711–720 of 765 posts
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 fut…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that argument makes sense from a purely philosophical perspective, it doesn’t hold water in the reality of this situation. Nobody is entering the chip making business and growing to a size and scale to compete with Intel in 2025. If they collapse tomorrow there aren’t going to be startups filling in the gaps, there’s just going to be massive shortages of chips and chaos.
You are saying that if intel went under, Musk or some other wouldn’t buy the assets and have a go?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple has more money than some nation states. And Apple needs their chips fabbed, so why not have Apple invest $50B into Intel? Nvidia could afford to chip in too. These companies that face a huge amount of geopolitical risk because they've put all of their eggs in the TSMC basket should have to pay for this not US taxpayers.
You’re proposing that the United States government force Apple to invest in Intel? Apple chose a different supplier than Intel; at this point it’s hard to consider Intel a competitor to TSMC but let’s pretend they are. You have proposed a “free market” system in which if you choose the wrong competitor you can be forced to bail out the chosen one. The economics of that don’t work at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
This may be true in the economic sense. But “depression” is as much a political sensation as it is a technically defined economic term. We happen to live in an era where economics for the public is profoundly politicized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If (or when) China invades Taiwan we will be better off than Taiwan but I wouldn't call us "OK" at that point. That will be a major disruption. It will take decades for the US to get where Taiwan is now in semiconductor manufacturing, if ever. It's not just about building the most advanced chip factory. It's about re-aligning the entire nation's value system and culture to allow such development to happen in the firs…
> It's about re-aligning the entire nation's value system and culture to allow such development to happen in the first place. It's taken about 8 years to realign the US from a democracy to a fascist regime, something that was nearly unthinkable. This isn't a hard problem with the right propaganda and manipulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which w…
> Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness And people wonder why populism came back. Huge transfers of wealth aren't about 'fairness', its about preventing greater economic problems that the people who received the bailout say will happen if they don't get bailed out. At the end of the day, this line of thought is going to fuck over the country far more than any depression would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The municipalities could negotiate for those rights when they agree to pay for the stadium. It's on them if they risk it.
Organizations such as the NFL forbid it, only the Green Bay Packers are grandfathered in as an exception. Owners are encouraged to threaten moves. Collective action is needed to undo the race to the bottom.
Good. It's very much a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" situation. If Taiwan's NDF has ownership share in TSMC and UMC, China's CICIIF in SMIC, Japan's Master Trust in a majority of enterprises, and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala in GlobalFoundries, then we should as well. The recent (50ish years) aversion to Industrial Policy in America has been pigheaded and ideological to a certain extent.…
What if the government demands they start paying dividends?
I should probably do the math, but excuse is I'm a VC - it just doesn't make sense from a long term perspective as I pitch to LPs about my thesis.
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…