The argument I have heard about the US taking 20% stake in Intel is that when a company asks for federal money then it’s only fair if the federal government gets some equity in return.
You can’t socialize losses and privatize gains.
You can’t socialize losses and privatize gains.
Great forward-looking concept. Terrible ex post facto. The precedent set is that the government can demand equity for past favours at any time.
Also, now that the U.S. owns a stake in Intel, where does that leave competitors? We're already seeing a push to force AMD and Intel to merge [1].
[1] https://www.tomsguide.com/tech/us-government-considering-cas...
Companies do this all the time though.
For example, here in Louisiana the utility companies do this. After a major hurricane, Entergy will fix and upgrade tons of infrastructure and then get to tack on a +$15.00/m on to your utility bill for the next 5 to 10 years to recoup the costs all while they are making millions in profits each year.
Why pay for it themselves when they can just force the public to do it.
Yes, yes, and yes.
We kept doing this, a bank or company stretches too much after making record profits, and then cries for federal funding and free money.
The federal reserve is a lender of last resort and they shouldn’t have given that much money without any collateral etc. Even if they just kept the stock and then sold it afterwards, we wouldn’t be in this much debt. We spend trillions covering private losses, this was plain stupid.
The Fed only lends against collateral.
Hold on, the logic is any country that socialises anything to any degree is communist? Where the hell did you get that from?
OP [1] is the first person to make the argument that socialising anything implies communism in this thread. The entire shtick is a straw man. It doesn't need to be argued if it's only brought up by the side tearing it down.
Except they’re not. They’re only mis-used in this thread by those claiming they’re mis-used.