121–130 of 765 posts
Number 6934 on my list of "every accusation is just projection".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting stock in exchange of grants makes more sense than "pure" grants. This stock can later be sold, to benefit the taxpayer.
that's not a grant. That's just buying stocks.
> 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?
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…
Everyone saves face.
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.
Genuine 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?
This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?
i remember when this happened during an actual crisis, in 2008, republicans all over cried on the radio day after day, arguing that it's socialiasm. But now, crickets!!
Exactly! I know there's a lot of Trumpers/MAGAs on HN, so I'm sincerely asking them: How is this not the evil thing you guys constantly lecture us about (socialism!)?
As far as I understand, all Trump did was alter Biden admin’s original plan. Trump swapped a 10% stake in Intel for Biden’s profit sharing for participating in the grants[0] (anyone who participates in the CHIPS Act gets this deal currently, I guess Intel is renegotiating). Not necessarily better or worse because Intel is a long ways away from any sort of gain that would make a difference.
If you feel conflicted to think this is a good or bad move, you’re right where Trump wants you. Sit down and do the napkin math, you may find the deal irrelevant or numbers similar. In the end we won’t know for a decade the result. The move is meaningless financially but generates headlines and doesn’t do anything to advance the actual foundries.
It’s almost distracting…
[0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits“ >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...