I would agree with your approach if we were simply discussing whether the government should fund intel, but we’ve already committed to funding intel via the government. Pulling back would hurt intel and our interests. Now that intel has become reliant on our promised funding, it makes sense to attach conditions to the funding we need to do instead of just handing it out while getting nothing in return.

▲ Fade_Dance 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The first thing that jumps out is that it is impossible to avoid the absurd juxtaposition of a republican led major national corporate stake, after a decade of the auto bailouts being used as a poster child of policy that the current party in charge doesn't agree with.

Moving on from that, you make a good point that it may be the best compromise if the original deal is off the table. That said, in my eyes the implementation could be better. On both a practical and ideological level, I think it would behoove the dealmakers to lay out clear exit conditions. That could look something like anything from signing a covenant with Intel to freeze dividends and corporate buybacks and pay down debt (which is dangerously high for them currently), and then once the corporate balance sheet gets to a safer level, the US gov could run a public auction for the equity once that strike level is hit. I'm sure they could come up with something palatable. What's unexcusable is to apparently enter into a seemingly permanent zone of CCP-style state corporate capitalism without clearly laying out what that means for America going forwards. As an average citizen, I certainly have questions about the precedents being set, and to me it just looks haphazard and off-the-cuff.

▲

mlinhares 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The first thing that jumps out is that it is impossible to avoid the absurd juxtaposition of a republican led major national corporate stake, after a decade of the auto bailouts being used as a poster child of policy that the current party in charge doesn't agree with.

The only absurd here is to think republicans care about anything other than power . Doesn't matter what they did or said yesterday, what matters is what can they say and do today to remain in power and enable their deep pocketed donors to make more money and gain more power.

People really have to stop thinking there's anything there, there's nothing, its all about acquiring and using power. Trying to come up with ideological reasons as to why they do this or that is useless.

▲

Fade_Dance 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>The only absurd here is to think republicans care about anything other than power . Doesn't matter what they did or said yesterday

Right, but it's an absurd juxtaposition when taken at face value none the less. I agree with what you said, but my point was more about other possible structures for the deal rather than political conclusions. I was attempting to brush aside the political considerations and take a somewhat tabula rasa approach, not spur a partisan political conversation, which clearly I failed at by mentioning the absurdity in messaging.

▲

lisbbb 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

orwin 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Pray that before 2026, you won't have had any DOJ approved FBI raids to Trump political enemies.

How I guess it will happen: first target 'close ennemies': same party, small public recognition, but opposite views on specific policies you want to denounce. No charge filed, just good old intimidation: raid the home, take the files an computer, then say "sorry we didn't find anything" after a few months.

My mother hosted political refugees from Russia and Kazakhstan, I've heard a lot of story, and that shit seems to always starts the same way.

▲

ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-]

You're a couple days late, it already happened: https://nypost.com/2025/08/22/us-news/patels-fbi-raids-john-...

But you're spot on -- John Bolton is a long-time Republican war hawk, small name recognition, differing views on many specific policies (came out against Trump during his first impeachment), home raided by FBI under vague implications, boxes taken, computers taken.

What happens next, according to the refugees?

	▲	orwin 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		In Kazakhstan, it was a power play to designate a new common enemy (in the case i know, Orthodox christians). The man was close to the president but fell in disgrace. It was used to quell the protests (i was an adult when this happened, so probably after 2009, i'll have to look), and the group that supported him, the Orthodox church, fell with him as public ennemies (it was also racism/ethnicism because most of the orthodox were ukrainians/Cossacks displaced under Staline during the famine, and looked quite different than ethnic Kazakhs). Basically fascistic behavior. The refugees i've met were all part of the church, so the purge hit a lot of people. Not sure if it worked, after all, i think they changed president recently, but i'm definitely not an expert on the area. In Russia i have no idea, probably you have underhand deals and politics happening, but its a fairly lock down country, information-wise

▲

wredcoll 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

gonzopancho 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The auto bailouts were started by Bush

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

	▲	Fade_Dance 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Absurd all the way down. Perhaps I should have nixed the political aside at the top. Wasn't my intent to bring that to HN.

▲

petralithic 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why have an exit condition at all? I'm not sure what's so inexcusable about what China is doing, by the looks of it, for their nationally important industries, they're doing pretty well.

▲

rayiner 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The first thing that jumps out is that it is impossible to avoid the absurd juxtaposition of a republican led major national corporate stake

The GOP overthrew its leadership in 2016 and a different faction took control of the party. The GOP started out as an economically interventionist party: https://www.journalofthecivilwarera.org/2017/04/gops-civil-w.... Then it went through a libertarian phase in the mid 20th century. Now its back to an economically interventionist party.

▲ righthand 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is misunderstanding what really happened. The oroginal agreement with the CHIPS act is that if your company is profitable post expansion funding then you will profit share with the federal government. Trump changed that original agreement to one of stock ownership. Now the federal government can reneg the deal by selling back for their money any time. Arguably more dangerous than profit sharing.

It was never a nothing-in-return agreement, that is fiction.[0]

[0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits” >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...

	▲	godelski 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		`> if your company is profitable post expansion funding then you will profit share with the federal government.` Not to mention... taxes... I mean I agree with you but even that article is talking about how it's not a free handout. It never could have been. A government could hand out money unconditionally and they'd still get a return as long as taxes exist. Intel's (or any company's) success results in them paying more taxes. Not just corporate taxes either.

▲ PhantomHour 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The entire point of the funding is the strategic benefit that Intel's fabs in the US provide. That's the thing the US would get out of it.

Also consider: Who is the $10 billion coming from? Because it's not Intel. Intel just prints the shares out of thin air. This is Trump stealing $10 billion directly from Intel's shareholders, who get nothing in return because Trump is legally required to disburse the CHIPS Act money.

▲

godelski 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's also just a complete misunderstanding in how a governments vehicle for investment works compared to a person's.

A person invests in a stock, hopes it goes up, and makes a profit (or loss) when they sell. That money isn't real until a sale occurs.

A government gives a grant and gets a return tomorrow and every single day of the company's existence as well as every single day each employee exists (even if the company doesn't). If a company exists, it pays corporate taxes. If that company has employees (as every company does), it pays payroll taxes. If that company has employees, they pay income taxes and various forms of consumption taxes.

IDK why we act like a grant is akin to lighting money on fire. Governments don't give out grants for nothing. They're still benefiting from it. Sure, the vehicles for return are different from a standard investment but also a government isn't a person. Well I should take that last part back. A government is a person in an autocracy (monarchy/dictatorship/theocracy/etc), but that shouldn't even be on the table.

▲

johnecheck 4 days ago | parent [-]

> that shouldn't even be on the table

I wish that were so.

	▲	godelski 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ditto. It's also just crazy to see nationalization being packaged as capitalism. Those screaming for privatization while nationalizing. It's not even being done covertly either

▲

sieabahlpark 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]