Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 765 posts

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#301

Post by JustExAWS »

cuttothechase wrote: post #18

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?

What other US based chip manufacturers are there?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#302

Post by renewiltord »

jjcm wrote: post #199

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…

In the end, it turns out that people didn't dislike Chinese policies of nationalized industries. They only disliked that the Chinese were doing it.

I can't wait for the "I don't think social credit scores are a bad idea. Cancel culture is good actually".

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#303

Post by loeg »

BeetleB wrote: post #229
loeg wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just buying stocks (at-the-market offering).

Nope. When I buy stocks at market price, the company gets none of my money. When the company issues new stocks and sells them, the company gets the money.

I think you're maybe unfamiliar with what an ATM offering is; try googling it.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#304

Post by treyd »

jjcm wrote: post #199

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…

If a company has truly become too big to fail that it makes sense for the federal government to bail them out, then why are we even leaving the welfare of the company up to private industry in the first place? It's just asking for ways to siphon taxpayer money out of the government through their willingness to buy shares. It inflates the stock price because it shows that the government might buy more share in the future at market rate. Its operations should be required to be more transparency, since if they're large enough that their failure would dramatically impact the welfare of the whole country, their operations should be subject to more direct democratic will (at least, more direct than the many steps removed from what is happening to Intel).

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#305

Post by bink »

signatoremo wrote: post #268
sobiolite wrote: post #91

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.

You need to study history. US government is no stranger in getting stakes in businesses. Did you already forget the Great Depression? https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/governmen...

We aren't anywhere close to being in a depression though. What extraordinary situation requires the government to take a stake in a public company and under what conditions will this position be liquidated?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#306

Post by charliea0 »

jjcm wrote: post #199

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 think punishing interest rates are better than an equity stake. As Intel's rally shows, having the government as your equity holder is actually amazing for investors.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#307

Post by JustExAWS »

jongjong wrote: post #105
kragen wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all three of those other companies are also getting CHIPS-act subsidies?

I suppose it could be worse. Still, now the US has a vested interest in seeing Intel crush AMD and others.

AMD is not a chip manufacturer and what “others”?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#308

Post by tomhow »

yieldcrv wrote: post #154

[flagged]

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44990485 and marked it off topic.

Post reply on HN