←back to thread

Uncle Sam shouldn't own Intel stock

(www.wsj.com)
335 points aspenmayer | 1 comments | 24 Aug 25 21:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
daft_pink ◴[24 Aug 25 22:10 UTC] No.45008251[source]▶
I would agree with your approach if we were simply discussing whether the government should fund intel, but we’ve already committed to funding intel via the government. Pulling back would hurt intel and our interests. Now that intel has become reliant on our promised funding, it makes sense to attach conditions to the funding we need to do instead of just handing it out while getting nothing in return.
replies(3): >>45008368 #>>45008374 #>>45008423 #
righthand ◴[24 Aug 25 22:34 UTC] No.45008423[source]▶
This is misunderstanding what really happened. The oroginal agreement with the CHIPS act is that if your company is profitable post expansion funding then you will profit share with the federal government. Trump changed that original agreement to one of stock ownership. Now the federal government can reneg the deal by selling back for their money any time. Arguably more dangerous than profit sharing.

It was never a nothing-in-return agreement, that is fiction.[0]

[0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits” >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...

replies(1): >>45008648 #
1. godelski ◴[24 Aug 25 23:09 UTC] No.45008648[source]▶

  > if your company is profitable post expansion funding then you will profit share with the federal government.
Not to mention... taxes...

I mean I agree with you but even that article is talking about how it's not a free handout. It never could have been. A government could hand out money unconditionally and they'd still get a return as long as taxes exist. Intel's (or any company's) success results in them paying more taxes. Not just corporate taxes either.