A ten percent stake in the company and suddenly those concerning Chinese ties Trump mentioned aren’t a thing.

Now do that with Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips

As far as government bail outs go, I think taking a portion of the company in exchange is an excellent idea. THIS orange asshole is doing it for all the wrong reasons, and will VERY likely fuck up literally everything about it, but the idea is sound.

I wonder what things would look like today if the government had taken some portion of control over all the auto manufacturers, airlines, banks, etc it has bailed out over the years instead of just giving them unsecured loans

Also interested in seeing. I've had weekly reoccurring purchases of Intel since their bottom dropped. My investment probably shit the bed.

The United States will not seek direct representation on Intel's board

If they want change, they don't to vote on the board. They can just pass laws in Intel's favour.

Taxpayers are now all Intel shareholders. I can't understand what benefit this provides them.

Fucking hilarious that this is party that starts seizing the means of production.

It was never, ever even once about states rights. It was never about fighting communism. It’s all racism, always has been.

Somehow this is okay but bailing out GM was a problem.

you raise interesting questions. how do you stop some asshole president from using infinite taxpayer money to manipulate the price of a stock?

Intel is a us corporate they do as the US spooks tell them to do.

That's national security laws.

Is giving Intel freekmey better?

Us Treasury is providing capital... Hardly seizing anything.

Maybe if intel was ran into the ground by idiots. They wouldn't need to be bailed out by feds.

Better than giving away billions of dollars no string attached

The same way SEC stops market markers from manipulating the stocks

They are open enough about thinking some kind of late USSR, fixed against its deadlocks and broken feedback, would be the best system for them. I mean, having a one party system is very attractive, LOL.

And yeah, that crowd is about seizing whatever they want to build their idea of a better nation, with re-industrializing and so on. There are pits on the road, though.

And, honestly, never in history were many US politicians willing for the USSR to die as it did. They would, of course, ridicule the broken system and ideology, but the whole idea seemed more understandable than most European nations. And flattering.

It was never, ever even once about states rights. It was never about fighting communism. It’s all racism, always has been.

It's honestly funny, so - in Eastern Europe, when comparing ourselves to the USA, it's very easy to get sympathetic to these points. Also to color blindness and being against affirmative action, and such.

Because information travels non-linearly. From here many people really think that the racism problem is solved in the US, and it's just lazy Blacks not willing to work honestly, and that last point is racist, but if you say that American racists still think it's wrong for a white person to marry a black person, those same people won't believe you, it's not part of their own kind of racism, or that American racists actually exist in huge enough numbers, they think it's like calling others fascists here, something devalued by common usage. They'd be livid.

So - what I'm thinking is that USSR's dead hand was, in fact, not its nuclear shield, but its ideology and state architecture, and some people want to break their own bad, but functional system in favor of their imaginary picture of USSR. Which is just as detached from reality. USSR's checks and balances had a downside of stalling development and conserving the balance of power, nothing big got actually done. It would seem that they might actually come to the same result with far less blood, jump to 1960s USSR without a passing through 1920s-1950s, but wasting a few decades on that with a pretty clear end result would seem a bad idea.

That's about political systems, arguing against my imagination on what they think. With re-industrialization I agree completely. In general, oursourcing labor is directly opposed to labor rights, and labor rights are what guarantees political rights.

10% is not "nationalized". It's "19.99% nationalized". Need to have a majority stake (like 50.01%) to call it "nationalized".

Or maybe I'm wrong.

There's literally Intel Management Engine or how is it called.

And they are literally an American corporation that has always benefited from American governments pressuring competitors from other countries, and that was important for MIC since 70s.

So that kind of trust was a clear no since long before I was born.

By your maths it's 10/50.01=19.99% nationalised, actually.

B-b-but Starlink doesn't build infrastructure for normal broadband, does it? So they basically got a load of free money for doing nothing on a state level, just their satellites flying someplace above? I mean, there are Starlink ground stations, so there is infrastructure, just how many people would use it instead of a normal service. You know, GPON to the door, no antenna suffering in bad weather, no exorbitant prices.

China's internal market is far more cutthroat and "capitalist" than that of the USA. And less regulated. And less monopolized, except for a few services which, ahem, are mandated (WeeChat, yes).

That was their "unique path", to move all hierarchical stuff into political entities. It look interesting on a large scale, from more "peasant-oriented" communism, kinda changing the initial Marxist picture of worker-capital relations, to this.

Isn't he mimicking the typography of oldish "wild west style" newspapers and other print? Both with different fonts, and varying capitalization, and sizes. Yelling at you from monochrome photos.

(Never been in the USA.)