Bernie Sanders backs Trump’s plan to buy stake in Intel
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
People write off Trump on a lot of things and have a visceral reaction to pretty much everything he says because that hole is rotten. In this case I'm agreed - the American people are giving these companies boatloads of money, we might as well get a return. Why is it always socialize the losses but privatize the profits?
Upvote
276
(327
/
-51)
Upvote
131
(140
/
-9)
Upvote
374
(382
/
-8)
If this were any other admin, yes. Even Bush II.
In this case, no. There's no upside, and it's not like Trump and his cronies won't run this the way Sanders might hope.
In this case, no. There's no upside, and it's not like Trump and his cronies won't run this the way Sanders might hope.
Upvote
104
(136
/
-32)
As I heard it explained on NPR, the alternative is that we (the taxpayers) simply gave Intel and other chip makers $8B under the CHIPS Act, and that receiving equity instead is a better outcome.
Personally I'm not a fan of this sort of thing in general, but I prefer this to the alternative.
Personally I'm not a fan of this sort of thing in general, but I prefer this to the alternative.
Upvote
54
(82
/
-28)
I remember the old days -- a year ago -- when this would be denounced as communism. What's happened to the voices screeching about the Free Market?
Upvote
227
(233
/
-6)
Bernie is wrong and so is Trump. Before, under CHIPS, money granted had to go to fund capital expenditures. Effectively it had to be used building clean rooms or buying tooling for deployment in the US. Now, the money is going to go for share buybacks and bonuses for Executives and the board.
In principle, I think buying equity and companies instead of giving the money is great. But by giving Intel money to buy semiconductor tooling, you ensure that either Intel would use the acquired equipment for semiconductor manufacturing, or there would be a supply of cheap tooling in the US if Intel failed - so either way, the money goes to support semiconductor production in the US.
Now, no tooling will be purchased, and Intel will not spin off the fabs which is the only viable way for leading edge node production to continue operating in the United States, and the price of semiconductors will rise as a result. Basically this money is being spent to fund a price increase for all semiconductors. I’m really disappointed Bernie is too stupid to see that.
This is a price support for Intel’s crappy products, because Intel’s board has utterly failed to respond to the market dynamics. Trump is an idiot. Anyone who supports this is actively trying to harm the US semiconductor industry.
In principle, I think buying equity and companies instead of giving the money is great. But by giving Intel money to buy semiconductor tooling, you ensure that either Intel would use the acquired equipment for semiconductor manufacturing, or there would be a supply of cheap tooling in the US if Intel failed - so either way, the money goes to support semiconductor production in the US.
Now, no tooling will be purchased, and Intel will not spin off the fabs which is the only viable way for leading edge node production to continue operating in the United States, and the price of semiconductors will rise as a result. Basically this money is being spent to fund a price increase for all semiconductors. I’m really disappointed Bernie is too stupid to see that.
This is a price support for Intel’s crappy products, because Intel’s board has utterly failed to respond to the market dynamics. Trump is an idiot. Anyone who supports this is actively trying to harm the US semiconductor industry.
Last edited:
Upvote
93
(141
/
-48)
I have no trouble saying even Trump and this administration can be right - every once in a blue moon. They were also right to push the UK on the backdoor demand on Apple.
However, even when they are right it's often for the wrong reasons and they are wrong (so terribly wrong) thousands of times for each right one.
Upvote
212
(221
/
-9)
The WSJ will go nuts over this. This is something Democrats are supposed to do.
Upvote
93
(94
/
-1)
Upvote
34
(39
/
-5)
None of this makes sense until Senators and Congresspeople are forced to divest from financial trading. Lobbying post-term is lucrative enough.
Upvote
130
(131
/
-1)
so as a taxpayer and Intel shareholder, does that mean I'm doubling dipping?
I usually don't get to participate in corruption........
I usually don't get to participate in corruption........
Upvote
86
(87
/
-1)
Considering most companies and inventions stand on the backs of giants, they should be giving back to society via open source knowledge ALA the GPL. Also, the rich C-suite and investors should be paying back their excess and greed to the consumer and labor market that contributed to their success.
I don't think things necessarily have to be owned by the state, but enforcing embedded benevolence giving back based on what came before, and the labor and consumer market those on top get their life of excess from would go a long way.
I don't think things necessarily have to be owned by the state, but enforcing embedded benevolence giving back based on what came before, and the labor and consumer market those on top get their life of excess from would go a long way.
Upvote
9
(21
/
-12)
So... given intels market cap how much will 10b increase the price? Should I be buying INTC... guess I need wallstreetbets
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Nothing solves problems and forces corporate responsibility like giving failing companies free taxpayer money.
Upvote
66
(68
/
-2)
Can't wait to see how MAGA contorts their logic/ reacts to socialism's kissing cousin, state controlled capitalism.
Upvote
79
(79
/
0)
What the hell do you mean now? Intel has spent over a hundred billion dollars on buybacks over the last ~30 years.
Anyway, Bernie is wrong today, because nothing about this is actually socialist nor does anything for the American people as long as Trump is the federal government in function and practice. Might as well call the Qatari super airliner the "people's plane" tomorrow.
Upvote
73
(83
/
-10)
I still regard this as substantially crony capitalism because it chooses winners and losers. I suppose you could make the case that it's substantially the same as salvaging General Motors in the the Great Recession financial crisis. At least the US divested ownership eventually in that case.
