I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company
Uh, this highly respected Lip-Bu Tan?
The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!
At this point I don't even think Trump remembers what he had for breakfast that day. Wonder how long until the white house can't keep the charade of this 6'2 220 alpha male up anymore.
At this point I don't even think Trump remembers what he had for breakfast that day. Wonder how long until the white house can't keep the charade of this 6'2 220 alpha male up anymore.
Wait, did Donny just seize the means of production?! I'm only half way kidding. On one hand, Intel has absolutely made this bed and I absolutely want them to lay in it. On the other hand, they are...
Wait, did Donny just seize the means of production?!
I'm only half way kidding.
On one hand, Intel has absolutely made this bed and I absolutely want them to lay in it. On the other hand, they are pretty critical for strategic autonomy and I do feel they should still stick around since they do have a decent number of fabs in the US. Plus all of the wall street vultures who want to tear it apart and sell the pieces absolutely sickens me. That being said, the US taking partial stakes of ownership in these companies is problematic just like in 2008. Granted this is not a bank, but it's the tax payers who foot the bill for companies basically deciding to saw their own leg off.
Sanders did point this out with the CHIPS act where Congress gave [EDIT: I realized I have no source for this beyond hearsay so it's crossed out] $76 bn pay package with almost no strings...
Sanders did point this out with the CHIPS act where Congress gave then roughly half of a [EDIT: I realized I have no source for this beyond hearsay so it's crossed out] $76 bn pay package with almost no strings attached:
"If private companies are going to benefit from generous taxpayer subsidies, the financial gains made by these companies must be shared with the American people, not just wealthy shareholders," Sanders added. "In other words, if microchip companies make a profit as a direct result of these federal grants, the taxpayers of this country have a right to get a reasonable return on that investment."
So I wish it wasn't this admin, but the fact the US is retaining stock in Intel for this bailout is ultimately a good thing imo.
Some may point out the US holding stock is a massive conflict of interest. They're correct but the current situation where the same people controlling the government hold the stock isn't that much better either.
I would note that the US government made a net profit from the intervention, and that’s not counting financial stability as “profit” - they straight up made a nominative profit. As in, the US...
That being said, the US taking partial stakes of ownership in these companies is problematic just like in 2008.
I would note that the US government made a net profit from the intervention, and that’s not counting financial stability as “profit” - they straight up made a nominative profit. As in, the US taxpayer made money from that.
I think looking back at that situation 2008 and expecting the same result this time is foolish at best. First, the motivations were very different then vs. now. In 2008 there was a real and...
I think looking back at that situation 2008 and expecting the same result this time is foolish at best.
First, the motivations were very different then vs. now. In 2008 there was a real and understood problem that was going to cause massive financial fallout. Valid concern that the economy was going to crash hard.
Second, the people in charge then were actively looking out for the welfare of the country, knew what they were doing, and set the entire thing up to be undone in the future (once we made back our loans plus interest) which is what happened.
This time, you have Trump and his cronies (who are not the best people, mind you) doing this to use as leverage against others. He's not taking on Intel to "save the economy." There is a slight argument to be made for the national defense angle in that we need chips and processors for all kinds of things, and having a company here building them within our borders is definitely necessary. But the reality here is that he's using this as leverage over other companies. It's a threat he can deploy as needed to keep the other oligarchs in line. He could achieve the same thing by not tariff-ing every damn country on earth and instead building a partnership with companies from those countries.
And don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of nationalized industries where we as a nation can take the profits and re-invest them in our country. The problem I have is that Trump is a selfish asshole and there's absolutely no way anything he takes will ever get redistributed to the people he actively hates and fights against (i.e. our own citizens). This will go to line his pockets, his family's pockets, and the pockets of his chosen oligarchs.
And no offense to you u/stub250 but I am just generally tired of people treating Trump like past presidents, and his administration like past administrations, when it has been shown time and time again that he is NOT like any leader we've ever had. The GOP is not the party it was even 15 years ago, either. They are just as complicit in this entire thing as he is, maybe even more so. So looking backwards and trying to apply that logic to Trump is dangerous.
I think you're reading too much into it. At what point did I defend Trump? That has nothing to do with anything. My point is that there is a weird mandela effect going on with the 2008 bailout...
I think you're reading too much into it.
At what point did I defend Trump? That has nothing to do with anything. My point is that there is a weird mandela effect going on with the 2008 bailout that it came at a huge cost to the taxpayer, when it was quite the opposite - it came at a small profit to the taxpayer.
If you want to posit Trump's purchase of Intel equity as a bad thing, then a comparison to 2008 is not a good one!
A struggle I have on here is trying to make my point without pointing fingers at/offending the OP. I need to work on that. I addressed it to "you" which is part of my issue. I mean the royal "you"...
A struggle I have on here is trying to make my point without pointing fingers at/offending the OP. I need to work on that.
I addressed it to "you" which is part of my issue. I mean the royal "you" as in people in general. Trump gets me worked up and I vent which doesn't help.
