also be prohibited from making political donations, so any company that is trying to sway elections faces the threat of the next administration buying stakes in them to prevent that behavior.
This could be the missing 5th estate that can make democracy last.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#43How an anti communist govt slowly is adapting communistic ideas !!
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#44> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company
> The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars
I don't understand. Can somebody explain to me how the government made an investement, bought shares, but paid nothing?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#45Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
[deleted]
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#46Discussion from yesterday about Intel's and Trump's woes
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#47> "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars,” President Trump wrote" This wasn't any sort of investment, it was blackmail. No corporation in the country would voluntarily give up 10% of the company to the federal government - for free - unless overtly threatened. The Trump administration is hoping that by exerting control over Intel, it can be…
Arguably the alternative was the government just... not giving them the CHIPS Act money. (And there's certainly a point to be made that Trump altering the deal is... problematic.) But I will say, I find the concept that when we invest public dollars in a private company, the public retains a stake appealing. I think about the strategic oil reserve, and how the government actually can make money by buying and selling…
We haven't invested any public dollars into Intel, we just took 10% of it.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#48Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
I don't expect a good reason given the history of this Administration, but a reason in my mind to save Intel is there's only 3 license holders for x86 CPUs. Intel, AMD (American), and VIA (Taiwanese). A dead Intel leaves a single American company that is able to make x86 processors, and a monopoly for actually good x86 CPUs. But somehow I suspect there's no logical reason for this besides lining the pockets of those…
What about Hygon?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#49I’m pretty sure that’s socialism
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#50Why is this a surprise?
Who do you expect to design and make chips for national security-level programs in the future wars when Taiwan is a deep crater?
Every serious nation state has an arch design house and a fab. It need not be cutting edge (most militry stuff is a few gens old), but it needs to exist. Russia has Elbrus. China has Looonsoon and SMIC. Europe has ARM but is a bit behind here fab-wise. However, STMicro does have fabs in europe.
This is just securing access and control of national-security level resources.