This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?
U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
51–60 of 765 posts
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haven’t you read Curtis Yarvin’s vision for America? Our leaders, VCs, and owners have
I don't care how nihilist or kafkaesque you want to take the conversation - the math won't check out. You can't sustain a third-sector economy on second-sector jobs while importing first-sector goods. The entire financial system in America won't survive that sort of transition, it would be the Great Leap Forward of the 21st century.
One of the things about the Great Leap Forward is that it happened. Just because a path of action will obviously lead to mass death and suffering while accomplishing nothing doesn't mean it won't be taken.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#53Forgive me...how is this different than taxes? And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?
This is a bailout; it's the opposite of taxes.
Isn't it the opposite of a bailout, given that the US gov't is seizing an ownership stake retroactively based on past grants/bailouts but giving no new money at this time?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#54Atlas Shrugged ...
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#55> Intel said that the U.S. government won’t have a board seat or other governance rights. What rights does this refer to? Normal shareholder voting rights or something else?
[deleted]
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#56Seizing the means of production!
Well, the current administration and the National Socialists do have some things in common.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#57Intel as a store of value?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#58Forgive me...how is this different than taxes? And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?
This is a bailout; it's the opposite of taxes.
Most of the money has already been given:
> The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.
So it kinda is something weird? It's not really a pure bail out, the Chips act already did that, and it's also not really a tax because they aren't going to get money out unless there's dividends. It's more like a power play which makes sense given that Trump is uncomfortable without anyone getting anything for nothing.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#59> 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?
I think a better rephrasing is "government is giving $8.9B from the CHIPS act in exchange for a 10% stake in the company"
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#60Genuine 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 is missing is that Intel has US based foundries and US based talent.