And I 100% think this isn't a good thing, because on the whole Trump is verifiably awful.
So, I'm not American and don't know by heart which news outlets are satirical and which aren't. I couldn't tell from this headline either. I knew that it was something Trump actually wants to do....
So, I'm not American and don't know by heart which news outlets are satirical and which aren't.
I couldn't tell from this headline either. I knew that it was something Trump actually wants to do. I wasn't sure if he now somehow was able to actually carry it out. Things that "could never actually happen" have happened so many times that I can't tell anymore.
The first sentence in the article gave me hope that it was indeed satire but I still couldn't be sure.
Edit: I guess when writing the above, I was leaning more towards "this is satire" but now I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
Edit 2: I am now fairly certain that it's not satire. Over and out.
Which part seemed impossible/like satire to you? It's really not that unusual for a national government to have a stake in a large, nationally important industry. (I am no fan of Trump, but this...
Which part seemed impossible/like satire to you? It's really not that unusual for a national government to have a stake in a large, nationally important industry. (I am no fan of Trump, but this isn't an egregious move). The example people think of most is China, of course, but France is a good example of a Western nation that maintains stakes in all kinds of businesses.
I am very ashamed to admit that my brain short-circuited after seeing the words "snaps up 10% of Intel". I guess the emotional reaction that followed rendered me unable to grasp that some...
I am very ashamed to admit that my brain short-circuited after seeing the words "snaps up 10% of Intel". I guess the emotional reaction that followed rendered me unable to grasp that some financial compensation had changed hands.
Despite my strong urge to edit out this blunder, let it be observed by future generations as a warning example of the quirky functions of a triggered brain. I'll see myself out.
Perhaps not a big deal, but also not purely accidental. I believe I am able to replay what happened in my brain that produced this disproportionate reaction to the article, and I also believe the...
Perhaps not a big deal, but also not purely accidental. I believe I am able to replay what happened in my brain that produced this disproportionate reaction to the article, and I also believe the same thing is happening in countless other brains of other people who then go on to appear completely brainless online. Sometimes even to vote against their own interest, and so on.
France is much more left wing than the US, generally speaking. At the surface it just strikes people as weird (although it shouldn't, given who we're talking about) that Trump would be so...
France is much more left wing than the US, generally speaking. At the surface it just strikes people as weird (although it shouldn't, given who we're talking about) that Trump would be so outspokenly anti-big-government, yet coming right out of absolutely gutting the entire government and all its work he'd make such a left wing move. My left wing governments have all loved to spend taxpayer money on private businesses, so I wouldn't find that nearly as weird.
He's not anti big government, he's pro Trump. If the government is currently doing things that he likes or praising him, he likes it. If the government is doing things that could hurt him...
He's not anti big government, he's pro Trump. If the government is currently doing things that he likes or praising him, he likes it. If the government is doing things that could hurt him personally, he hates it. It's really as simple as that. He'd have no problem running a full fledged socialist empire as long as he was in charge.
That's fair. I think it's better to read Trump as "isolationist/protectionist" than right vs. left wing; in that framing there's less dissonance. I get where you're coming from though.
That's fair. I think it's better to read Trump as "isolationist/protectionist" than right vs. left wing; in that framing there's less dissonance. I get where you're coming from though.
There are myriad valid things to criticize Trump for, and this is by far the least egregious, but good heavens is that man’s grasp of capitalization atrocious.
"It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of Intel, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future," President Trump announced on his social media site Truth Social.
"I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for Intel."
There are myriad valid things to criticize Trump for, and this is by far the least egregious, but good heavens is that man’s grasp of capitalization atrocious.
Uh, this highly respected Lip-Bu Tan?
(Aug 7)
At this point I don't even think Trump remembers what he had for breakfast that day. Wonder how long until the white house can't keep the charade of this 6'2 220 alpha male up anymore.
Wait, did Donny just seize the means of production?!
I'm only half way kidding.
On one hand, Intel has absolutely made this bed and I absolutely want them to lay in it. On the other hand, they are pretty critical for strategic autonomy and I do feel they should still stick around since they do have a decent number of fabs in the US. Plus all of the wall street vultures who want to tear it apart and sell the pieces absolutely sickens me. That being said, the US taking partial stakes of ownership in these companies is problematic just like in 2008. Granted this is not a bank, but it's the tax payers who foot the bill for companies basically deciding to saw their own leg off.
Sanders did point this out with the CHIPS act where Congress gave
then roughly half of a[EDIT: I realized I have no source for this beyond hearsay so it's crossed out] $76 bn pay package with almost no strings attached:https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/07/25/sanders-shreds-big-techs-76-billion-corporate-welfare-payday-chips-act
So I wish it wasn't this admin, but the fact the US is retaining stock in Intel for this bailout is ultimately a good thing imo.
Some may point out the US holding stock is a massive conflict of interest. They're correct but the current situation where the same people controlling the government hold the stock isn't that much better either.
Yeah he’s doing a few things here and there that are accidentally communism cause thats just how fascism works.
