Trump Administration Considers Stake In Intel (cnbc.com) 101
Intel's stock jumped 7% after reports that the Trump administration is considering taking a stake in the struggling chipmaker to support U.S.-based manufacturing. CNBC reports: Intel is the only U.S. company with the capability to manufacture the fastest chips on U.S. shores, although rivals including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company and Samsung also have U.S. factories. President Donald Trump has called for more chips and high technology to be manufactured in the U.S. The government's stake would help fund factories that Intel is currently building in Ohio, according to the report.
The Trump Chip (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Get that Trump administration competence. Which convicted rioter can design processors?
Some kind of -ism (Score:3, Informative)
What's it called when the government owns the means of production? I swear it was on the tip of my tongue when I was socializing earlier.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Success?
China does this, and they are on their way to establishing a global empire.
Re: (Score:3)
Are they, though?
They were doing fine taking the world over 10 years ago.
Then Xi happened to them, and it has been only economic trouble and militarization since then, but the budding "empire" has withered somewhat. Smaller presence in Africa and South America. BRICS died with nothing to replace it. A full 60% of the country still lives as it did under early Deng, and it doesn't look like things will be changing for them anytime soon.
The inertia from the years of economic liberalism that relaxed the dictato
Re:Some kind of -ism (Score:5, Insightful)
China is a techno-authoritarian regime, it stopped being socialist a long time ago when they allowed privately owned businesses to flourish
What Trump is doing by taking stakes in private industry is more of a form or Corporate Fascism than Socialism, since the government is granting favors, and picking winners and losers rather than owning anything other than a stake they can profit from and use to control the markets
China has never been a socialism nation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "a scam".
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism + Democracy = Lemon socialism [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The term you are looking for is Fascism. la Presidenta has turned the U.S. Government into a mob. That explains his preoccupation with controlling all the economic data. The data will manufactured and fake like his entire life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More accurately, it was on the tip of your tongue when you were communing earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Also: let's take funding from the Chips and Sciences Act because that has Biden's name on it, and then instead give a big cash infusion to one of the applicants for funding under that act, with far less accountability for results attached.
Something something fiscal responsibility...
Ironically communism (Score:4, Informative)
They went so far to the right they came back around on the left. Government seizing the means of production. MAGA in 2025.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They're not seizing the means of production, they're pouring government money into the hands of billionaires. And it's really a pump and dump, perhaps with the benefit of forcing out the brown CEO.
And make no mistake, government is controlled by industry here, not the other way around. It's fascism, not communism.
Re:Ironically communism (Score:5, Insightful)
And make no mistake, government is controlled by industry here, not the other way around. It's fascism, not communism.
When you get to the tips of the political horseshoe, it's toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. Totalitarian fascism or totalitarian communism—it's a distinction without a difference. The only real difference is how you ended up there, not how things actually function.
Re: Ironically communism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ironically communism (Score:4, Informative)
It's quite different, in fact. Trump wants a stake because he thinks he can run a business better than Intel's CEO can. History suggests otherwise, but that won't diminish his delusions of competence.
He doesn't care about the government controlling the means of production, he cares about his own legacy and wants to add Intel to his list of "successes", although it's more likely it will be added to his list of bankruptcies.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be but the problem with your hypothesis is you've already put more thought into this than trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Extreme communism isn't totalitarian at all. It's stateless, much like anarchism, and is therefore a complete utopia. Where as extreme fascism is a state in perpetual warfare with a totalitarian strongman ruler, like we see in 1984.
You must be thinking about state socialism in the vein of Stalin's USSR.
Re: Ironically communism (Score:2)
I am talking about actual governments that we can look at as historic examples, not fantasies. Semantic arguments about the true meaning of communism are pointless in any discussion about the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a state socialist government, it's in the name. True that there was a fantasy of it leading to communism eventually and some of the people involved called themselves Communist, mostly due to Communism sounding good to peasants.
Re: (Score:2)
And make no mistake, government is controlled by industry here, not the other way around. It's fascism, not communism.
When you get to the tips of the political horseshoe, it's toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. Totalitarian fascism or totalitarian communism—it's a distinction without a difference. The only real difference is how you ended up there, not how things actually function.
People on the right like to claim that fascism (Nazis) are actually communist and therefore left wing.
They're half right.
Communists, when they get in power, become far right fascists.
The trouble is that left wing ideologies are built on justice and fairness, while right wing ideologies are built on law and order.
Even if the communists are interested in justice and fairness at the start, the moment they get their hands on a single party state they become obsessed with law and order to stay in charge and devo
Re: (Score:2)
The political spectrum is a circle. It always has been.
Re: (Score:2)
It is known as the "red-brown alliance" (brown shirts being associated with right-fascism).
Re: (Score:2)
It only appears that way. In reality extremists are extremists. They can change their set of beliefs easier than stop being nutters.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia calls it Horseshoe theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Article seems to argue against it being true.
It does seem plausible that being "extremist" means that a large amount of the population does not like your ideas, therefore the only way to get them is authoriatism, so the only similarity is authoriatism. However this does have a lot of appeal to centrists, and it kind of looks like the 2-dimensional political opinion charts.
