Intel Has Agreed To a Deal For US To Take 10% Equity Stake, Trump Says (reuters.com) 105
President Donald Trump said on Friday the U.S. would take a 10% stake in Intel under a deal with the struggling chipmaker and is planning more such moves, the latest extraordinary intervention by the White House in corporate America. Reuters: The development follows a meeting between CEO Lip-Bu Tan and Trump earlier this month that was sparked by Trump's demand for the Intel chief's resignation over his ties to Chinese firms.
Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF is up with Republicans today? They threw out their own rulebooks and are just making it up as they go!
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump remade the party. Social conservatism and populism now run the party almost in its entirety.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump remade the party. Social conservatism and populism now run the party almost in its entirety.
What part of that is supposed to be funny? Or is some FAKE Republican trying to censor reality again?
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as the trademark legally exists, it exists. There are a fuckton of Americans who vote for Rs and Ds, but don't know anything about the parties' policies. If you own the R or D trademark, you automatically get tens of millions of votes for nothing. You can be as politically nutty as you want and you won't lose those votes. You can declare those voters your enemy and work directly against them, and they will reward you for that by voting for you.
"Republican" is still an extremely real thing, and it's worth more far more money than it cost Trump to buy. He really did find a great deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Like post-Putin Russia, I'm not really seeing many good options here, for anyone in the blast radius. In both cases, I suspect it's going to make "Succession" look like some toddlers having a squabble over who gets to have a go on the swing next, and nearly everyone is going to have to deal with some of the fallout...
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP made Dubya disappear pretty quickly. I don't think he was in attendance at the RNC after his 2nd term ended nor was he mentioned.
They'll rely on the terrible short-term memory of the voters & will try to make all of this seem like ancient history.
Will it work? I really don't know.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, one of the hallmarks of the "conservative" is their ability to forget anything inconvenient with the utmost alacrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sure there is, we just call them Fascists now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to provide your operating definitions for "socialism" and "communism".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right.. Because every person who identifies with the Republican Party is a Trumpist...
It's almost entirely true in the public sphere. To succeed in the modern Republican party (at least on the national level) you've gotta bend the knee.
Trump hasnt faced any form of meaningful opposition for any of the radical changes he's made in the party, especially this time around. There was a small handful of objectors but most of those have been driven from national politics by now. Those Republicans that don't support Trump are sadly irrelevant now as they have no meaningful representation of their ow
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... I'll give you that. But that's what's known as a "nuance". That's not what the OP said or even implied. He said & implied that every Republican is pro-Trump and that's simply not true.
Sorry, I didn't properly tie the point I was making to the post we're talking about. What I'm getting at is that there's a good bit of truth in regards to what they are saying even if it isn't literally correct. Every relevant Republican is pro Trump at least at the national level. Their comment is just not acknowledging the irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps less flippantly, what do you call someone who, allegedly reluctantly, votes for mandatory human/goat orgies, or votes for other politicians who themselves will, allegedly reluctantly, vote for mandatory human/goat orgies? Because I'd sure as a wang up a goat's ass call them mandatory-human/goat-orgyists.
I'd probably abbreviate after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What you "like" or don't like doesn't matter or even what you call yourself, only how you VOTE.
There's not much difference between the person who enthusiastically voted for Trump or who scorned his lies, hypocrisy, cruelty, etc but held his nose & voted for him anyway - both of them contributed equally to handing the reins of power back to him
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:5, Insightful)
On this side, we actually tolerate diversity of thought.
No you absolutely do not, or rather, Republicans are smart in that they tolerate diversity of thought so long as you support Trump.
Don't believe me? Look at what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse when he dared to suggest he might vote Libertarian because he didn't like Trump's stance on guns. He was faced with total expulsion and derision from the party until he fell in line. Pretty much every conservative media figure online was out for blood until he knew his place.
If anything Democrats can learn from that, we actually allow a the groups inside the party to rag the party from the inside and don't force them to vote. The whole "Uncommitted" movement in 2024, Republicans would not have stood for that.
If you want to be a part of the GOP today you have to be 110% in support of everything Trump does or GTFO. Don't be afraid to own that, it works.