I would note that the US government made a net profit from the intervention, and that’s not counting financial stability as “profit” - they straight up made a nominative profit. As in, the US taxpayer made money from that.
I think looking back at that situation 2008 and expecting the same result this time is foolish at best.
First, the motivations were very different then vs. now. In 2008 there was a real and understood problem that was going to cause massive financial fallout. Valid concern that the economy was going to crash hard.
Second, the people in charge then were actively looking out for the welfare of the country, knew what they were doing, and set the entire thing up to be undone in the future (once we made back our loans plus interest) which is what happened.
This time, you have Trump and his cronies (who are not the best people, mind you) doing this to use as leverage against others. He's not taking on Intel to "save the economy." There is a slight argument to be made for the national defense angle in that we need chips and processors for all kinds of things, and having a company here building them within our borders is definitely necessary. But the reality here is that he's using this as leverage over other companies. It's a threat he can deploy as needed to keep the other oligarchs in line. He could achieve the same thing by not tariff-ing every damn country on earth and instead building a partnership with companies from those countries.
I mean, he's got Lutnik out there saying they're "thinking about" how to nationalize defense companies next: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lxcigwllzp2u
And don't get me wrong, I am a supporter of nationalized industries where we as a nation can take the profits and re-invest them in our country. The problem I have is that Trump is a selfish asshole and there's absolutely no way anything he takes will ever get redistributed to the people he actively hates and fights against (i.e. our own citizens). This will go to line his pockets, his family's pockets, and the pockets of his chosen oligarchs.
And no offense to you u/stub250 but I am just generally tired of people treating Trump like past presidents, and his administration like past administrations, when it has been shown time and time again that he is NOT like any leader we've ever had. The GOP is not the party it was even 15 years ago, either. They are just as complicit in this entire thing as he is, maybe even more so. So looking backwards and trying to apply that logic to Trump is dangerous.
I think you're reading too much into it.
At what point did I defend Trump? That has nothing to do with anything. My point is that there is a weird mandela effect going on with the 2008 bailout that it came at a huge cost to the taxpayer, when it was quite the opposite - it came at a small profit to the taxpayer.
If you want to posit Trump's purchase of Intel equity as a bad thing, then a comparison to 2008 is not a good one!
A struggle I have on here is trying to make my point without pointing fingers at/offending the OP. I need to work on that.
I addressed it to "you" which is part of my issue. I mean the royal "you" as in people in general. Trump gets me worked up and I vent which doesn't help.
And I 100% think this isn't a good thing, because on the whole Trump is verifiably awful.
So, I'm not American and don't know by heart which news outlets are satirical and which aren't.
I couldn't tell from this headline either. I knew that it was something Trump actually wants to do. I wasn't sure if he now somehow was able to actually carry it out. Things that "could never actually happen" have happened so many times that I can't tell anymore.
The first sentence in the article gave me hope that it was indeed satire but I still couldn't be sure.
Edit: I guess when writing the above, I was leaning more towards "this is satire" but now I'm starting to think that was a mistake.
Edit 2: I am now fairly certain that it's not satire. Over and out.
Which part seemed impossible/like satire to you? It's really not that unusual for a national government to have a stake in a large, nationally important industry. (I am no fan of Trump, but this isn't an egregious move). The example people think of most is China, of course, but France is a good example of a Western nation that maintains stakes in all kinds of businesses.
I am very ashamed to admit that my brain short-circuited after seeing the words "snaps up 10% of Intel". I guess the emotional reaction that followed rendered me unable to grasp that some financial compensation had changed hands.
Despite my strong urge to edit out this blunder, let it be observed by future generations as a warning example of the quirky functions of a triggered brain. I'll see myself out.
It's really no big deal. People misread things sometimes.
Perhaps not a big deal, but also not purely accidental. I believe I am able to replay what happened in my brain that produced this disproportionate reaction to the article, and I also believe the same thing is happening in countless other brains of other people who then go on to appear completely brainless online. Sometimes even to vote against their own interest, and so on.
Thanks for your kindness!
To be fair, they said "The United States paid nothing for these Shares". One can't be blamed for thinking they seized it or something.
France is much more left wing than the US, generally speaking. At the surface it just strikes people as weird (although it shouldn't, given who we're talking about) that Trump would be so outspokenly anti-big-government, yet coming right out of absolutely gutting the entire government and all its work he'd make such a left wing move. My left wing governments have all loved to spend taxpayer money on private businesses, so I wouldn't find that nearly as weird.
He's not anti big government, he's pro Trump. If the government is currently doing things that he likes or praising him, he likes it. If the government is doing things that could hurt him personally, he hates it. It's really as simple as that. He'd have no problem running a full fledged socialist empire as long as he was in charge.
That's fair. I think it's better to read Trump as "isolationist/protectionist" than right vs. left wing; in that framing there's less dissonance. I get where you're coming from though.
There are elements of National Socialism in Trump's policies.
There are myriad valid things to criticize Trump for, and this is by far the least egregious, but good heavens is that man’s grasp of capitalization atrocious.