3 ms·

This is a bailout to Intel. It's essentially the US government pfoviding guarantees to Intel and its customers. How would you describe that as anything but a ba

by jmyeet 1y ago

This is a bailout to Intel. It's essentially the US government pfoviding guarantees to Intel and its customers. How would you describe that as anything but a bailout? But really I was talking generally, such as the bank bailouts in 2008. When a bank normally fails the FDIC comes in and takes control of it including ownership. The shareholders are SOL. In my mind, this is exactly what should've happened to all the banks that were essentially insolvent. As another example, the US government bailed out LTCM in the 1990s when there was a willing buyer (Warren Buffett).

righthand 1y ago
Bailouts are different from the CHIPS act you’ll just have to accept that those other bailout agreements didn’t have a profit-sharing clause attached. Emotionally you call it a bailout but it is not and by trying to enforce that fact you are ignoring the truth and pressing a lie. Plain and simple the CHIPS Act is not a bailout. [0] [0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits” >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winning-chipmaking-subsidies-share-excess-profits-2023-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn... > Recipients who receive more than $150 million in direct funding "will be required to share with the U.S. government a portion of any cash flows or returns that exceed the applicant’s projections by an agreed-upon threshold," the department said. > Companies winning funding are also prohibited from using chips funds for dividends or stock buybacks, and must provide details of any plans to buy back their own shares over five years. The department will consider an "applicant’s commitments to refrain from stock buybacks."
- snapcaster 1y ago
  Do you think nitpicks like this are effective arguments? It's a bailout: they received privileged access to financing others didn't get

by jmyeet 1y ago

righthand 1y ago

Bailouts are different from the CHIPS act you’ll just have to accept that those other bailout agreements didn’t have a profit-sharing clause attached. Emotionally you call it a bailout but it is not and by trying to enforce that fact you are ignoring the truth and pressing a lie. Plain and simple the CHIPS Act is not a bailout. [0] [0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits” >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winning-chipmaking-subsidies-share-excess-profits-2023-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn... > Recipients who receive more than $150 million in direct funding "will be required to share with the U.S. government a portion of any cash flows or returns that exceed the applicant’s projections by an agreed-upon threshold," the department said. > Companies winning funding are also prohibited from using chips funds for dividends or stock buybacks, and must provide details of any plans to buy back their own shares over five years. The department will consider an "applicant’s commitments to refrain from stock buybacks."

snapcaster 1y ago
Do you think nitpicks like this are effective arguments? It's a bailout: they received privileged access to financing others didn't get