Re: (Score:2)
The first stage of the revolution is to keep a cordial relationship with the Mensheviks. We're all on the same team. We're hear to overthrow that rotting edifice of the old order and create a stronger, better society, with a government truly representative of the people. We're all a big tent, and can accommodate differences of opinion.
The second stage of the revolution requires the sidelining of the Mensheviks. Yes, they have their objections, but those objections are mainly spurious, perhaps a little too i
Re: (Score:1)
For the record: I do like Trump.
For the open graft? For the confused rambling? Or are you a fan of fake gold filigree?
But even more likely is that you (and a lot of other weak people) like him because he gives you permission to hate people, and he'll even take on the work of hating people for you. Rather than improving yourself, you're trying to just feel better about yourself by pushing others down.
Bigotry has its roots in weakness, and Trump is demonstrating that every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:5, Interesting)
With that said, you like Trump, and presumably voted for him. What do you think of the government buying (at least portions) of American companies, and exerting what appears to be coercion on those companies? How does that fit in with the traditional Republican viewpoint, focusing on small government and a capitalist economy?
What's your take on fascism? Google's definition: Fascism is a far-right, ultranationalist, authoritarian political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized power, forcible suppression of opposition, militarism, and the subordination of individual interests to the state or nation. It rejects liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, and is often marked by scapegoating, a fixation on national decline, and a glorification of violence to serve the state. Under economic control, it says: A system of strong state control over the economy, often described as "corporatism," where private ownership exists but is subordinated to the national interest.
Personally, I have nothing against Trump voters, as individuals, as people. I just cannot understand how they can be ok with the latest policies and where we're going as a country. If the vision is a capitalist haven with minimal intrusion from government, that's not my jam but I can understand it. A full fascist state with a cult of personality? Fuck no.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll engage... I'll start by saying you're right, there's variations in the ranks of the Republicans, just like there are variations in the Dems, or any other group. There are definitely Republicans who would have preferred Trump was not the nominee.
Thank you. Likewise, I agree that not every Democrat wanted Kamala and it's quite likely that some Republicans voted for her.
With that said, you like Trump, and presumably voted for him.
This time, Yes. I did not vote for him on his previous two runs. CA is a winner-takes-all state and leans to the left by about a 6-4 margin. I took the opportunity during the previous two elections to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Prior to that I voted for Obama twice.
What do you think of the government buying (at least portions) of American companies, and exerting what appears to be coercion on those companies?
It's a 10% equity stake, from what I understand. 10% gets you control of nothing. (Perhaps a seat on the board
Re: (Score:3)
What I do have a problem with is the left constantly fear-mongering that he's not gonna leave office when his term is up.
You already have conveniently forgotten that he didn't leave readily the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess where we disagree is why and how the Intel stake happened, and whether or not that represents a shift towards fascism. I agree with you that if Intel was on the cusp of bankruptcy, maybe the right move to save jobs is to inject capital and take a stake. It would also be ok in times of war, with the stated intention to go back to normal once the war ends (your WW2 example). However, Intel is not on the verge of going under. Instead what I see is t
Re: (Score:1)
>Democrat Party appears to be endorsing actual Communists
Meanwhile the Republican President is nationalizing Intel. (Textbook Communism)
Re: (Score:2)
And you really think Trump is going to be satisfied with just 10%?
Re: (Score:1)
>On this side, we actually tolerate diversity of thought
Dear lord. You got it bad huh?
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Heritage Foundation is running the show now, Trump is just their paid spokesman
They have profited from every stock market fall trump has induced, and they will use DOGEs emptying government agencies of seasoned employees, to replace them with Heritage Foundation pawns when the positions need to be filled again
Heritage Foundation is planning for the 4th Reich, here in America [wikipedia.org] and it is time for all Americans to wake the fuck up and stop them
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you can't blame Heritage for anything related to the CHIPS Act (which is where Trump got the money for the buyout):
https://www.heritage.org/budge... [heritage.org]
https://heritageaction.com/key... [heritageaction.com]
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:5, Informative)
The CHIPS Acts was passed by Congress and Signed by Biden with the intent of boosting U.S. semiconductor and high-tech manufacturing, strengthening domestic supply chains, and enhancing national security, thereby keeping critical technology production on U.S. soil. The act provides nearly $53 billion in funding for semiconductor manufacturing, research, and development, alongside investments in other critical technology areas like artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
Buying stakes in US companies and putting the administration into the position to create winners of losers was not part of it
Trump is STEALING from all Americans in order to create power and profits for a small group that is writing his game plan
Again I would suggest that anybody interested in living in a Democracy should read up on the Heritage Foundation and their Project 2025 that trump is following
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news... [msn.com]
"Having Intel essentially have to give up the value of the grants as an equity stake transferred to the federal government is not the right move for sure and, I think, is a slippery slope,” Stern told the Washington Examiner. “The federal government is bad at managing everything.”
