←back to thread

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

(www.cnbc.com)
607 points givemeethekeys | 4 comments | 22 Aug 25 21:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bilsbie ◴[22 Aug 25 21:45 UTC] No.44990232[source]▶
This sounds bad. Can someone steelman this for me so I can understand the good?
replies(2): >>44990360 #>>44990526 #
edot ◴[22 Aug 25 21:58 UTC] No.44990360[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>44990484 #>>44990558 #>>44990761 #>>44991120 #
righthand ◴[22 Aug 25 22:18 UTC] No.44990558[source]▶
This is ignoring the original agreement of profit-sharing with the government as was in Biden’s original plan. Feeling “okay” or not “okay” is irrelevant until we know how well Intel does in the next decade and calculate the cost against the profit sharing agreement.
replies(1): >>44990623 #
1. edot ◴[22 Aug 25 22:24 UTC] No.44990623[source]▶
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).
replies(1): >>44990675 #
2. righthand ◴[22 Aug 25 22:29 UTC] No.44990675[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>44990752 #
3. edot ◴[22 Aug 25 22:36 UTC] No.44990752[source]▶
True. I’d probably prefer to see the money go to a better performing company, but since there are like, 2 companies in the US that actually make semiconductors, there isn’t much other than starting a whole new company. Which, for $10B isn’t possible in this industry. So if the money is going to go to Intel, I at least want a cut of it, is my point.
replies(1): >>44990888 #
4. righthand ◴[22 Aug 25 22:51 UTC] No.44990888{3}[source]▶
We already got a “cut of it”. This is just redefining the “cut” we get is my point. Either way though you probably won’t ever hear the results of the cut. To get value from this cut the government would have to sell shares worth much more than they are now. You said something about a better company?