Intel Warns US Equity Stake Could Trigger 'Adverse Reactions' 153
Intel said Monday that converting $8.87 billion in federal chip subsidies into a 10% equity stake creates unprecedented complications and potential "adverse reactions" for a company deriving 76% of revenue internationally. The arrangement transforms Biden-era CHIPS Act grants into share purchases at $20.74 -- a discount to Friday's $24.80 close -- with the Department of Commerce receiving up to 433 million shares by Tuesday's expected closing.
Foreign governments may impose additional regulations on Intel due to US government ownership, the company warned in securities filings, while the precedent could discourage other nations from offering grants if they expect similar equity conversions. China alone represents 29% of Intel's revenue. The deal also restricts Intel's strategic flexibility, requiring government votes align with board recommendations except on matters affecting federal interests.
Foreign governments may impose additional regulations on Intel due to US government ownership, the company warned in securities filings, while the precedent could discourage other nations from offering grants if they expect similar equity conversions. China alone represents 29% of Intel's revenue. The deal also restricts Intel's strategic flexibility, requiring government votes align with board recommendations except on matters affecting federal interests.
So this is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
It is genuinely frustrating how many Trump supporters still exist even here. I don't believe for a second any of them are so foolish that they believe Trump will be good for them economically. So that just leaves social issues.
Is potentially being able to say the n word in public without losing your job worth giving up thousands of dollars a year if not more? The last BBB will cost consumers a minimum of $1,000 a year. And that's before we talk about all the other impacts
I don't expect Trump supporters to change their minds. I figured out years ago that nothing changes their minds because they willingly consume propaganda for entertainment.
I am mostly just bitching at this point. Screaming into the void as it were. There's a small chance Gavin newsom will save the country despite everything but besides that we are going to look like South Sudan in 10 years
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Is potentially being able to say the n word in public without losing your job worth giving up thousands of dollars a year if not more? The last BBB will cost consumers a minimum of $1,000 a year. And that's before we talk about all the other impacts
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
--Lyndon B. Johnson
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
The way I like to put it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whatever else you think about it Trump does not have the right to unilaterally do this. The chips act does not give him that right.
This is correct.
Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
No.
He cannot force Intel to do this, however, every executive since the dawn of time has been able to make deals with US corporations in return for funding.
Intel sold an equity stake in its business for 8 something billion dollars.
Doing this doesn't make him a dictator. It does, however, make him a hypocrite- but that's hardly news for anyone.
Fellating the image of Reagan while acquiring equity stakes in corporations... chef's kiss. But still not dictatorship behavior.
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Doing this doesn't make him a dictator. It does, however, make him a hypocrite- but that's hardly news for anyone.
Fellating the image of Reagan while acquiring equity stakes in corporations... chef's kiss. But still not dictatorship behavior.
He quite literally said today, "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." He's floating that balloon, seeing how much push back he'll get for it.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrup... [bsky.app]
Re: (Score:2)
He quite literally said today, "A lot of people are saying maybe we'd like a dictator." He's floating that balloon, seeing how much push back he'll get for it.
There's no balloon to float.
He's had a hard on for being El Presidente Vitalicio forever. He dreams of himself as the Great White Savior of White America.
Fortunately for us, we're still a nation of laws, and he hasn't proven to test the legal pushback against questionably legal executive action more than any other particular executive.
Look at the context of this.
He's discussing deploying the Illinois National Guard to Chicago. These are people who are sworn to fucking kill his ass if he becomes a dom
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2)
"Fortunately for us, we're still a nation of laws"
Hahahahahhahahahahah
Re: So this is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's become apparent that some democracies are not as secure as we thought. Not just the US, the UK has been a victim of this too.
Too much was done based on tradition, norms, and the assumption that most of the people involved would act with at least some integrity. And to be fair some of them did, but not enough of them.