- Richard Stern (Heritage)
The Cato institute and other smaller think tanks are against this move as well.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, subversive organization is denying the actions taken by another at their bidding????
Call Machiavelli, I don't think even the Medici were so cunning /s
They were and this is a very worn playbook.
The real problem is that so many Americans are unaware of this and have become willing participants
Re: (Score:2)
You're hopeless.
Re: (Score:2)
Again I would suggest that anybody interested in living in a Democracy should read up on the Heritage Foundation and their Project 2025 that trump is following
This, friend, is a disconnect. They do not want to live in a Democracy, where they would be expected to vote on things and have those votes matter. They want to live in a Republic, where their vote is irrelevant, so they only have to think about the color red.
Re: (Score:2)
You speak as if there is hope that things will return to normalcy. They will not... at least until millions, if not billions, die. The takeover has already happened. Fighting the rest of the slide into Fascism will not work. The Fascist State of America is now front and center on the world stage. Enjoy our complete and total destruction of the US Constitution as the current regime wipes it ass with it.
We have already fallen... but for some reason, you do not seem to realize it yet. You appear to think that
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, though I was actually looking for a name of the puppeteer who pulled this particular string of stupidity. What the YOB says hasn't mattered for a long time.
But it really is sad what happened to Intel over the years and if I live long enough I'm hoping to read an interesting book on the topic. For now, I'm still vaguely hoping to see some funny comments on this story. Another rich target with lots of low-hanging fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He's wrong, Heritage doesn't like this buyout. Links posted above in two separate posts. Cato doesn't either. None of the libertarian/pseudo-libertarian groups like it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is NOT related to what I actually wrote. What part of my poor writing were you unable to understand? I can attempt to clarify. Or was your reply actually intended for some other part of the discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
Intel has done some good things in the day, but they have always been far from the infallible genius of their carefully manicured public image. Even the x86 was half accident. They had something going with ARM but dumped it because not invented here. Itanic was every bit the disaster it's nickname implies.
Then the whole debacle of rigging the compiler to sandbag AMD.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with anything you said (though perhaps I should do some research to confirm the parts I'm unsure of), but my interest in the story was for humor (and Slashdot failed again) and the specific puppeteer who told the YOB this was a good idea. The YOB just signs stuff that is put in front of him, sometimes with a brief mumble about the part he thinks he understands.
I actually think this deal is a kind of forced fire sale, so the highest probability for a real motivation was to get some of Intel'
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing
Through DOGE, they have enacted much of the 2025 plan by drastically over-cutting headcount, so they can fill with partisans with no Congressional or Court oversight.
By attacking Educational Institutions yelling DEI DEI, they are ending racial equity efforts, another Project 2025 goal
But, hey just read this link to learn about it for yourself [globalextremism.org], if we sit back and wait for the "normal process" to self correct. it will be too late.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not into this at all. Now the US government has vested interest in supporting one US company over all other domestic competition. There are a lot of past examples in other countries where this just leads to the company getting even worse as protectionist policies keep them afloat for a while rather then them actually implement the change needed. Then they fail. We'll see how this goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now the US government has vested interest in supporting one US company over all other domestic competition.
This. 100%. I wouldn't mind the US government having vested interest over broad indexes or ETFs covering sectors (thought that could also be a can of worms), but this is waaaaay too interventionist and fascistic for my liking.
This is not giving Intel an uncompetitive advantage over current and future competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not into this at all.
You don't realize it yet, but you are exactly the same as every other human who exists under a dictatorship. Your death is only valuable as a number and nobody cares about numbers.
