Uncle Sam shouldn't own Intel stock

Didn't we already cross this particular Rubicon during the auto bailout a decade ago?

Other examples:

> Since the 1950s, the federal government has stepped in as a backstop for railroads, farm credit, airlines (twice), automotive companies, savings and loan companies, banks, and farmers.

Every situation has its own idiosyncrasies, but in each, the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry, avoiding systemic collapse that surely would have left the average taxpayer much worse off. In some instances, the treasury guaranteed loans, meaning that creditors would not suffer if the relevant industry could not generate sufficient revenue to pay back the loans, leading to less onerous interest rates.

A second option was that the government would provide loans at relatively low interest rates to ensure that industries remained solvent.

In a third option, the United States Treasury would take an ownership stake in some of these companies in what amounts to an “at-the-market” offering, in which the companies involved issue more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

> the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry

They intervened to maintain the status quo. Industries are neither stable or unstable for a long period of time without external influences forcing that outcome. Short term turbulence is to be expected and is beneficial for the market as a whole.

They destroy markets and then lie to your face about it.

> industries remained solvent.

How does an _industry_ become insolvent? Only when it's nearly fully monopolized and when there is no difference between an industry and a single entity. This is where we are currently.

> more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

Couldn't they just offer those shares to _any investor at all_? Why is the government special here?

> https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

Of course. Chicago school thinking. It's infected our country for decades now. Certainly not to the benefit of it's citizens.

Could it be that Chicago school thinking has worked but greed & profiteering elsewhere have stolen benefits from the citizens?

Sounds a bit like all those no true Scotsman defenses of communism

- Communism is awesome!

- What about countries X, Y, and Z?

- Oh, that wasn't "real" communism!

I mean it really wasn't. Every time a country has tried communism it's fallen straight down the despotism rabbit hole or had the government taken over by officials who wanted a much bigger piece of the pie at the cost of the constituents if you catch my drift.

> Every time a country has tried communism

At what point do you decide that's an inevitable outcome, rather than an unfortunate unexpected outcome that happens every single time?

Once a country that isn’t already prone to dictatorships has tried it.

Can you list any such countries where a communist state would not result in oppression and dictatorship?

Chile once democratically elected a marxist to lead the country, and while not technically a member of the Communist Party himself, the Communist Party was part of his coalition. For all intents and purposes, I expect this meets what the previous commenter was talking about. It did not become a dictatorship during that time.

Ironically, it did become a dictatorship after the USA staged a military coup and overthrew said government, but anyway...