A good example is the way SCOTUS has been stacked. The system was based on the assumption that whoever was in power would not abuse it. In both the case of the US and UK, it may be too late
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for us, we're still a nation of laws, and he hasn't proven to test the legal pushback against questionably legal executive action more than any other particular executive.
Who will enforce any of this? He's placed loyal stooges in every level of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Who will enforce any of this? He's placed loyal stooges in every level of government.
lol.
Yes. The First President Ever To Do So!!!!
It's his fucking Government. He's the fucking executive of it.
You seem to be really upset by that. I'm not a fan personally, but the twat did win an election.
Re: (Score:2)
This country's government is designed to have checks and balances on power. Congress isn't supposed to rubber-stamp every suggestion the President makes about spending -- they're the ones in charge of those decisions. Judges, particularly at the highest levels, aren't supposed to be partisan stooges; they're supposed to follow the law, but that doesn't seem to be what we have now. Nobody outside of the executive seems to want to exert their power, for fear of losing it. Apparently, it's enough to be able to
Re: (Score:2)
This country's government is designed to have checks and balances on power.
Correct, it does.
Congress isn't supposed to rubber-stamp every suggestion the President makes about spending
Uh, wrong.
Congress is supposed to do whatever the fuck the majority of it wants to do. Not what you want it to do.
Judges, particularly at the highest levels, aren't supposed to be partisan stooges
I'm not going to argue that all judges are perfect- and Trump definitely picked some really fucking shitty ones (but so did Obama) at the circuit level- but Trump's Supreme Court picks aren't that bad. Certainly not as bad as Bush's.
I have a feeling that you find any ruling that you disagree with to be "partisan".
Nobody outside of the executive seems to want to exert their power, for fear of losing it. Apparently, it's enough to be able to claim having it.
Congress largely agrees with the President. It's perfectly logic
Re: (Score:2)
He's discussing deploying the Illinois National Guard to Chicago.
Step 1: Deploy the guard under questionably moral and legal auspices. Step 2: Await the expected response of the Citizenry pushing back. Step 3: Escalate the antagonism until the first rock is thrown. Step 4: Fox "News" runs wall-to-wall 24-hour breathless coverage about "Chicago being out of control" demanding "leadership" do something about it. Step 5: President declares Martial Law. Step 6: The House and Senate continues to sit there with their thumbs in each other's asses. The Supreme Court shoves
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Deploy the guard under questionably moral and legal auspices.
Not really.
Step 2: Await the expected response of the Citizenry pushing back.
Ya, I mean it's fucking martial law over in LA, haven't you heard?
Step 3: Escalate the antagonism until the first rock is thrown.
You've already gone so far down your rabbit hole that you've forgotten that we're talking about the Illinois National Guard policing Illinois citizens.
Step 4: Fox "News" runs wall-to-wall 24-hour breathless coverage about "Chicago being out of control" demanding "leadership" do something about it.
Probably true.
Step 5: President declares Martial Law.
He can in the case of insurrection, it's true. And it's legal.
Who gets to define an insurrection? A great question. It should be noted that Washington called far less a rebellion, and mobilized troops against them.
Step 6: The House and Senate continues to sit there with their thumbs in each other's asses.
Probably. But that is the system working as intended, e
Re: (Score:2)
He is making ICE into his own army, it already has the budget it needs.
His own Hoover-era FBI for persecuting (mostly) illegal immigrants... ya.
The general populace? Give me a break.
There are cities with more police officers than there are ICE agents in the United States.
The supreme court said the president can do whatever the fuck he wants as long as it does it as the president, so yeah, any, fucking, thing.
No, they didn't. If I thought it would do any good to explain to you the meaning of that ruling, I would- but suffice it to say- it was largely expected that such a ruling would come down, at least since the Nixon era.
He's already coming for his enemies, Bolton now
Ya, I wouldn't want to have done anything questionably legal while being on his bad side- h
Re: (Score:2)
When will people marry his declarations and musings with the fact that he's marching Federally-controlled troops into cities to "fight crime". What the hell does everyone think is going to happen in next year's mid-terms when armed forces loyal specifically to Trump with little or no objection from Congress or the Supreme Court starting "guarantee" a "fair vote".
