←back to thread

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

(www.cnbc.com)
607 points givemeethekeys | 3 comments | 22 Aug 25 21:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
sobiolite ◴[22 Aug 25 22:04 UTC] No.44990406[source]▶
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.
replies(17): >>44990466 #>>44990520 #>>44990577 #>>44990583 #>>44990607 #>>44990635 #>>44990691 #>>44990693 #>>44990751 #>>44990790 #>>44990824 #>>44990858 #>>44990887 #>>44990957 #>>44990968 #>>44991017 #>>44991421 #
robotnikman ◴[22 Aug 25 22:23 UTC] No.44990607[source]▶
It somewhat makes sense in terms of industries which are deemed strategically important. Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits.
replies(6): >>44990708 #>>44990718 #>>44990726 #>>44990730 #>>44990961 #>>44991340 #
1. JackYoustra ◴[22 Aug 25 22:59 UTC] No.44990961[source]▶
if someone believes this, they should buy intel and just do it outright! But no one does because it's not as easy as "just think long term" - if it were, berkshire has the liquid money to buy intel several times over.
replies(1): >>44991202 #
2. Nevermark ◴[22 Aug 25 23:27 UTC] No.44991202[source]▶
A large new powerful shareholder come in supporting long term thinking does make a difference.

Public shareholders are generally short term motivated.

One clear reason it doesn't make as much sense to Buffet is he wouldn't get the national security hedge that made the stock a buy for the government.

replies(1): >>45002738 #
3. Paradigma11 ◴[24 Aug 25 09:22 UTC] No.45002738[source]▶
I wouldn't call those two years till the next elections long term.