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
I think it would've been much better to incentivize the likes of Apple and Nvidia to make investments in Intel. They need to have their designs fabbed, they have a good amount of geopolitical risk. They also have a lot of money on hand. Didn't Apple say they were going to invest $600B into the US? (not that that's really going to happen), ok, so why not put $50B into Intel?

>>UncleO+JA
Because that is not a good use of Apple’s $50B.

>>electr+bT
Their dragon’s hoard of cash is only being used for financial engineering.

Their finance team axed a meager $10B dollar investment to improve Siri thereby making Apple the laughing stock of the tech industry players who say they are working on AI.

>>menset+NB1
Oh, Apple definitely has problems but putting $50B into Intel doesn’t sound like a good idea.