Everything he and the Republicans have been working towards since the claims of Obama's ineligibility has been preparing for the moment when they m
Re: (Score:2)
You need some edibles, because your brain is flat out poisoned with conspiratorial horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This on top of talking about putting people in body bags?
Ok- you're clearly mentally unstable.
Someone really ought to get you some help.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't those states activate their own national guards?
Re: (Score:2)
So that's a fair distinction- he can fill DC with folks from states where loyalty is going to be higher than other places.
Re: (Score:2)
to be clear this is entirely illegal
That's not clear in the slightest.
that money was allocated by congress for a specific purpose. this is impoundment
The money was allocated by Congress for the CHIPS act, which directed the Department of Commerce to incentivize domestic fabrication capacity.
It's quite mum on the strings that can be attached, and other CHIPS disbursements have had strings attached as well.
I don't disagree with your assertion that Congress largely believes that "it's ok when their guy does it", however- claims of this being illegal are questionable at best, and claims of it being a sign of dictatorship
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like liberal rage bait, to me.
Under the newly signed order, Hegseth is charged with “ensuring that each State’s Army National Guard and Air National Guard are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety and order whenever the circumstances necessitate, as appropriate under law.
So, he has written an EO that directs the Secretary of Defense to... erm, do their job.
It is the job of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard of every single state to prepared to do their duties under the law, of which are included law enforcement if called upon to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Looks like liberal rage bait, to me.
You'd be in tears if Biden deployed the national guard under the guise of fighting crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you have me mistaken for a Trump supporter just because I think you're stupid?
Slandering me won't make you look less so.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is a tragedy, of course.
But let's also call it what it is- legal.
Let's call prior enforcement what it was: illegal.
Should we talk about DACA? An EO written by Obama specifically to circumvent immigration law?
The stupid thing about all this- is I support DACA. I supported Obama's extralegal handling of the situation. And you probably did too.
But now the guy wielding the same levers of power in the other directio
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring court orders to send people to El Salvador: illegal.
That's not what happened.
Attempting to deport non-Ugandans to Uganda: New just today, and illegal.
Entirely legal. Already been adjudicated.
You're referring to their attempt to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, I assume, which a temporary restraining order is currently blocking.
That order has not been violated.
Revoking visas and green cards due to protected speech: illegal.
Says who?
Skipping due process to deport people: illegal.
Sadly not.
Disbanding the CBP civil rights office established by Congress: illegal.
Hard to say. The legal theory of the unitary executive's control over his departments isn't fully solved in the courts. It's as incorrect to say its illegal as it is to say its legal.
The problem, is that you're just fucking wrong.
You call everyt
Re: (Score:2)
You: You pretend like the legal system and nuance don't exist, and it's weird.
It is.
Also you: DACA- completely and utterly illegal, lol.
Only because it was literally declared so, multiple times, in multiple jurisdictions, including the highest.
If you had asked me in 2012 [nilc.org], I would have said, "We'll see how legal that is".
The answer today is: Not at all.
Funny enough, the courts have also ruled- however, that simply undoing some of its effects is also illegal.
Law is funny like that. But I imagine you'll say Trump was a dictator for trying, but Obama wasn't.
BTW, for "Says who?": Trump's sister.
Trump's sister is qualified to opine on whether or not the law gives the execu
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like liberal rage bait, to me.
Yes, turning the US into a militarized dictatorship piece by piece will thoroughly pwn the libs, that is true.
Re: (Score:2)
It is genuinely frustrating how many Trump supporters still exist even here. I don't believe for a second any of them are so foolish that they believe Trump will be good for them economically. So that just leaves social issues.
Some of it might be culture war issues, but you're overlooking something far more important - a lot of these folks see their political alignment as part of their identity. If thrown into question because they finally admit to themselves that the emperor is naked, now where do they fall?
