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.

>>azinma+8P1
It's like you intentionally chose the ignore other government actions and focus on taxes just to fit your narrative. Read it again:

> It should enact preferential policies like grants, tax cuts, subsidies etc. for industries they want to promote.

And read the announcement again. Intel has not been given extra money. CHIPS Act money has been converted to stake. That means Intel wasn't going away, if that is your concern.

Government routinely provides grants or preferential treatments to certain sectors or industries. Like Tesla and the EV grant. That works fine. It doesn't mean government needs to acquire stake in Tesla and put their thumb on the market scale.

In case you miss it, let me repeat - industries needs to be supported. It is called CHIPS Act not Intel Act for a reason. Given the current POTUS propensity to hold aid/grant without a quid pro quo, we can guess what happened here. Intel doesn't gets the grant money unless they kiss the ring and polish POTUS' image.