←back to thread

607 points givemeethekeys | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jjcm ◴[] 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 #
ch4s3 ◴[] No.44991032[source]
I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.
replies(7): >>44991093 #>>44991108 #>>44991331 #>>44991669 #>>44995067 #>>44996633 #>>45000367 #
bongodongobob ◴[] No.44991669[source]
Well as much as you don't like it, companies this big failing is terrible for the economy and in this case, national security to a degree. I'm of the thinking that when your company gets to a certain size we'd be well off nationalizing. Apple has more money than some nation states. Something that huge has the potential to affect global politics. There's lots of other reasons too, but this isn't like letting the corner store fail. The repercussions are huge. If we're going to bail out, the people should own some of it.
replies(6): >>44991720 #>>44992071 #>>44992203 #>>44993358 #>>44993612 #>>44993939 #
UncleOxidant ◴[] No.44992071[source]
> 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.

replies(3): >>44992089 #>>44992218 #>>44992319 #
bongodongobob ◴[] No.44992089[source]
I'd rather the citizens control the companies than the other way around.
replies(1): >>44992240 #
fach ◴[] No.44992240[source]
Branding nationalizing companies as “citizens control” is quite the spin. Chinese citizens surely own the means of production, right?
replies(2): >>44992309 #>>44992722 #
bongodongobob ◴[] No.44992309[source]
Nationalizing a company isn't communism and isn't intended to resemble it.
replies(2): >>44992444 #>>44994476 #
1. sanex ◴[] No.44992444[source]
How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?
replies(1): >>44994558 #
2. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.44994558[source]
What would common or collective control mean? If everyone held "control" in common, it wouldn't be possible to do anything.

It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.

How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?

replies(1): >>44995421 #
3. sanex ◴[] No.44995421[source]
1. A central government taking ownership of a company in lieu of everyone owning a share. 2. It is.