As a tax paying US citizen, I look forward to receiving my INTC.us dividend checks.
U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
571–580 of 765 posts
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#572Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…
The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#573Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that I agree with bail-outs, but 2008 financial crisis that resulted in a number of bail outs actually netted the treasury a profit. > In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the 2008 financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion,…
I don’t think that really counts if there has to be a giant campaign of quantitive easing by printing dollars alongside.
Was going to say, gotta check first how long that money was tied up for the profits to really mean anything. How well would that investment have done vs index funds or gold? Or what if you adjusted all dollars for supply?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#574Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, this ship sailed quite some time ago. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Senate rejected a proposed bailout of GM. But Bush approved it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320... > However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to "financial institutions" under Section…
What Trump is doing is pure extortion. Intel gives up equity, and in exchange, Trump maybe doesn't use the massive power of the state to claw back billions of dollars that were legally awarded to Intel, and Trump stops pressuring Intel to fire their CEO (note how he now calls the CEO "highly respected"). The comparison to the GM bailout makes no sense. GM got something that it needed from the bailout. Here, all Intel…
I’m not a “well actually” guy, I’m a constitutional fundamentalist. It’s definitionally not extortion to threaten to do something you have a legal right to do. The CHIPs Act gave the executive a bunch of money for making discretionary grants. And that means the President has a bunch of money to make discretionary grants.
Also, why should we give companies money without getting equity?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#575Genuine 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?
Most of the answers are going to be national security. That is the reason used by third world countries to nationalise companies.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#576Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…
> is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. What do you think about Senator Bernie Sanders backing Trump plan for government stake in Intel? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-berni...
It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies. Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#577Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…
The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.
Intel may well have wanted to donate some ownership more than it wanted 10 billion dollars. They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#578Shakedown list: Nvidia 15% of revenue AMD 15% of revenue Intel 10% of capital Who else is next?
With time military companies need to pay their allegiance money so that they can break sanctions and oh national security. Some will approve because of the same reasons as Nvidia deal, who leaves that money on the table?
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#579Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…
Unfortunately, this ship sailed quite some time ago. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Senate rejected a proposed bailout of GM. But Bush approved it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320... > However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to "financial institutions" under Section…
>Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches
I feel we're headed for a No True Scotsman fallacy. The Trump Regime and Roberts court endorse the unitary executive theory, and they are happily overriding Article 1 powers and violating laws like the Administrative Procedures Act based on this theory's farcical and ahistorical logic.
If the theory wasn't giving him more power (like firing non-political appointees without cause or withholding funds appropriated by Congress) he wouldn't be using it.
Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
#580In 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".
I don't even think thats a joke. Trump doesn't dislike cancel culture, he just wants to be the one doing the canceling. And credit scores? You are already half way there with the way the government is acting.