• @Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    Are you really still going to justify share buybacks

    No I don’t generally like share buybacks.

    FACTS is 🤡 capitalism here

    Those are the rules we are working under. If you don’t like the rules, that’s another debate.

    that’s because intel refused to take the terms US government atached to the money.

    But that would void the entire agreement, making your entire claim nothing but fluff and hot air.

    You can’t trust these parasite to run industry

    OK, so who can be trusted more? A 100% government controlled system, like the one that crashed the Soviet Union?

    • sunzu2
      link
      fedilink
      020 days ago

      Corpos only doing this because normies larp the fake news headline they pay for as “investment”

      this is not an investment, any adult person can quickly figure out that giving free cash to these parasites doesn’t make much sense esp when they waste this money as straight cash transfer to the owner class

      yet every day i have to spell this out on here because everyday there is somebody shilling corpo talking points as gospel.

      • @Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        020 days ago

        You have no idea who you are talking to. I’m a social democrat from Denmark, except a bit to the left of that. But communism doesn’t work, regulated capitalism does.
        Many things suck in USA, but CHIPS and helping Intel is a long way away from where the real problems are.

        • sunzu2
          link
          fedilink
          020 days ago

          helping Intel is a long way away from where the real problems are.

          That’s your opinion at best.

          Intel has show that they are unable to manage their cash position why should tax payer reward a failed executive team and BoD?

          Then even if we are gonna infuse intel with taxpayer cash, why should not US Treasury take an equity position for their “risk” as any normal investor would?

          • @Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            020 days ago

            why should not US Treasury take an equity position for their “risk”

            I understand why that may seem like a fair solution on the surface, but it’s because that would make Intel a part federally owned company, and in general it is avoided to have publicly owned companies competing against private companies. Which in this case would be Nvidia, AMD, Comcast, Qualcomm etc. It’s a huge conflict of interest, and would easily be seen as unfair competition, possibly also by trade partners.

            There might also be legal issues, internally in USA, and with WTO and other trade agreements.

            So it’s kind of opening a can of worms that is better left closed. It’s not that I don’t understand where you are coming from, but trust me, regulation is way better than a government taking control.
            Intel may collapse, but then maybe one of the previously mentioned companies may pick up the remains, and built it better. This is why we need to have free competition.

            • sunzu2
              link
              fedilink
              020 days ago

              I am not aware of any law on the books that prevents US government from taking equity stake in a corporation. German states take equity in companies. China and Russia have straight majority owned mega corps.

              US took equity stake in GM when it bailed them out.

              I know there was a huge bruhaha about it but it was just that owner class refusing to face the music for their fucks up.

              Nothing is stopping treasury from making tidy profit from their investment like they did with GM.

              Current system enables parasitic behavior from owners and executive teams while life for for bottom 80% of taxpayers has been shite… yet every time owner class needs bail out, these people have to pay for it.