zlacker

>>giveme+(OP)
In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening.

On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

>>jjcm+Ef
Government shouldn't bail out anyone. Period. It should enact preferential policies like grants, tax cuts, subsidies etc. for industries they want to promote. It is done all the time. That is what happened with the CHIPS Act.

The moment 10% stake was announced this became political. While the stated reason might be national security etc, in reality something else might be at play.

One, this government and its supporters have been talking about government "wasteful" spending. So, a stake shows that they got something in return for that public money. The money is now "well spent".

Second, it helps boost the political "dealmaker" image of POTUS and we all know how much he cares about his image.

>>thisis+G51
Except if Intel goes there’s no leading chip manufacturer left. You can’t just (easily) tax cut your way to having that concentrated knowledge and market position.