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 2 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.