I'm against the government cutting a check to a corporation without extracting a direct, concrete benefit to the American taxpayer. So I'm in favor of this.
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
155 points (97.0% liked)
politics
26277 readers
3002 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
— Benito Mussolini
According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the plan would see the US disbursing approved CHIPS Act grants only after acquiring non-voting shares of Intel and likely other chipmakers. That would allow the US to profit off its investment in chipmakers, Lutnick suggested, and Sanders told Reuters that he agreed American taxpayers could benefit from the potential deals.
"If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders said.
The plan is that instead of just giving Intel the public's money with no strings, the public would get something in return. I have to admit that doesn't sound awful to me.
Yes. Of course. Because that's what will happen, that money will go into improving services for the public rather than being funnelled into a rich pricks pockets. Totally what will happen, no reason to doubt that whatsoever.
Wait a second, that sounds like sarcasm ?
Are these extra grants or just stipulations on renewing existing?
It's not like the government wasn't already giving them money, it's just this will provide a return.
You're missing the point. The return isn't going to go to tax payers, it's going to go to rich people, so it's not a return, it's just paying rich people who weren't even involved. Enriching the rich like everything else the republicans do.
This is a perfect example of "a broken clock is right twice a day."
if this was biden fox would be running 24/7 coverage about this communistic act
This is a good thing.
It more closely mirrors TSMC and Samsung Foundries.
I know Lemmy largely won’t believe it, but not every molecule of air MAGA breathes is bad. In fact, this feels like a sharp reaction to stubborn neoliberal orthodoxy, hence folks like Bernie are nodding along. I mean, I tend to be more of a deficit hawk, but this is a worthy investment (with the right conditions and stipulations for Intel to not shutter long term projects for short term profit).
yeah its the broken clock thing. Still the piece I heard it from said it had not been done since ww2 but I swear in the car bailout we got some sort of equity we eventually sold. Later after sails it made a profit (not taking into account infaltion that I know of)
That last part isn't unprecedented. The US's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (for instance) made a lot of money buying low and selling high, which is just a happy coincidence of trying to stabilize the supply/prices.
yeah that is what I was getting at because the thing I read mentioned not doing anything like it since world war 2 and seems like we have.
Ah right.
Taking direct equity hasn't been orthodoxy for sure, but like you said, that part is likely technically wrong.
Dont be fooled. This federal asset will end up as a billionaire asset. Id take the win but I know better.
this. its great in that this is how all bailouts and such should be but its whose in charge of the implementation that makes it fucked.
I have said it before but Trump comes up with such blindingly stupidly simple plans that sometimes that they are actually smart ones. It just needs to be different from how we are currently doing stuff.
See him try to figure out health care any time and you can see him figuring out universal health care before someone near him stops him.
I wonder what this would mean for competition. Would US adopt rules that are beneficial to Intel to increase their share price?
How it may happen: Nvidia and AMD get restrictions on selling to China (already happening, but discussed more in the past weeks before this announcement) and can't sell their best. Intel may be allowed to sell their newest tech to get a competitive edge which will even the playing field, or Nvidia and AMD can be told if they want an even playing field they must sell portions of their company to the U.S. government as well.
Want to sell the newest tech, throw in a couple board seats.
I can see where this may help open the door / set precedent for the country to buy out or into companies long term.. but when Intel declared they are basically dead in the water because their tech was at least 5 years behind on research now and in the last 5 years their stock as essentially halved, who can say what it will do other than cushion Intels fall.
Arc is good, just needs a bigger SKU and another generation.
Intels CPUs are not bad, especially their smaller cores, just sold in stupid overclocked configs. In comparison to AMD, they are are way better than bulldozer was back in the day.
Fabs are behind TSMC but still close. Compute and graphics APIs are a mess but getting better by the month.
Intel is on the brink of being fine if they can just stop the footgunning, canceling, dysfunctional delays and corporate Game of Thrones.
But socialism is bad right?
This isn't socialism and Bernie is wrong to support a fascist government seeking control of Intel.
view more: next ›