These fuckers are just getting started and there is nobody with enough power and spine to do anything about it. The Democrats are on the same fucking payroll, so feel to pray to them for relief. I will be laughing my ass off as you slowly realize that the Big D is NOT going to save you.
Re: (Score:2)
The government shouldn't be spending tax payer money on this, but as badly managed as Intel has been for years now I'm not certain that the government could screw them up any worse.
Re: (Score:1)
The government shouldn't be spending tax payer money on this, but as badly managed as Intel has been for years now I'm not certain that the government could screw them up any worse.
A government that's dedicated solely to extracting as much money from the U.S. economy and awarding it as gifts to loyalist oligarchs couldn't screw up a corporation worse than it already is? Ye of little faith.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how the MAGA crowd cannot see that Trump and the Heritage Foundation are pushing the country towards fascism. Or perhaps they welcome it -- they welcome the loss of freedom and rights and money.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
-- Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
Heritage opposes the decision. They're in record, multiple links posted above.
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking to the press in his capacity as a spokesman and analyst for Heritage. There's every indication that they don't like Trump's decision. Heritage isn't alone; nearly every conservative/libertarian thinktank has come out swinging against the Intel. If you're getting downmodded, it's for rhetorical nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. They welcome it. In 2016 we could believe that people were tricked into voting for Trump, that they didn't realize what a shitshow he really was. But 2024? After he'd screwed up for four years and had one trial after another for four more? No one can say they didn't see it coming. They wanted him to do exactly what he's doing. Anything that hurts "those horrible people" (immigrants, minorities, queers, liberals, whoever) gets a rousing cheer from the rank and file MAGAts. It doesn't matter if it hur
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. I used to think I was a Republican. Now it's just the party of Trump. It follows whatever Trump says today, which might be the opposite of what Trump said yesterday.
I still believe in traditional conservative principles. Today's Republican party doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF is up with Republicans today? They threw out their own rulebooks and are just making it up as they go!
Justice Jackson recently accused her colleagues of playing Calvinball with questions before the court. The only rule being that Trump must win.
Today's raid on Bolton's house shows the dangers of crossing Trump.
The cowards should have kicked him to the curb during one or other of the impeachment trials, but they were too scared to do so then and now all of us must live with the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd disagree. Government should include stocks in their reserves just as anyone would, although government officials should not be involved in making equity deals with companies or making the call to buy a specific company -- it begin to look like some form of favoritism, and the manner is totally improper.
Within the specific context of trust funds I mean - the government's funds retained for future spending should be invested appropriately just like any corporation would invest their cash - which shoul
Re:Government should not own businesses..?? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an old saying that "you become what you fear". Bibi became like Hitler [cnn.com] and GOP became socialist. [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
and GOP became socialist.
As everyone in that reddit thread pointed out, that quiz is about fascism not socialism. The open debate is: Does the author of that reddit post not know the difference, or are they intentionally confusing the two as a form of misdirection? The post has merit even though it mislabels things.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they're the actual socialists now?
Taking government control of companies.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument (as I understand it) is that because Intel is the only American company making advanced semiconductors, it is in the national interest to ensure that Intel keeps its fabs going AND remains a US-controlled company. And with Intel talking strongly about closing or divesting those fabs, the government thinks that buying a seat at the table will ensure those fabs remain open and in US hands.
Re: (Score:2)
The US typically approaches this by purchasing the products from the companies, or using trade pressure to make another country purchase products from them -- rather than by buying them out. The US government isn't talking about buying ExxonMobil, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. This is definitely weird.
Re: (Score:2)
They are just starting the process of nationalizing the means of microchip production comrade.
Someday the glorious workers of the state apparatus will be able to make all the microchips used in all American products!
The backdoors in them will allow for the government to track and surveil all computer activity!
So glad to see the Trump administration finally embracing Marxist theory.
Re: (Score:1)
It's Socialism or Barbarism.
Re: (Score:2)
Which rulebook?
The policy rulebook of both parties says:
1) Maintain and grow the power and money of the rich.
2) Refer to 1)
The rhetoric rulebook says a lot of things, but none of that is binding. You remember when free speech was a Democrat issue? Pepperidge farm remembers. But surprise surprise, you can pivot on a dime on a "core" issue if the wind changes.
Take a wild guess as to which rulebook explains all policy since the the start of the neoliberal era.