In our two-party system, being an independent means aligning yourself with literal losers. So, the only other realistic option is the Democrats, and you don't have to do much lurking in conservative circles to discover what
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2)
I don't expect Trump supporters to change their minds. I figured out years ago that nothing changes their minds because they willingly consume propaganda for entertainment.
It's not like you will either. Every time anybody conclusively proves you wrong on any given thing, all you ever do is double down. Life is really only as good or as crappy as you think it is, and you won't be satisfied until everybody is as clinically depressed as you are, namely because you've got it in your head that your life can't improve until every perceived social ill you have is turn down and remade in your image. But every time somebody has succeeded in exactly what you're trying to do, the end re
Re: So this is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
He tried real hard not to leave last time.
This time he will have more help, assuming he lives that long
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So this is illegal (Score:5, Informative)
"Elections are State controlled"
He's in the process of deploying the military to the states that would oppose him right now. He's BEEN in the process of eliminating the generals who would oppose his illegal use of the military against the citizenry.
Honestly don't understand why the Jewish community (Score:2)
meanwhile Trump is literally doing every single thing the Nazis did right before they went after the Jews.
Seriously what the actual fuck?
Re: (Score:2)
I see your game. Every time somebody points out the insanity and evil within Trump and his regime you accuse them of trolling for China and wanting to bring down the USA.
As a British observer I see that everything rsilvergun has said here is in accordance with the reality we all see.
Sure Hegseth's tattoo may be an ancient Christian symbol. But don't try and convince me that he is any kind of Christian. It's a trick of such Neo-Nazi to misappropriate symbols.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2)
Exactly, and here's Newsmax of all things calling out the administration over a big part of it.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfr... [newsmax.com]
They preemptively fired their own lawyers because they want yes-men for legal advice, or more accurately they don't want or care about anyone's opinions on the law and constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite what you think, the Republicans do not have the ground game to pull off keeping Trump in office. Elections are State controlled; per the Constitution States have very broad powers to determine who, when and where can be on a ballot. Even if a few States put Trump on the ballot for a 3rd unconstitutional term, most states would not. He would lose in a landslide, because he wouldn't be able to get any electoral votes from most states.
He's already trying. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/18... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to point out, his current term is unconstitutional, due to his inciting an insurrection. What makes you think the Constitution matters anymore?
Every Republican state is rushing to redistrict at Trump's command, and he's busy calling on state governors to deploy their National Guards into DC, just to give them a chance to prove their loyalty. They have rushed to comply. I wouldn't count on the states to stand up for anything. Their own legislators hate having to redistrict, and their own guardsmen h
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the US Federal Government put troops in various State legislatures to make sure they voted the right way on some ammendments after the civil war? Something like that could happen again and this Supreme Court would probably bless the move as legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He will pack up his office and leave just like every other president on Jan 20 2029.
Judging by the current state of his hands and ankles, you might be a bit presumptuous.
Re: (Score:2)
He will pack up his office and leave just like every other president on Jan 20 2029.
In other circumstances such naivete might be cut and touching. But here and now, it's just dangerous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The way I see it is what Newsom is doing is just living in the political reality of 2025. We're talking about him aren't we? The Republicans are responding to it, he has them on the defensive.
You really think Trump will be defeated by civility politics? Biden tried that and look what it got him. The political reality is crueler, meaner and more divisive than ever and that's how we, the electorate, want it. We voted for it.
I'm not saving Gavin Newsom is going to "save us" but he is showing other Democrats
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Funny)
<all-uppercase>thank you for your attention to this matter!</all-uppercase>
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, if you think it's goofy and stupid when Newsom says it, well, that's the point he's making.
I do appreciate the people who say "but when Trump does it it's genuine". It's very cute.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:3, Informative)
They're not wrong, drumpf is genuinely evil and demented.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - the Atlantic even carried an article about that [theatlantic.com].
