←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
dismalaf ◴[24 Aug 25 22:32 UTC] No.45008413[source]▶
So should the government give bailouts without getting any equity back? Only deal in loans?

Intel is strategically important. As nice as it is to pretend that the whole world plays by the same rules, that the free market exists everywhere and that we'll never to to war, there are bad actors and the US (rest of the collective West as well) need to ensure that we won't be completely crippled if China attacks a single island off their coast...

replies(2): >>45008442 #>>45010864 #
justonceokay ◴[24 Aug 25 22:36 UTC] No.45008442[source]▶
Is there a difference between this and nationalization? Just a matter of degree?
replies(1): >>45008455 #
dismalaf ◴[24 Aug 25 22:39 UTC] No.45008455[source]▶
> Just a matter of degree?

That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything.

replies(2): >>45008711 #>>45008757 #
Starman_Jones ◴[24 Aug 25 23:30 UTC] No.45008757[source]▶
What are the shareholders getting out of this?
replies(3): >>45008823 #>>45010482 #>>45010792 #
1. dismalaf ◴[24 Aug 25 23:42 UTC] No.45008823[source]▶
Maybe their shares get bought, in this case it looks like Intel might have simply issued the shares. In this case, shareholders have equity in a company that just had $10 billion added to the balance sheet and which the government signalled can't fail. INTC was up over 5% on Friday, obviously shareholders think the government investment is good for them.

Versus in most nationalisation events their shares simply get taken away or diluted to pennies.