←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: 0.243s | source
Show context
dijit ◴[25 Aug 25 05:15 UTC] No.45010451[source]▶
What's the old saying?

It's capitalism when you're winning, and socialism if you're losing.

Or: "Privatised profits, socialised losses".

I understand why in this case, Intel is very much in bed with the US Government and likely makes a strong case for being a national security interest, but it feels icky.. especially as AMD is an American company too.

If the issue is the node fabrication then why wasn't their an investment in Fabs before now? Intel got its big start on government grants iirc.

replies(2): >>45010701 #>>45013179 #
jimt1234 ◴[25 Aug 25 06:02 UTC] No.45010701[source]▶
> If capitalism is so great, then why does it need to be rescued by socialism every ten years?

Not sure where I read that (I think it was some dude's Tweet), but it seems relevant here.

replies(4): >>45011944 #>>45012896 #>>45012952 #>>45013163 #
runeks ◴[25 Aug 25 11:58 UTC] No.45012896[source]▶
So the logic here is that if I take a strawberry cake and sprinkle some chocolate on it then that's proof that a chocolate cake is better than a strawberry cake?
replies(2): >>45015643 #>>45027032 #
1. gilbetron ◴[26 Aug 25 14:28 UTC] No.45027032[source]▶
No, it's proof that chocolate can be a tasty addition.

Left: Capitalism isn't always perfect, sometimes social policies make a better society.

Right: Capitalism is always perfect, socialism is evil even in the smallest amounts.