Posted on 08/24/2025 2:05:02 AM PDT by RandFan
I’d rather this than let China be controlling how some of our chips are made - better than the old “Cash for Clunkers”
I am copying your message to tweet as you make a good point
and I can not explain it any better
There is precedent from auto bailouts where stock was acquired to “help them out” and eventually sold. No permanent stake was kept. That was never tried in court so legality is debatable.
Nevertheless, I don’t agree that bailout was in line with the intent of the Constitution, nor do I think this Intel thing is.
I also don’t like “crony capitalism” where government sets laws and regulations that benefit some companies but not others, yet this is “legal”.
I also don’t like flat out corruption where companies are given grants and they basically do nothing but go bankrupt (green scams), yet this is “legal”.
I have no problem with government putting out RFPs where multiple companies bid to provide the product or service.
I have no problem for the relatively rare circumstance where only one company can actually provide the particular product or service in a timely way so they are awarded over and over (e.g. Skunkworks)
I have no problem w/government giving grants for research.
I have no problem w/government giving loans that are paid back.
Nevertheless, all the things I “approve of “ can be abused, which I don’t like.
To me, what’s most in line constitutionally, would be to cut the outlandish statutes and regulations that make operating in the US non-competitive. That’s what’s driving business overseas. Until that’s straightened out (which it probably never will be) tariffs can help adjust for that.
The constitution is great. Communism, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism are terrible.
We have a little bit of each terrible thing going on in the US today.
The Intel thing is just the latest and falls in the fascist bucket. Hopefully, they’ll sell the shares soon.
In the meantime:
Is anyone going to be casting the votes with that 10%, and if so, who is it, and how will they vote, the next time a voting issue comes to the Board?
What happens to the stock value of other US chip manufacturers like AMD, XiLinx, and Texas Instruments?
Is someone in government going to propose certain backdoors in chips to help spy on the American public?
I am copying your message to tweet as you make a
good point and I can not explain it any better.
Be my guest
I agree. This is better than money being spent for illegals food and housing or security assurance for Ukraine using American troops. There’s bad spending and there’s good spending. Intel’s deal sounds like a good deal.
“Trump puts America first in this, as in all things. Without a chipmaker on American soil America is not only vulnerable in time of war but the revival of American industry including defense is problematic.”
Thanks. While I love Taiwan, I’m not sure we should be basing our economic and military security on a tiny island country less than 100 miles from a monster that claims it as its own.
Perhaps it’s time to jettison Ann Rand and GET SERIOUS about national defense, which means on-shoring critical industries (like making ball bearings, for example), and subsidizing those industries as necessary to cope with our TOTALLY SICK labor unions and environmental laws, not to mention our even more sicker judges.
In Russia, when it came time to STEP-UP military production the Ann Rand Groupies over there found out just why the Russian government hung on to their way-underutilized, but still operating, factories. We, on the other hand, turned them into Shopping Malls and Golf Course, particularly in California as they were a drain on “share-holder value”.
“If Biden did this you’d be screaming about it.”
Nope. But you live in a speculative world. Speculusion (Speculate then Conclude) is for children, and Rand’s followers typically are that childish. Always complaining but never leading, never taking a risk, always quitting before the end.
Thanks for being honest. Refreshing.
Its not illegal. Read up before you start spewing this stuff.
Our national security must be taken into top consideration.
Indeed selective memories in action.
But the left thinks that’s different.
Thanks for clarifying.
performance of grant objectives
Is not control of stock one way to incentivize the objectives?
There's no case unless Trump actually withheld the money, unless you want to argue extortion. But then it was not extortion on his behalf, since he's not personally benefitting. So it's hard to argue for extortion.
Plus the Intel execs were probably happy to give the shares since it propped up Intel's share prices, from which they would benefit personally.
Unlawful or the bully pulpit?
If you want to argue the US gov should not own shares, that horse left the barn a long time ago with subsidized loans, "green" grants and NGO funding that were recycled to the Dem party, etc., etc. Trump has learned that if you walk away from the game because its corrupt, you still forfeit.
There’s a story going back to “Davy” Crockett’s time as a representative from Tennessee. There was a flood somewhere in the state and Crockett led congress into directing $20,000 towards helping the locals.
Upon his return to Tennessee he started the usual glad-handing and was greeted by one cold shoulder and scowl after another.
He was told by at least one voter he no longer had his and others’ support for what he did with THEIR tax money.
Some say the reason he went to Texas was as much for being in disfavor among the voters as his willingness to go fight for Texas.
Thanks.
I have to admit to being a bit more flexible about disaster aid if it is a real disaster and all that.
BUT ... I realize that some FRers will say, correctly, that even disaster aid is none of the federal government’s proper business
either way on that, when these huge corporations or banks fail... it sure can cause some disruptive shocks in wider sectors of the economy. A lot of innocent people can get hurt for having done nothing wrong themselves.
With Intel, we DO need reliable domestic chip production capacity. Partly for defense, so that would be a possible justification for “doing something” to “save” Intel.
It having been decided, done already -— I hope it is a successful bailout..... and that the fed govt gets OUT of ownership as soon as feasible. And starts cutting back on those agencies and bureaus that are improperly interfering with our liberty as American citizens.
People still don’t seem to understand: it isn’t that Intel is “too big to fail”, it’s that our Nation, the US, must not be allowed to fail.
We grow our own food. We provide our own oil, coal and natural gas. We manufacture our own cars, trucks, trains and planes. We manufacture our own steel, concrete, plastics, wood products and chemicals. We build our own computers, software, telecom, radio/TV and satellites. We invented and deployed the Internet. We *design* state-of-the-art CPUs/GPUs/NPUs.
But, we don’t *manufacture* any of these leading-edge chips: we depend on foreign fabs to do this.
There have been 2 big players in the US. Intel still does this, but has fallen behind. IBM used to do this, but sold off their fabs (to Global Foundries) as the ROI was less than they wanted — another example of the hollowing out of US industry.
So, although I’m not real happy about the government investing in private industry, we can’t afford the risk of not being able to actually manufacture our own state-of-the-art chips.
P.S. We do manufacture many kinds of memory chips (RAM, SSD etc.) in the US.
P.P.S. I am more partial to AMD than Intel, but they don’t manufacture their chips (I think they use Global Foundries).
Just sayin’ if it’s already in the CHIPS act even though ot yet handed out it’s not new money. Does Trump have the right to claw it back? At this point would that be in America’s interest?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.