Intel is in deep trouble and nobody in their right
As if Intel really had any choice? (Score:2)
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the rest of the fab shops that have signed up to CHIPS funds. Trump probably won't let them out of the arrangements. He'll make sure he gets his grubby hands in everywhere. Yet more spitefulness.
Next stage ... unaccounted tariffs and other appropriations go missing.
Look what ya got pubs! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather ironic that the real Communists are the Republicans.
Re:Look what ya got pubs! (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather ironic that the real Communists are the Republicans.
The Devil will show up as a man of the cloth, and the traitor will wrap himself in the flag.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's socialism. More like fascist graft.
Check the fine print because I'm sure the official owner of the 10% will also be listed as "President Donal J. Trump" rather than "US Government".
Extortion! (Score:2)
Nice chip fab you have here.... Would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Intel hasn't been doing well such that kissing Don's ass may be a step up ... uh, did I actually say that?
Re: (Score:2)
Intel begged for this money.
Commies in charge of the GOP (Score:4, Insightful)
The right way for the US government to invest in America is via an S&P 500 index fund.
Intel's current largest shareholder holds less than 0.5% of the company.
Taking a 10% stake is not an investment, it is an ownership position. It lets the President appoint the Chairman of the Board and multiple Board members.
Either Trump will take a major loss on OUR investment, or Intel will get the Trump's patented "it's not a crime when I do it." What is that? Well just read below.
US government will only buy Intel chips because Trump will officially call the competitors traitors, and therefore they can't be trusted.
Intel will get favored tax treatment.
Trump will be asking companies "Do you buy intel chips?" before talking to the CEO.
Intel it will get favored Legal treatment - both when they sue someone and when they get sued.
Communism does not work. If the USA buys 10% of Intel, in 5 years it will either be the most corrupt business in the US or it will be bankrupt. And 5 years later it will either be 100% owned by the US government or bankrupt. 5 years later (2030) it will be bankrupt because the US won't put up with that kind of corruption forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like what happened when the US government purchased GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac?
(I actually agree with your points, but this reply is the obligatory counter to your post and needs to be addressed.)
Re: (Score:2)
GM: US lost $10 Billion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/busine... [nbcnews.com]
Chrysler: US lost $1 billion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/0... [nytimes.com]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: The government have not exited from them yet. Hard to tell whether it will be a profit or loss, particularly if Trump decides to sell them all to his son-in-law for $1 But if he puts them up for a reasonable price, these are likely to come out as a profit, the Mortgage Crisis was more of a temporary thing than the total failure of US car companies to make cars
Right idea, wrong people, wrong reasons (Score:3)
The public being directly invested in the largest and most important American enterprises to me has always been a no brainer but like all things the how and why are just as important, if not more so in many ways, than the actual action.
There is a proper way to do this, a few even. Sovereign Wealth Funds [wikipedia.org] and/or State Owned Enterprise in that the state owns a type of holding corporation that then has an established charter and structure like any wealth fund does today in how they manage their portfolio.
It should be obvious that the way Trump is going about this and his reasons to do so are corrupt and corrosive but we're going to argue about it because "the narrative" must be protected and "the narrative" has itself wound up in itself so tight that the admin cannot tolerate a single failure that they do not spin through their media system lest it fall apart.
Same as with Epstein, look at the major online figures and you will see the common defense story going up because is Trump is dead wrong and corrupt about this then what else could he be? All or nothing at this point, we can't have a "50% lying shitheel President", that doesn't compute.
Isn't this Socialism? (Score:2)
Better dead then Red, right...
So where's the $$ coming from for US to buy 10% (Score:2)
Bye Bye Intel (Score:2)
Im using my last Intel based laptop due to Intels support of Israel. Its enough with the zionist bastards supporting genocide, now they will be part of US government assets.
No thanks
No more Intel products for me, hope others have similar concerns and a shared desire to minimize complicity in systems we oppose. Fuck Intel.
Chrysler (Score:1)
Welcome to the New American Democracy (Score:2)
Okay, now what? (Score:2)
Trump controls financial and economic levers, what will he do to keep Intel's stock price up or, at least above what the U.S. paid for it? Let me re-phrase that, what won't he do? You know, for the winning.
8.9 Billion Dollars (Score:1)