4 ms·

So should the government give bailouts without getting any equity back? Only deal in loans? Intel is strategically important. As nice as it is to pretend tha

So should the government give bailouts without getting any equity back? Only deal in loans? Intel is strategically important. As nice as it is to pretend that the whole world plays by the same rules, that the free market exists everywhere and that we'll never to to war, there are bad actors and the US (rest of the collective West as well) need to ensure that we won't be completely crippled if China attacks a single island off their coast...

justonceokay 1y ago
Is there a difference between this and nationalization? Just a matter of degree?
- dismalaf 1y ago
  > Just a matter of degree? That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything. First you get the money, then you get the power. Money is fungible, but power isn't. Arguably, taking away my power is an affront to my human rights. Taking my money is an affront, but it never was my money to begin with, as I don't control the value or creation of it. My rights are inalienable.
  - Starman_Jones 1y ago
    What are the shareholders getting out of this?
    - dismalaf 1y ago
      Maybe their shares get bought, in this case it looks like Intel might have simply issued the shares. In this case, shareholders have equity in a company that just had $10 billion added to the balance sheet and which the government signalled can't fail. INTC was up over 5% on Friday, obviously shareholders think the government investment is good for them. Versus in most nationalisation events their shares simply get taken away or diluted to pennies.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      Better to be diluted than continue to invest in a company that goes to zero. And it's the standard refrain: if this money helps Intel get back on its feet, the stock price will go up, presumably to the point dilution won't matter. But who cares, really? If it's true that Intel is actually strategically important to the US, the shareholders are irrelevant if need be. It's not a great outcome, sure, but Intel has been mismanaged for a long time, and investors should have known the risks of investing in a company like that.
    - WillPostForFood 1y ago
      They get $11.1 billion dollars invested into Intel. https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement-to https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...
      - Snafuh 1y ago
        The money was already granted without being tied to 10% equity. This looks like the government retroactively changing the deal.
marsten 1y ago
> Intel is strategically important. Fab capability on US soil is strategically important. Intel is one of many possible routes to that.
- mettamage 1y ago
  What are other routes? Just curious
- petralithic 1y ago
  No other fab comes close to current gen

justonceokay 1y ago

Is there a difference between this and nationalization? Just a matter of degree?

dismalaf 1y ago
> Just a matter of degree? That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > That and when most governments "nationalise" corporations they seize them and don't give the owners/shareholders anything. First you get the money, then you get the power. Money is fungible, but power isn't. Arguably, taking away my power is an affront to my human rights. Taking my money is an affront, but it never was my money to begin with, as I don't control the value or creation of it. My rights are inalienable.
- Starman_Jones 1y ago
  What are the shareholders getting out of this?
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    Maybe their shares get bought, in this case it looks like Intel might have simply issued the shares. In this case, shareholders have equity in a company that just had $10 billion added to the balance sheet and which the government signalled can't fail. INTC was up over 5% on Friday, obviously shareholders think the government investment is good for them. Versus in most nationalisation events their shares simply get taken away or diluted to pennies.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    Better to be diluted than continue to invest in a company that goes to zero. And it's the standard refrain: if this money helps Intel get back on its feet, the stock price will go up, presumably to the point dilution won't matter. But who cares, really? If it's true that Intel is actually strategically important to the US, the shareholders are irrelevant if need be. It's not a great outcome, sure, but Intel has been mismanaged for a long time, and investors should have known the risks of investing in a company like that.
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    They get $11.1 billion dollars invested into Intel. https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement-to https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/...
    - Snafuh 1y ago
      The money was already granted without being tied to 10% equity. This looks like the government retroactively changing the deal.

marsten 1y ago

> Intel is strategically important. Fab capability on US soil is strategically important. Intel is one of many possible routes to that.

mettamage 1y ago
What are other routes? Just curious
petralithic 1y ago
No other fab comes close to current gen