|
| ▲ | blooalien 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > "No way the US is going to nationalize a tech company regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable." You simply cannot apply any sort of actual logic to the reasoning of the current U.S. government's actions... They just "do stuff" because they feel like it, with no clear thought whatsoever of any potential consequences that may occur. |
| |
| ▲ | csto12 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > "No way the US is going to tariff the entire world regardless of what happens. The exodus of capital would be unimaginable." | |
| ▲ | davikr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's Madman theory all the way down. |
|
|
| ▲ | vmg12 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The CEO of Anthropic himself has said AI is like a nuclear bomb when justifying export controls on Nvidia chips. How many private companies control nuclear bombs? |
|
| ▲ | lovich 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They took 10% of Intel and the only reaction was my stocks increasing in value 5x. |
| |
| ▲ | oskarkk 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Taking a 10% stake in a company is far from nationalization. And the big increase in Intel's stock price happened months after that. | | |
| ▲ | dofm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is literally partially nationalising though, isn’t it? This is how the UK government got the banks through the 2008 financial crisis. | | |
| ▲ | ls612 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | They bought the shares on the open market. They didn't seize the company at gunpoint. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So if USgov bought 51% at market value you’d be ok with that? Time to fire up the printers I guess. | |
| ▲ | lovich 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No they didn’t. After Trump started making noise about their CEO, Lip-bu Tan, being Chinese they then took the shares at a “…discount to the current market price.”[1] And the money for this _deal_ was primarily from the CHIPS act funds they were already awarded but had not been sent to them yet > Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips.[1] This was at gunpoint from the government’s monopoly on violence. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel-goverment-equity-stake... | | |
| ▲ | ls612 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | ??? The government had passed a law appropriating funds to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing in the US and spent some of it buying intel stock. How is that the government seizing Intel at gunpoint? I mean aside from the libertarian argument that the taxation necessary to raise those funds is theft? | | |
| ▲ | lovich an hour ago | parent [-] | | Did you miss the part where it was already awarded to them, but the Trump admin then made it conditional? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lovich 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Taking any % is partially nationalizing it and there was no negative capital flight. And 10% is a pretty significant portion. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nl 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Trump says his team will 'look into' US taking stake in AI companies[1] Yes, there is a gap between "taking a stake" and nationalizing one, but.. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-says-his-team-will-lo... |
|
| ▲ | dofm 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Trump has already (with Altman directly egging him on) talked about the US taking a share in (i.e. partially nationalising) the AI companies. Has he not called a meeting about this next week? |
