It seems to me that claiming that is is *Trump* who is taking us to state crony capitalism in the specific case of Intel is misleading to the point of dishonesty.
It was Biden and the CHIPS act he signed that were just gonna hand Intel all the same taxpayer money. For free. THAT is far worse crony capitalism.
Trump just got a better deal for taxpayers than what Biden had done, as now the U.S. taxpayer has upside.
It’s crony industrial policy for the taxpayers to get something for their money, but no problem at all that Biden was just going to give them the money outright?!?
🙄
Please…
I’m very much against “industrial policy” except on *very* narrow national security grounds, and entirely against cronyism.
So I’m indeed against some of what Trump has done here.
But to mention Intel as evidence of Trump’s guilt causes me to question your credibility on the rest. Especially when you barely mention Biden’s name in the piece, and completely ignore Biden’s dominant role in how we got here in the case of Intel.
The premise that it is Trump who is the evil oligarchic one here when it comes to Intel is what is false.
It’s oligarchic for the taxpayers to get something for their money, but no problem at all that Biden was just going to give Intel the money outright?!?
The people do not need to have direct ownership to have a benefit of the investment.
And I would argue or agree that picking winners and losers is a bad strategy. The government needs to set the rules, make them fair, provide incentives maybe, and get TF out of the way.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I definitely prefer loans. We didn't need own a piece of Intel. We own everything anyway because we reap what our strategy sows. This was largely unprecedented for a reason.
Loans in such circumstances almost always have asymmetric risk/reward disfavoring the taxpayer (if this were not true, the companies in question could simply get a loan from a bank). And the shares are nonvoting ones, which is an important point.
But indeed we can agree to disagree on that.
But “largely unprecedented” is simply not true.
Do you not remember Obama with General Motors?
That case was even worse, as in addition to the taxpayer money, Obama unconstitutionally stole from the bondholders to give to his union cronies.
I'm sure I'm not an expert, but Intel, to my knowledge, was not on the verge of bankruptcy potentially impacting a large population of citizens or precipitating a major financial system disruption (again, to our total ownership stake in all US industries). Be well. Thanks for the discussion.
It seems to me that claiming that is is *Trump* who is taking us to state crony capitalism in the specific case of Intel is misleading to the point of dishonesty.
It was Biden and the CHIPS act he signed that were just gonna hand Intel all the same taxpayer money. For free. THAT is far worse crony capitalism.
Trump just got a better deal for taxpayers than what Biden had done, as now the U.S. taxpayer has upside.
It’s crony industrial policy for the taxpayers to get something for their money, but no problem at all that Biden was just going to give them the money outright?!?
🙄
Please…
I’m very much against “industrial policy” except on *very* narrow national security grounds, and entirely against cronyism.
So I’m indeed against some of what Trump has done here.
But to mention Intel as evidence of Trump’s guilt causes me to question your credibility on the rest. Especially when you barely mention Biden’s name in the piece, and completely ignore Biden’s dominant role in how we got here in the case of Intel.
Pondering 10 percent no longer. Intel folded like a cheap suit.
We've been on the road to state and oligarchic ownership of the means of production for months.
Horrifying situation.
The premise that it is Trump who is the evil oligarchic one here when it comes to Intel is what is false.
It’s oligarchic for the taxpayers to get something for their money, but no problem at all that Biden was just going to give Intel the money outright?!?
🙄
Please…
The people do not need to have direct ownership to have a benefit of the investment.
And I would argue or agree that picking winners and losers is a bad strategy. The government needs to set the rules, make them fair, provide incentives maybe, and get TF out of the way.
Otherwise, we are China.
Yeah, industrial policy is bad. I agree with that, and commented so already directly to the author.
But in the case of Intel, blame Biden, not Trump.
All Trump did in the case of Intel was change the terms under which Intel got our money to make them less unfavorable to the taxpayer.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I definitely prefer loans. We didn't need own a piece of Intel. We own everything anyway because we reap what our strategy sows. This was largely unprecedented for a reason.
Loans in such circumstances almost always have asymmetric risk/reward disfavoring the taxpayer (if this were not true, the companies in question could simply get a loan from a bank). And the shares are nonvoting ones, which is an important point.
But indeed we can agree to disagree on that.
But “largely unprecedented” is simply not true.
Do you not remember Obama with General Motors?
That case was even worse, as in addition to the taxpayer money, Obama unconstitutionally stole from the bondholders to give to his union cronies.
I'm sure I'm not an expert, but Intel, to my knowledge, was not on the verge of bankruptcy potentially impacting a large population of citizens or precipitating a major financial system disruption (again, to our total ownership stake in all US industries). Be well. Thanks for the discussion.
For anyone watching this discussion:
https://govfacts.org/analysis/can-the-us-government-own-american-companies/