Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/25/2025 7:40:35 AM PDT by RandFan
President Donald Trump on Monday boasted about the government’s new stake in Intel and said he’s determined to do similar deals.
“I will make deals like that for our Country all day long,” the president posted on Truth Social.
Trump added that “stupid people” are upset with a move that he said will bring more money and jobs to the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“Nope. I prefer an actual conservative approach.“
________________
Well, I guess you’re going to have to find one who can win an election. So far, we have none available, eh.
By the way, why don’t you go ahead and describe exactly what the “conservative approach” would look like. And explain how these chip makers would be inclined to bring their manufacturing to the USA under that approach?
Remember, a “conservative approach” wouldn’t use any taxpayer monies.
Nimrata didn't like it....
Nope. I prefer an actual conservative approach.
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2021/07/ten-conservative-principles-russell-kirk.html
To do that we need to have a discussion on what conservatism is. Folks, take the time to read the above, let your lips move, give it to others.
Conservatism is NOT a particular position on an issue. It is a way of thinking to achieve the bigger picture.
Just because nobody worth a crap runs doesn’t mean bad ideas are suddenly good. The government taking a stake in ANY company is a bad idea. When that company is on the way down it’s worse.
The conservative approach is leave it alone. Let companies succeed and fail on their own merit. And understand that failure provides opportunities. If Intel went under that would create a market opportunity. Factories in America would be available for cheap, and market would be available for up and coming companies. Protecting failing companies stifles competition and eliminates opportunities.
Yes. Like don’t screw with the market, because nothing good comes from it.
“If Intel went under that would create a market opportunity. “
For China and Taiwan ...
Or America. Again factories in America would become available cheap. An excellent opportunity for somebody to put together some funding to start a new hungry innovative company. In America.
The only question I have is, is it critical for National Security?
Is it good for national security to be dependent on mediocre overpriced chips that are behind the development curve?
Yes. Like don’t screw with the market, because nothing good comes from it.
Even Adam smith allowed that some involvement of govt and lawyers were needed for a good economy.
This is a national defense issue mostly. What happens if we do nothing? have you compared the two options?
I prefer this rather than a grant to a non profit. More transparency.
Everything thing has pros and cons. This is not fascism, a complete takeover by govt. Historically we have had many private/public endeavors. Learn from the bad ones, emulate the good ones.
Look at the big picture/system, not just two data points like the libs look at global warming.
You have no idea how much it would take to get into the 18 Angstrom tech.
Some involvement. Taking over a company is more than some involvement.
As i said to another: having our national security be dependent on mediocre overpriced chips that are behind the curve isn’t good.
I am looking at the big picture. And the big picture shows that no government takeover of a company has led to the company making better products.
It is not illegal for the U.S. government to buy a stake in Intel; the U.S. government’s 10% equity stake in Intel, valued at $8.9 billion, was established through a recent agreement where Intel provided shares funded by grants already authorized under the CHIPS and Science Act. This move, while historically significant, was legally permissible within the framework of existing legislation, which provides for government funding and investments to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing.
Details of the Agreement
The U.S. government received a 9.9% stake, or approximately 433.3 million shares of Intel common stock. The investment of $8.9 billion was funded through outstanding grants from the CHIPS and Science Act and the Secure Enclave program, which had not yet been paid to Intel. The agreement aims to advance national priorities by strengthening the U.S. domestic semiconductor industry.
Legal Basis -—CHIPS and Science Act:
The agreement leverages funding and incentives authorized by the 2022 CHIPS Act, which provides billions of dollars in government funding for chip-related activities. Part of the funds for this investment also come from the Secure Enclave program, which supplies the Department of Defense with semiconductors.
Governance and Rights
Passive Investor: The U.S. government will not have a board seat or other governance rights in Intel, acting as a passive investor. The government has agreed to vote with the company’s board on matters requiring shareholder approval, with some exceptions.
When the factories and talent become available for purchase the onramp gets shorter. None of this is new. We’ve seen the opportunities that arise when companies fail plenty of times before. But thanks to lobbying we’re no longer willing to do let the market do what markets do. So we bailout GM, and we bailout banks, and now we’re bailing out Intel, and we just keep encouraging them to be bad companies. And then we wonder why we keep falling further behind internationally.
The conservative approach is leave it alone. Let companies succeed and fail on their own merit.And if the "companies" (especially one that deals in top secret products for the US military) decide to accept another country's investment money will conservatives still want to "leave it alone"?
That’s a legit barrier to put up.
It’s a National Security issue.
US commercial enterprises, utilities and military must use chips manufactured in America. We must make all of them.
That should be obvious to the average 8th grader.
Free trade and the free market failed to meet that imperative.
“The conservative approach is leave it alone. Let companies succeed and fail on their own merit.”
_________________________________
So do nothing.
Well, there’s a ton we can do. We’re in a serious predicament and some, including myself, believe we have a national security emergency regarding chipmaking.
We need to develop talent/skill here in chipmaking and we need it yesterday. Taiwan and China, aren’t they just a bit too close to the same for us to put our trust in Taiwan much longer?
We need to invest massive amounts of effort and money in research and development, education, regulation reduction, intellectual property governance, national security guidelines, domestic supply chain creation and management, etc. Some of that is not going to look very conservative in the beginning, since it is an emergency. Once established and functioning, we could be be leaders in chip development and production in the world. We have to catch up to and surpass our enemies.
Best to look at the details of the deal and trust Trump.
FINALLY... Trump finally does something that is actually in line with Fascistic ideaology...
I do not approve of this. Just as I didn’t approve of “too big to fail”... This is NOT a good move.
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.