I think whomever came up with the concept is a genius.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take Gavin's style over Hakeem Jefferies all day long right now.
Gavin will get my vote for the same reason Hillary and Kamala did: Because the other side has homophobia codified into their platform*.
* Usually I'd just link to the GOP's platform where they state a desire to see Obergefell overturned, but recently the mask [go.com] totally fell off. [wesh.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Look the part about the homophobia may be true but have you considered "libs be cringe"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comacho was smart enough to delegate responsibility to people smarter than him.
Re: (Score:2)
but he is showing other Democrats that you have to pick the things you believe in and defend them almost maniacally today if you want to get anywhere.
The only thing Newsom has ever showed anyone is how to get the largest bribe, err "donation" from the fattest lobbies. He is nothing but a Trump who turned left instead of right when it was time to choose a route to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Trump did the same and he's the President and now we have military in the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take Gavin's style over Hakeem Jefferies all day long right now.
Me too - when you're on fire, even being doused with sewer water is a welcome change. But the problem is that if Newsom becomes president, that will simply land the country back where it was before Trump. Then America will blow up again - maybe in some other way, or maybe in a repeat of the Trump phenomenon.
If America is going to regain stability and the respect and trust of the rest of the world, fundamental changes will need to be made. Newsom ain't the guy to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
2028 is so far, far, far away that the last thing I am concerned about is the potential nominee. The Republic has to survive the midterms first and Newsom's effort helps that. If he can continue that for 24 months to the primary, let him try, he's still gotta win the votes and it's gonna be a wild season. .
Re: (Score:2)
One of the basic problems is wealth inequity, something that has taken down many a civilization. I don't see it getting fixed, the super wealthy have spent a lot of time and energy getting us to this point where the people are fighting each other and have been sold on things like taxes bad, especially taxes on the rich.
Re: So this is illegal (Score:2)
That last thing might actually work though. Shouldn't, but here we are. As for gasoline tax, when road wear scales with axle weight cubed, virtually all roads should get paid for by trucking. Neighborhood roads are almost entirely worn by trash trucks. So bake that into utility bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever else you think about it Trump does not have the right to unilaterally do this. The chips act does not give him that right.
Earlier today he has once again hinted at becoming a dictator.
Gavin Newsome turning himself into just as big a clown show as Trump is not going to save us.
Trump is doing illegal things because he knows the judiciary cannot or will not stop him. Is there an instance of Newsome doing the same? It's one thing to do legal things that many people disagree with, but it's an entirely different thing to do illegal things.
Re: (Score:2)
> No savior will dare step foot in the political arena. They'd have to become that which they hate to ever get enough power to affect change...
Are you suggesting that opponents of the current regime not fire with fire, but instead roll over?
Re: (Score:2)
> No savior will dare step foot in the political arena. They'd have to become that which they hate to ever get enough power to affect change...
Are you suggesting that opponents of the current regime not fire with fire, but instead roll over?
If the only way to win the game is to be just as big a blithering idiot as your opponent, I don't know that there is a winner. We're all losing.
Re:So this is illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Gavin Newsome turning himself into just as big a clown show as Trump is not going to save us. He's pandering for eyeballs. He is no savior. No savior will dare step foot in the political arena. They'd have to become that which they hate to ever get enough power to affect change. And by the time they got to that power, they'd be just as corrupt as the current crop. Hooray American Politics. It's been bought and paid for. There is no other direction but that decided by the monied.
Geez - modded down as flamebait for saying something that's patently obvious to even me, a Canadian. Moderation around here is starting to get really sucky.
As far as I can see, if Newsom manages to become President, he'll simply put the country back on the well-trodden neo-Liberal path that landed it in its current hellscape. Lather, rinse, repeat until somebody comes along who realizes that brogligarchs and other parasites shouldn't be running countries.
Re:So this is illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Gavin Newsome turning himself into just as big a clown show as Trump is not going to save us.
