←back to thread

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

(www.cnbc.com)
607 points givemeethekeys | 1 comments | 22 Aug 25 21:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
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 #
colmmacc ◴[23 Aug 25 00:02 UTC] No.44991514[source]▶
It's not otherwise related to all this but a real bug bear of mine is that municipalities don't get part ownership - along with controlling rights for matters like sales or relocations - of sports teams when we subsidize their stadiums through taxes.
replies(1): >>44993980 #
foxglacier ◴[23 Aug 25 07:14 UTC] No.44993980[source]▶
The municipalities could negotiate for those rights when they agree to pay for the stadium. It's on them if they risk it.
replies(1): >>44996754 #
colmmacc ◴[23 Aug 25 15:40 UTC] No.44996754[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45000168 #
1. foxglacier ◴[24 Aug 25 00:16 UTC] No.45000168[source]▶
No collective action is needed. They can just refuse to fund the stadium if they can't get a good deal for themselves on it. But maybe the people living there really want the stadium despite the risks, so in that case it's fine. They're getting what they want.