Re: (Score:2)
No, "considering a stake in" isn't seizing means of production, this is forcing the private sector to do their bidding, extracting riches as they go.
Those are very different things.
Seizing means of production looks very different.
Re: (Score:2)
They went so far to the right they came back around on the left. Government seizing the means of production. MAGA in 2025.
Nein, this is out and out fascism. Explained simply using a cow analogy:
Communism (Leninist-Marxist): You have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.
Fascism: You have two cows, the government takes both, gives them to a wealthy supporter and they sell you some milk.
Know your tyrannies.
Socialism (Score:1)
Socialism for a big business who ran themselves into the ground? Can I get some of that for fucking up my job?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate Socialism has been the norm for Trumpistan since the time it started calling itself "USA". For the most recent trend, google "bailout package".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you don't have nearly enough annual revenue to qualify as "too big to fail."
Say, remember when Trump was anti-bailout for the auto industry? I wonder what happened that changed his mind - it couldn't possibly be that he's the guy that gets to wear a major industry player going titsup on his watch, would it?
I don't think ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe way more than one [wikipedia.org] ... :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Um ... (Score:5, Informative)
Trump Administration Considers Stake In Intel
Didn't Republicans basically lose their collective minds when Obama approved a loan for Solyndra, claiming the government shouldn't, "pick winners and losers," and in 2024, didn't Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) blast the Biden SBA saying, "“The levers of government should never be used to pick winners and losers based on political priorities." for expanding the Green Lending Initiative? Guess it's okay if the government is just going to buy into a company (presumably shares). /s Wondering... How much $TRUMP coin will this cost Intel?
Ernst to Biden-Harris SBA: Stop Playing Politics, Picking Winners and Losers [senate.gov]
There is nothing on earth more pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
They are simply incapable of feeling the emotions of shame and self awareness associated with that emotion. They're too busy "owning the libs".
And when it bites them in the ass eventually they'll blame Obama. Because they're still waiting for Obama to take vengeance for racism.
The idea that Obama doesn't know they exist much less cares to be bothered with vengeance never crosses their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
>"There is nothing on earth more pointless than calling out right wing hypocrisy."
Except pretending it doesn't happen in both the left and right wing.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't seen many right wingers pointing out right wing hypocrisy, sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When the left dies something bad it's the lefts fault. When the right does something bad it's also the lefts fault. And trump is sufficiently their fault because they simultaneously complained too much and didn't hold the right to account.
Really the right is beyond reproach here and always.
So the problem with the left (Score:2)
Nobody actually listens to the left wing except the centrists. Voters certainly don't care about us.
People broadly agree with left wing ideas in polls but polls down vote people do.
What we need to be doing is getting the centrists attention on voting rights. Bizarrely those Democrats do listen to us and they will do what we want so long as and this is a big catch, it's within the Overton window.
Basica
If I could trust the government (Score:2)
No problem is the current government is insanely corrupt. More so than we have ever seen in America even accounting for the Harding administration. If we have history books after this administration, and I have my doubts, then they're going to stop putting that one line in about how corrupt a Harding administration is and replace it with the Trump administration.
So it makes sense if we're going to subsidize comp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
didn't Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) blast the Biden SBA saying, "“The levers of government should never be used to pick winners and losers based on political priorities." for expanding the Green Lending Initiative?
change "political priorities" to "national security" and you win support.
He can't do that (Score:5, Insightful)
It is genuinely bizarre watching America crown a king in slow motion. And that King is incompetent senile reality talk show host. All because people over 50 can't tell the difference between reality and TV...
Re:He can't do that (Score:5, Insightful)
All Trump does is rule by fiat. It's nothing but EO's now.
And SCOTUS declared Trump to be absolutely immune from law, he can do as he pleases. And he does.
We're not pretending that Trump isn't deploying the military on the streets of Democratic cities, right?
Re: (Score:3)
With Russian propaganda and CCP controlled media outlets, it's pretty fucking unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Older people tend to skew Republican regardless. A bigger issue was a significant chunk of 18-44 year olds who voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris in 2024.
https://navigatorresearch.org/... [navigatorresearch.org]
The millennials went hard for Harris (Score:3, Insightful)
50 to 64 year olds, older Gen x twats, gave us trump. Mostly because of transphobia.
That's not me being flippant. We have polls on the effect of transphobia and the transpanic on the election and without it Trump could not have won.
It took them a little over 10 years but they figured out how to get that moral panic going and it swept Trump into a second term and basically killed democracy in the st
Re: (Score:2)
Fascists don't need to hold elections anymore once they ascend to power.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes they do so they can claim legitimacy. Russia for example has regular elections.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'll bloody well keep voting for fascists as long as they're running against leftards!
Even when their motivation to suddenly redraw electoral maps is to distract from shielding high-ranking sex-traffickers from justice? Okay, Groomer.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also data showing that Millennials and zoomers are not getting more republican as they get older.
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
However, there *IS* evidence that an unsettling number of zoomers are straight up redpilled.
