Most active commenters
  • (3)

←back to thread

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

(www.cnbc.com)
607 points givemeethekeys | 12 comments | 22 Aug 25 21:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
jjcm ◴[22 Aug 25 22:36 UTC] No.44990743[source]▶
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 investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

replies(25): >>44990768 #>>44990991 #>>44991008 #>>44991032 #>>44991056 #>>44991094 #>>44991125 #>>44991135 #>>44991142 #>>44991149 #>>44991156 #>>44991177 #>>44991295 #>>44991514 #>>44991586 #>>44991729 #>>44992050 #>>44992377 #>>44992551 #>>44992788 #>>44993446 #>>44993951 #>>44993969 #>>45000356 #>>45063597 #
sergiomattei ◴[22 Aug 25 23:03 UTC] No.44990991[source]▶
What bothers me is the double standard.

When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”.

When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.

replies(3): >>44991067 #>>44991182 #>>44991227 #
1. foxglacier ◴[22 Aug 25 23:24 UTC] No.44991182[source]▶
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 won't really matter if there's no money to fund them or the country has been taken over by some hostile enemy.
replies(4): >>44991258 #>>44991402 #>>44991419 #>>44991668 #
2. iammrpayments ◴[22 Aug 25 23:34 UTC] No.44991258[source]▶
Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
replies(4): >>44991360 #>>44991373 #>>44991398 #>>44993788 #
3. ◴[22 Aug 25 23:47 UTC] No.44991360[source]▶
4. ◴[22 Aug 25 23:48 UTC] No.44991373[source]▶
5. s1artibartfast ◴[22 Aug 25 23:50 UTC] No.44991398[source]▶
Not a serious problem in the same sense that a military conflict would be. Different categories and different concerns.
6. bcrosby95 ◴[22 Aug 25 23:51 UTC] No.44991402[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>45000151 #
7. ◴[22 Aug 25 23:52 UTC] No.44991419[source]▶
8. chiefalchemist ◴[23 Aug 25 00:23 UTC] No.44991668[source]▶
That’s fine. But when the gov is picking winners and losers, that not a free market. What it is, it is. But it’s not a free market based system.
9. AuryGlenz ◴[23 Aug 25 06:37 UTC] No.44993788[source]▶
The US is not “collapsing” and we have plenty of social services.

Our lifespan is lower because we’re fat.

replies(2): >>44994162 #>>44997662 #
10. disgruntledphd2 ◴[23 Aug 25 07:53 UTC] No.44994162{3}[source]▶
And because of gun violence.
11. badpun ◴[23 Aug 25 17:41 UTC] No.44997662{3}[source]▶
Isn't that because of deaths of despair, namely by drugs? Why are there so many desperate people in the US if the country is doing ok?
12. foxglacier ◴[24 Aug 25 00:12 UTC] No.45000151[source]▶
It's the same line of thought that says countries should subsidize local agriculture. The alternative would be greater specialization in food production and greater risks if those specialized countries fail to provide for their dependants. No doubt there's some influence of farmers trying to get wealth transferred to themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't also benefit the rest of the population.