Newsom isn't turning himself into a clown show, he's just playing, to shine a light on how big of a clown show Trump is. As soon as everyone stops ignoring the Trump's illiterate and incomprehensible posts, Newsom will stop, because for him it's just a performance to poke fun at Trump. For Trump, it's who he is.
Newsom's posts say nothing one way or the other about whether he can beat Trumpism, nor whether he would be a good president. But he's doing a public service by highlighting the way Trump gets sanewashed by the media and his idiocy ignored by his followers.
Re: (Score:2)
He's pandering for eyeballs.
Dude do you even understand the basics of politics? Politics is a popularity contest. Of course he's pandering for eyeballs. That's literally how you play the game. It's why half the country voted for a bumbling moron who is fucking them over for president. Trump is useless at everything except pandering for eyeballs, and it is about bloody time that some people on the other side market themselves as effectively.
Congrats, you are talking about him, that means what he is doing is working.
Re: (Score:2)
Posted with his user name. It's not much but it's better then you've ever done.
Re: (Score:2)
What did you do, brave shithead?
I triggered cowards, increasing the chance that they will suffer a meal team six-related cardiac event.
Nationalize silicon, (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nationalize silicon, (Score:4, Insightful)
but don't nationalize healthcare!
Admonishing Trump's hypocrisy is like trying to toilet train pigeons.
Trump take factory (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole thing with the subsidy in the CHIPS act was that Intel was going to be building fabs and making more shit over here. Now we just get stocks and no manufacturing.
That's what this was about right MAGA? Jobs and manufacturing? It's not just political power and corruption right? Will you ever stop living in fear of the potential embarrassment of having to admit DJT is not a good person and not a good President?
Re: (Score:3)
Will you ever stop living in fear of the potential embarrassment of having to admit DJT is not a good person and not a good President?
I continue to wonder where precisely the line is for some of these folks. I do not consider it an embarrassment to use newly available information to determine that your previous position was mistaken... but if someone asks you what it would take to change your mind, and the answer is "nothing," THAT is an embarrassment and the truest sign that an un-thinking follower.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely never as long as he keeps "hurting the people he needs to be hurting".
How will/should this affect the stock price? (Score:2)
The CHIPS Act gave Intel a bunch of money, but that money turned out to not be a grant but a stock purchase instead. Intel does get more money to invest, but it's not clear that Intel's problem was a lack of capital. It's more likely a lack of competence.
So, the 10% equity was not purchased on the open market but was newly created shares. The stock has now been diluted in a major way. Unless that $11 billion is expected to result in 10% growth, the stock price should drop around 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it newly created shares though? Haven't seen a quote on that yet. With all of the buybacks everyone has been doing for years now, Intel could easily sell the 10% out of their own existing stock.
Competence, sure, that they have missing indeed. They're a gen behind in tech and are now manufacturing at TSMC. 13 and 14 series high end was basically recall material. Theoretically they are trying to now skip a gen and come out on top again, but I have my doubts.
Their foundry business dreams have also failed m
Re: (Score:2)
They diluted the company shares at a discount of the stock price.
All things remaining the same selling the stock at a discount would reduce the share value.
Commies (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess they're too busy crossing out parts of their pocket-constitutions.
Re: (Score:2)
The "free speech and free markets" brigade sure has been quiet lately.
I think a lot of us are just waiting for MAGAts to realize that the corrupt, fascist, populist regime they've chosen is really not what they wanted. They won't listen to us until they come to that realization on their own, and until they do, the GOP is just going to continue its slavish devotion to Trump.
I guess they're too busy crossing out parts of their pocket-constitutions.
Uh, no. I, for one, am writing a lot of emails and letters to my (GOP) representatives, trying to remind them that the Constitution they've sworn to uphold really matters and that they shouldn't just let
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously, I know there are sincere, principled folks well to the right of me, currently disaffected by this madness, too. I do hope we can find enough common ground to get through this with something like a free country to disagree about later.