If it were something rarely done as an exception I'd have an easier time of it. Sort of the way Thomas Jefferson saw his role in the Louisiana Purchase as frankly embarrassing because he didn't regard it as within his power to do so. But he made the exception at the time because of course you take that deal.
Jefferson listed three things on his tombstone:
If it were something rarely done as an exception I'd have an easier time of it. Sort of the way Thomas Jefferson saw his role in the Louisiana Purchase as frankly embarrassing because he didn't regard it as within his power to do so. But he made the exception at the time because of course you take that deal.
Jefferson listed three things on his tombstone:
- Author of the Declaration of Independence
- And of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
- And Father of the University of Virginia
Upvote
79
(82
/
-3)
Upvote
108
(108
/
0)
That is not the alternative. This implication is absurd, both the law, and the grant awards were made with very strict stipulations about how the money could be spent, and on what. If you build a factory, it then becomes a lot cheaper to operate the factory, as it was built, then tear it down. The intent is to build semiconductor production in the US, when you pay for it, you get to decide how much money is used. If you give the money to Intel shareholders, which buying equity does, you have no control over how it’s used. All of the control goes to the board.
The intent of this investment is to bail wealthy GOP donors out of their investments in Intel, which have been decimated by Intel’s poor performance of the last 2 to 3 years.
Upvote
140
(146
/
-6)
Because it's picking winners and losers. Something Republicans have absolutely lost their shit about repeatedly. Remember Solyndra? Or the GM bailout? Now something that was previously an unimaginable evil is OK because a Republican is doing it?
The whole idea of one set of rules and laws for Democrats and a completely different set of rules and laws for Republicans needs to go die in a fire. Yeterday.
Upvote
169
(169
/
0)
big government bloat, thats what they always do. GM bailout was a republican plan https://www.politico.com/story/2008/12/bush-announces-174-billion-auto-bailout-016740. Financial bank bailout, republican plan https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna26987291
trump bloated out space force.
nixon gave us epa
party of government expansion big piggy bloat blown out budgets and national debt.
nixon also gave us NOAA
Upvote
38
(39
/
-1)
I do wonder how this will impact government procurement in the future. Will Intel become the preferred vendor for the US government- which spends a rather large amount of money? Under a fair-minded administration, there would be safeguards, but we don't have a fair-minded administration.
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
That ship sailed a long, long time ago.
Trump is not by any means a free-market capitalist and never has been. Anyone who was paying attention knew that no later than 2015. Anyone who cared about this more than staying in office has left the GOP by now.
Upvote
66
(66
/
0)
I acknowledge the national security case for the U.S. taking a stake in Intel, but I’m skeptical of the government’s ability to manage such an investment effectively. The Trump administration has shown itself to be incompetent, and I doubt it can address the systemic issues in Intel’s leadership—and likely its corporate culture—that have driven repeated strategic blunders.
After reading Chip War, I’m even less confident in Intel’s future. The company squandered the smartphone era by ignoring low‑power RISC processors and fell years behind in advanced lithography despite heavy investment. These weren’t unlucky misses in a tough market; they were fundamental failures of leadership and judgment. Throwing money at Intel won’t fix the dysfunction that caused those failures.
The real leaders in cutting‑edge lithography and chip manufacturing are ASML and TSMC—neither American, but both based in allied nations.
After reading Chip War, I’m even less confident in Intel’s future. The company squandered the smartphone era by ignoring low‑power RISC processors and fell years behind in advanced lithography despite heavy investment. These weren’t unlucky misses in a tough market; they were fundamental failures of leadership and judgment. Throwing money at Intel won’t fix the dysfunction that caused those failures.
The real leaders in cutting‑edge lithography and chip manufacturing are ASML and TSMC—neither American, but both based in allied nations.
Last edited:
Upvote
23
(29
/
-6)
I question whether the government directly purchases many chips, but I could see a scenario where they mandate the purchase of PCs, servers and other devices that contain Intel chips rather than AMD.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Watch for other companies to sue over this, which will take years moving through the courts. The CHIPS act was legal because it didn't explicitly choose winners and losers. That's not the case with this little bit of socialism.
Upvote
41
(42
/
-1)
This story mostly pisses me off because it's obvious that Republicans in Congress would have had earth shattering temper tantrums if this has been proposed under the original CHIPS Act.
Upvote
97
(97
/
0)
What are the odds that Trump thinks this is a way he can spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money and wind up with him owning 10% of Intel rather than the Govt owning it?
Upvote
78
(81
/
-3)
How silly. I immediately thought of Lufthansa giving 20% equity to the German government during the pandemic in return for aid. It was a good deal for Germany, since it was later sold at a profit. Probably there have been countless cases before.
It's tough for governments to remain neutral if they permanently own companies, though. That's probably the biggest downside.
Upvote
59
(59
/
0)
Generally, a 10% equity interest in a business does not give a party the right to "run the business". if you want to have full control over a company, you need to own 50%+1 of the voting shares such that you're able to appoint the entire board of directors yourself.
It's not even clear from this plan that the US government will be acquiring voting shares at all. You can acquire an equity interest in a company through non-voting shares and get little to no say in the operation of the business. Holding 10% of the voting shares in a company like Intel will give you a meaningful say in the election of the board and any matters that require shareholder approval, but will not allow you to "run the business" or give you anything like total control or private ownership.
Upvote
20
(25
/
-5)
