They probably also spend the money on pay rises. Does that also bother you? When investors buy shares, they are in effect giving money to the company. It might

They probably also spend the money on pay rises. Does that also bother you? When investors buy shares, they are in effect giving money to the company. It might be indirect if they purchase from some other holder of the share, but ultimately those shares were issued by the company and the initial purchasers gave the company that money. Investors do this because they want a return. Either dividends or price growth or both. If there's no prospects for growth they will pull out their money and this will seriously hurt Intel, creating a downward spiral. The US Government is subsidizing Intel because they don't want it to die. An Intel that has crushed its investors will end up on permanent subsidy life support because nobody will trust it with their money again. An Intel that uses some of those subsidies to keep investors on-side will retain their trust, and give it a pathway off government support and back onto raising funds from the markets. So whilst this sort of thing makes the left very unhappy (often because they don't think of themselves as holding equities even when they do via pensions/insurance funds), it does make sense over the long run. Investors aren't an ATM that can just be raided at will. They're a coalition that can break.