Absolutely this, there’s no longer any confidence to begin a project anymore. Would like to see the legal action go ahead against the government and set a standard that contracts can’t be treated just as “suggestions”.
If I was pharma I would think twice before investing In a factory that can be taken by the state just like that.
EDIT: I was not aware that something was paid. Every time I saw trump on TV he said he got it for nothing. Yeah I know he lies a lot and I should have checked more into it. This is dangerous however as internationally you don't always get the details right away and generally one believes what a head of state says.
I know that this is how it was reported everywhere including here, but I recently learned that it's apparently false. The US just bought shares. From https://www.reuters.com/business/us-take-10-equity-stake-int...:
> Under the agreement, the U.S. will purchase a 9.9% stake in Intel for $8.9 billion, or $20.47 per share, which represents a discount of about $4 from Intel's closing share price of $24.80 on Friday.
So they bought a 9.9% stake at a slight discount. (And just have to go back a couple of weeks to find Intel's stock price at under $20.47 per share, so I'm not sure you can really call it a real "discount").
I don't know how long it takes between when the price is set and when the deal becomes public. If the final price was set on friday, then yeah, there was a slight discount (though even then, the discount was within Intel's normal random short term share price fluctuations).
Maybe it's completely fair to call this a proper discount, I'm genuinely not familiar enough with the finance world to say. Regardless, I feel that this is important context; it's not like Intel's share price has been stable at between $24 and $25 per share for years and then the US comes in and buys at $20.
Not to buy shares.
And therein lies the problem. Trump and his cult up and changed the terms of the grant after the grant had already happened.
Quote from the article
I assumed they were buying shares like any other investor. How are they getting it for free?
In reality, the US bought a 10% stake for roughly $8.9 billion, paying market price for the shares.
So sure, no new funds, of which "free" is a nutty, insane interpretation, but whatever.
Weird ways to convey it aside, I do like shares as a guarantee for grants, which is not a new thing, but I'd still like to enforce funds allocation for those funds. Not sure if that's happening still.
From an article which I lost the link to. Their logic of free is that those grants are approved already, before Trump's intervention US gets nothing, after US gets 10% of Intel.
> It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future. I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
“The United States paid nothing for these Shares”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1150744446179...
The president has been known to not know all the facts or exaggerate about what is known. Personally, and sadly, his tweets are worthless than my fortune cookies.
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-everybody-eggs-now...
Also most exaggeration happens during campaigns for getting votes, but rarely the result is a strong enough mandate to push all things through, thus one has to compromise ... but campaigning on "well, realistically my options will be limited" doesn't really work, especially as the campaign promises form the negotiation base lateron.
But in that regard Trump is special, also.
They all still lie though. Whether a particular lie can be considered an exaggeration boils down to how strict a line one draws around what a lie is. To me, if a president speaks only a partial truth or a misrepresentation if information they very much have access to, its a lie.
I don't say that to defend trump, the guys is a narcissistic asshole. I only say that to point to the fact that he's doing what any other politician does - say what it takes to get elected then play the game that makes you the most money.
1) A member of the opposition party tweets "The president stabbed a kid" without any proof. I go on facebook and post "WTF why did the president stab a kid? He is so evil."
2) The president tweets "I just stabbed a kid" without any proof. I go on facebook and post "WTF why did the president stab a kid? He is so evil."
Under Biden there was money to be granted (as in: via a grant, Congressionally approved) to Intel. Trump then held the grant hostage in return for government ownership of Intel shares.
There's also a threat that this deali supposedly eases around the Intel CEO that Trump said was 'too connected' to China.
It's either borderline or blatantly illegal, but there are likely no parties eligible to contest, or interested in contesting, it in court.
(Based on my memory of someone's breakdown of a few examples like this - there's a chance I'm conflating a couple of different but related things, the deal with Nvidia to allow selling of some more advanced chips to China being another)
Government will argue that executive power can decide if the contracts are "suggestions" or not.
If that doesn't work, try to reduce the scope of the injunction such that it applies to specific set of contracts. And then stonewall those contracts.
If the case is still lost, government will quickly appeal and file for temporary relief. If temporary relief is not coming in the short term, chose to ignore the court because executive power is above everything else.
Repeat this till it gets to SCOTUS and get a specific carve out and go to step 1 - stonewall these contracts.
I'd say given the on again, off again tariffs, courts acting like this and government retroactive actions like against Intel (CHIPS grant money was withheld to take 10% stake) it can be safely said it is no longer place for many long-term investment.
• The border wall was a government project, and a large chunk of the money for it came Trump declaring a national emergency and using that to redirect around $7 billion of funding meant for other things to it after Congress refused to provide the level of funding he wanted.
Biden cancelled those parts that Trump had added. He did not cancel those parts that Congress had voted to fund. He wanted those stopped too but went about it through normal channels: he asked Congress to cancel them. Congress did not, and so his administration continued constructing those parts.
• The wind farm is a private project.