It somewhat makes sense in terms of industries which are deemed strategically important. Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits.

▲

petemill 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits

Which is what the last CEO was in the middle of doing and he got fired just recently because they couldn't stomach it

▲

astrange 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The CHIPS act founded the National Semiconductor Technology Center for this purpose. As for Intel, they aren't even achieving short term profits…

▲

christina97 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

OP didn’t make a value judgement about which model is better or makes more sense!

▲

bobthepanda 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Intel has had a couple years of saying they were going into a more long term vision and failing, and it’s unclear how direct government ownership will make them get better at execution

▲

JackYoustra 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

if someone believes this, they should buy intel and just do it outright! But no one does because it's not as easy as "just think long term" - if it were, berkshire has the liquid money to buy intel several times over.

▲

Nevermark 3 days ago | parent [-]

A large new powerful shareholder come in supporting long term thinking does make a difference.

Public shareholders are generally short term motivated.

One clear reason it doesn't make as much sense to Buffet is he wouldn't get the national security hedge that made the stock a buy for the government.

	▲	Paradigma11 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I wouldn't call those two years till the next elections long term.

▲

3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]