201–210 of 765 posts
Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I haven’t dug into the numbers to know. Which option makes more money for the government (and therefore the taxpayer, sort of) - a profit sharing agreement, or a share of the company (which, as with all publicly traded companies, is a profit sharing agreement that sometimes happens through dividends, and sometimes happens through stock sales).
Who cares about the money recovery, the actual concern is about getting the production up and running. This doesn’t really address that in any capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a better rephrasing is "government is giving $8.9B from the CHIPS act in exchange for a 10% stake in the company"
Depends on who you ask. Trump himself seems to think the US is getting 10% for free. I think that's a fair assessment given that these grants were already supposed to be paid out to Intel, without any kind of equity stake promised. Worth noting that Intel is the only company that had these kinds of shenanigans pulled with their grant. Samsung, TSMC, Micron and others were granted similar funds without any kind of wit…
Win win for Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answer is in the paragraph in between the two you quoted from. The money for the purchase has already been appropriated by Congress and awarded to Intel. The awards didn't previously have this giant string attached where Intel gives stock in return. But now they do. And it makes sense that Intel is spinning it as a generous investment from the gov't, but the gov't is spinning it as a free gift from Intel. Neither…
Isn't that pretty bad, Darth Vader style changing of previously agreed on deals ? Not sure how anyone can believe anything that was agreed will hold in such an environment. :P
This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?
If you’re going to give taxpayer money to a for-profit company, taxpayers should receive a share of the company in return. I generally don’t like 90% of the policies we’ve got going on right now, but I actually feel okay about this one.
This is seductive logic but I think the opposite is true. The only time government should be giving money to a for-profit company is where a dividend in value is available that is not related to having a stake in the company.
Think about it this way: if the value transferred is fully realised as shares in the company then the government actually transferred nothing to the company. It was a pure commercial transaction and there is no obligation on the company to do anything different than it would have done commercially otherwise. Except the outcome is that the government is now entangled in private industry which is generally bad because it creates strong conflicts of interest in terms of policy and regulatory powers wielded by the government. All the dividend to taxpayers comes from the part that is not realised commercially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The CHIPS Act was the bailout; this is just replacing the previous profit sharing with equity.
In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…
I’m pretty sure that’s socialism