Discussion

• @thestalwart Joe Weisenthal on x

  Rather than take equity positions in private companies, perhaps the government could confiscate ~20% of pre-tax earnings. And then when it comes to control, Congress could pass laws governing corporate behavior.

• @esaagar Saagar Enjeti on x

  .@benthompson on the 10% Intel stake: “The single most important reason for the U.S. to own part of Intel, however, is the implicit promise that Intel Foundry is not going anywhere. There simply isn't a credible way to make that promise without having skin in the game” [image]

• @chrisfralic Chris Fralic on x

  Best case I've seen in favor of the Intel 10% - truly a “steelman” argument in that nobody else is publicly making it; worth a read

• @bgurley Bill Gurley on x

  Here's my take. If the government is the “lender of last resort” they should 100% take equity and arguably 100% of the equity. Failed to do this with GM, Goldman Sachs, United (& other airlines). How do you know if they are lender of last resort? The company takes the deal.

• @scottlincicome Scott Lincicome on x

  Maybe it goes without saying, but it is bad to have Trump obsessed with - and heavily invested (financially, emotionally, politically) in - Intel's stock price

• @andrewrsorkin Andrew Ross Sorkin on x

  Should the govt start taking equity in every start-up for the federal tax incentives we offer? Or Tesla? How about the banks? What about when a state govt offers a tax incentive? Should they get an equity stake in exchange? Board representation? This is a super slippery slope!

• @scottlincicome Scott Lincicome on x

  Trump & Hassett say the US government will take more Intel-esque equity stakes in private companies: https://www.cnbc.com/... KH: “So I'm sure that at some point there'll be more transactions, if not in this industry then other industries.” Run for the hills. [image]

• @catoinstitute @catoinstitute on x

  The Intel deal isn't “smart” industrial policy. It's government ownership of private enterprise—at a discount, with strings attached, and with politics in the driver's seat. If the deal is repeated in other industries, expect less innovation, more waste, and slower growth. 👇 [ima…

• @dampedspring Andy Constan on x

  I don't want the government making deals with private companies for any special treatment. I don't want the government to give money to specific sectors and companies Let them succeed or fail on their own However I really don't want companies to be FORCED to cede shares for

• @scottlincicome Scott Lincicome on x

  Seeing a lot of “conservative” commentary on Intel today once again proving Friedman right [image]

• @scottlincicome Scott Lincicome on x

  As I just wrote in the @washingtonpost, this stuff is “sure to distort future private decision-making in unknowable ways.” It's bad, bad, bad. [image]

• @themaxburns Max Burns on x

  While Democrats twist into pretzels to avoid even the hint of “socialism” in their message, Donald Trump and the @GOP are drafting a list of private companies they'd like to partially nationalize. It really is the upside-down. https://www.cnbc.com/...

• @bcantrill Bryan Cantrill on bluesky

  Intel breaking new organizational ground by formalizing the idea of a co-CEO that reports to a (third?)  CEO to be named later.  —  www.intc.com/filings-repo...

• @kalaka58 Debra on bluesky

  Folks might have a general idea how many businesses Cheeto has bankrupted [embedded post]

• r/TheBusinessMix r on reddit

  Intel says Trump deal has risks for shareholders, international sales