Re: (Score:2)
Men's swing a few points towards the right because, well frankly the left point tells them to go fuck themselves. Seriously I have looked at how the left approach men's issues and it ain't pretty. My side has a bad habit of just telling dudes to go get a PhD and a six pack abs if they want a girlfriend and a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascists win based in fear. And a lot of right wingers, too.
It's always very simple and convenient to blame every problem in the world on "the other".
Before trans became the target, it was Mexicans, gays, Muslims, African americans, jews.
As long as it is a minority that lacks political power, and the masses lack the ability to think critically, odds are good that it will continue to work for many politicians. The main question is who will be the next target after the trans.
Re: The millennials went hard for Harris (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest issue was that the Democratic party putting forward Biden again, who at that time knew where he was for only an hour a day, while telling people they can "trust the system", which minimized the perceived risks of Project 2025 taking over.
The very same Biden, btw, who appeared to be promising in 2020 to help a younger generation of Democrats to gain prominence, but then didn't deliver, leaving the party with no young cadres to take over.
Then when Biden lost the debate to Trump, of all people, the
Re: He can't do that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "worst candidate since Carter" isn't a high standard, though. Ratfuck Jr. was a candidate, after all.
Whatever the qualities of Harris, she had the misfortune to fight an uphill battle on the steepest possible slope after the Biden debacle.
Well, that train has been gone for nearly a year now, forward looking stuff looks real bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She really was the worst actual presidential candidate I've ever seen,
In as much as she was female: sure. Ameruica
Ultimately you cannot believe Republicans when they tell you what issues matter to them.
They lost their shit about Hillary's emails. Largely silent on the much worse breaches on the Republican whatsapp group.
Lost their shit about Obama "picking winners". Largely silent over this.
Lost their shit about Biden being old. Utterly silent about Trump being a scant 3 years younger.
Lost their shit about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you in general. Personally, I don't think you can believe any politicians. Republican and Democrat are just two flavors of a corrupt system run by money in US politics.
I'm not going to defend the Democrats, but from the distance I'm at, the Republicans seem considerably worse. Good/bad is not a binary choice. One being pretty bad doesn't make them equivalent to the other which is truly awful.
so fielding her may not have been the best strategy by the Democrats
It's not. The voting public is too s
Re: (Score:2)
And hopefully they learned something about that decision in the 7 months since this spraytan shitbag took office.
And hopefully it's not too late for them to make a different decision next November in the midterms.
Re: (Score:2)
> All because people over 50 can't tell the difference between reality and TV
Some of us over 50 take offense to such claims.
OH BOY! I just LOVE blatant graft! (Score:2)
Picking winners in a such a shockingly open way is the pinnacle of open governance!
Using the office of the presidency to support a company, while heavily investing in them, so that it succeeds and you make lots of money is certainly not illegal!
No, not at all! Certainly not GRAFT [wikipedia.org], No, THAT'S A CRIME!" [uscourts.gov]
This is PROTECTING AMERICAN INTERESTS, Yeah-- that's it!
Surely!
Re:OH BOY! I just LOVE blatant graft! (Score:4, Informative)
The government of Trumpistan has no concern for some nefarious "AMERICAN INTERESTS", dear.
It is only concerned with the interests of the Trump family, the great family that was given a POWERFUL MANDATE to MAKE AMERICA GRAFTY AGAIN.
And they're having a GREAT SUCCESS.
Marx would approve (Score:2)
Isn't seizing the means of production part of communism?
Re: Marx would approve (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All those countries calling themselves "communist" are in reality "totalitarian". You people would be happy with an actual communist country (you know: communist is based on the word community (based on principles such as being nice to one another and helping one another in the community)).
A perfect expression of communism is the average company. Lots of people working towards the same goal (e.g. a community working towards the same goal). Hence a "capitalistic communism" is very possible.
Problem is, with c
Re: (Score:2)
While I am not a Communist, I think that most people would be happier in a truly Communist system. That said, I agree with some of Marx's perspectives on Capitalism, especially finance capitalism, and I think we're seeing outcomes past what he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
where's the economic catastrophe that requires this?
Re: (Score:2)
Do free market conservatives suppor this? (Score:2)
How many times have we heard that the government should not be at all involved in picking winners & LOSERS?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What? How is that justification? Either the ideas are valid or they're not.
Either the market is free, or it's not.
Either the government is small, or it's not.
Nice track record you've got there (Score:2)
Re: Nice track record you've got there (Score:2)
What does taking a stake mean? (Score:2)
What does "taking a stake" mean? Simply buying existing stock shares in the stock market doesn't help Intel gain any funds, and the government likely has no more fab expertise than Intel. If the government bought existing shares, the stock price would appreciate, so that's great for executive bonuses.
Is the idea for Intel to issue new shares? If so, don't the existing shareholders have to approve the significant dilution of their shares? This would be bad for executive bonuses. Well, unless part of the
Re: (Score:1)
meh (Score:2)
I'm for supporting US manufacturing but I don't think the US govt should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace regardless of whether the president is an R or a D.
Better check the small print (Score:2)