I was mostly referring to a large number of folks who used to parrot such things when convenient, only to shuck it when they think they get to be the ones piloting the black helicopters. It is a genuinely sad/fun
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously, I know there are sincere, principled folks well to the right of me, currently disaffected by this madness, too.
I may or may not be to the right of you. I'm a classical liberal, what some call a neoliberal, and I usually describe myself as a pragmatic libertarian.
I do hope we can find enough common ground to get through this with something like a free country to disagree about later.
Indeed.
I was mostly referring to a large number of folks who used to parrot such things when convenient, only to shuck it when they think they get to be the ones piloting the black helicopters. It is a genuinely sad/funny thing, quoting a family member back to them a few years later.
And yet they never seem to see the humor in it!
Intel is hilarous (Score:2)
"If the US government stops throwing free money at us and start expecting something in return, other governments might stop throwing free money at us too!"
TikTok anyone (Score:4, Interesting)
How can anyone know that the US government has not put in "back doors" for their benefit
What's going to be the new catch phrase "Intel intel inside"
AMD could do well out of this, along with ARM and other CPUs
Re: TikTok anyone (Score:2)
They never could be trusted. Cisco proved that the government will demand back doors ages ago. But then, you can't trust AMD on the same basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel could never *really* be trusted, because of "national security" and "national security letters". But this *is* worse.
What Intel was supposed to do (Score:2)
Who knew the US was going Communist? (Score:3)
Governments taking over private enterprises... huh. I did not have "GOP becomes Communist" on my bingo card 15 years ago.
I miscalculated the end-game (Score:2)
Wasn't the original argument that government wouldn't have any power over the directors (besides the usual DoJ and Executive Orders)?
Now, Trump (Yes, Trump not the government: That's the point of the Trump presidency and why Project 2025 can easily destroy the real government.) gets control of Intel.
I thought Trump would steal the share certificates and run but this means he wants to sell-off Intel and force share buy-backs: A major manipulation of the market to benefit himself.
There are definitely Federally owned companies (Score:2)
And this is a minority stake, in a company that is not exactly performing well, at least by market standards. Things were much more severe for several other very large US auto manufacturers in 2008, which the Federal Government actually owned virtually outright.
Of course, the amusing irony is that of conservatives using a state owned company as a strategy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You think China is making objective statements? The official stance of the Chinese government is that CV19 originated from America.
China says what's in China's interests. It's part opposition and part shit-stirring. Take what they say about the US as seriously as they take what Trump says about China.
Re: Why would China complain? (Score:2)
Because they know how this works, so can use the same argument the US has been using against certain Chinese companies.
Like everything else this administration does, it is short sighted and self defeating. This can work for utilities serving local communities, but not for an international company that needs to demonstrate lack of government interference.
Re: (Score:2)
That hasn't been true since Deng. I literally own 50% of a Chinese company (incorporated in Shanghai) and the Chinese government doesn't have a stake in it.
Re: Stop Propping up Failed Companies (Score:2)
We have to first enforce antitrust so we don't have any companies which are too big to fail.
Like it or not, and I don't, we do have those. And Intel is one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but I think the government taking partial ownership is a way to cause it to fail...at least internationally.
Re: Stop Propping up Failed Companies (Score:2)
Oh yes, I agree. At best, the way this is being done is harmful.
Re: (Score:3)
I think antitrust or not, Intel would be in that position anyway.
OK don't get me wrong they have been skeevy monopolistic arseholes, but nonetheless top end chip fabrication has been consolidating. Ever larger and more expensive facilities are required to maintain an edge. Same happened with aero engine manufacturing.
At some point just about everyone falls by the wayside, at which point it does become a strategic issue. There's basically TSMC, Samsung and, Intel left at/near the top.
It's comparable to Rolls
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that they agree to vote with the board. As the largest shareholder it will give the board a lot of extra power.