zlacker

>>giveme+(OP)
Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds."

This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government.

If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there will be other questionalbe demands placed on Intel in the future from this government, you are largely mistaken.

But y'all go ahead and can keep arguing over whether we should "get something back" from this deal. Because that's really going to maker ameraica graet agian.

>>sgnels+eE
The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.

>>Sparyj+KR
Intel may well have wanted to donate some ownership more than it wanted 10 billion dollars. They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government.

>>thauma+kS
> They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government

What does that even give you? They can argue all they want. Doesn't mean the government will listen.

>>re-thc+yS
It's a fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business.

Why do you think that is?

>>thauma+rT
> fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business

Let? Like this 1? Where if you don't we threaten to fire the CEO and take over the company otherwise?

Are you sure it is let?

> local politicians

Is 1 or more individuals. In this instance it is "the government" as an entity. Not the same?