August 26, 2025Aug 26 17 minutes ago, CallumWK said: That’s crazy, because nothing could be worse for a company than the government — any government — getting involved and telling the CEO what to do. No it's not "crazy" it's perfectly normal. Any company that gets an investment injection, particularly by the government, will see its stock go up. You have to live bizarro world to think that's "crazy".
August 26, 2025Aug 26 20 minutes ago, bamnutsak said: Your 'glazing' of trump is impressive. $5.7B of this investment came from unpaid grants allocated by the 2022 CHIPS Act. Another $3.2B comes from the Secure Enclave program, also part of the 2022 CHIPS Act. The total is $8.9B. So you're saying this investment didn't cost the government anything? Yet Intel's stock went up in a big way. So he really is a genius. That's pretty amazing.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 7 minutes ago, Cameroni said: No it's not "crazy" it's perfectly normal. Any company that gets an investment injection, particularly by the government, will see its stock go up. You have to live bizarro world to think that's "crazy". Thanks for deflecting and showing your shortsightedness, which is obvious in most threads, as specially your troll comments about females. This is not about the short term increase in stock price, but the long time future of the company. Russia and China also invest in companies. It's called socialism, how do you like that? Anyway, this is the rising price of Intel yesterday
August 26, 2025Aug 26 2 minutes ago, CallumWK said: Russia and China also invest in companies. It's called socialism, how do you like that? Well, it's been common practice all over the globe for decades. In Germany the national and even local governments own shares of all major companies, same in Japan, same in China, pretty much everywhere. The US too has to look after its manufacturers, hardly an unusual move, is it? 2 minutes ago, CallumWK said: Anyway, this is the rising price of Intel yesterday Lol, and you conveniently omit of course that this was after a several day rocket rise over 7%, so what is happening now is that tinvestors are taking profits. Talk about misrepresentation.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 23 hours ago, BLMFem said: No Dem president has ever done that. Trump also wants to tax innovation through a tax on patents. The U.S. government took a 60.8% equity stake in General Motors and a 9.9% stake in Chrysler during the 2009 bailouts during the Obama administration. Just saying......
August 26, 2025Aug 26 6 minutes ago, Cameroni said: Lol, and you conveniently omit of course that this was after a several day rocket rise over 7%, so what is happening now is that tinvestors are taking profits. Talk about misrepresentation. So you admit the effect was only short term. Well 7 days, actually 3 trading days, is extreme short term in my book.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 9 minutes ago, Cameroni said: So you're saying this investment didn't cost the government anything? I said this investment cost $8.9B. 8 minutes ago, CallumWK said: Russia and China also invest in companies. It's called socialism, how do you like that? I would imagine some of the trump-glazers went absolutely bonkers when Mamdani suggested the government backing six grocery stores. Oh, the horror.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Just now, connda said: The U.S. government took a 60.8% equity stake in General Motors and a 9.9% stake in Chrysler during the 2009 bailouts during the Obama administration. Just saying...... Completely different, they took the stake to save the company from bankruptcy, and also said they would sell the stake as soon as possible, which they did
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Just now, connda said: The U.S. government took a 60.8% equity stake in General Motors and a 9.9% stake in Chrysler during the 2009 bailouts during the Obama administration. Just saying...... National financial crisis. Congress approved $700B for TARP. A bit different from the Intel investment.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 3 minutes ago, bamnutsak said: I said this investment cost $8.9B. In subsidies that were already made by Biden. Trump is merely getting valuable stock for these investments for the government. For free effectively, because nobody's envisaged this would be done and was not done before. Superb thinking by Trump, why should the taxpayer just give out money for free? Now he has assets in the form of stock in return for the assistance. Seems perfectly fair.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 minute ago, Cameroni said: Trump is merely getting valuable stock for these investments for the government. For free effectively No. Not for free. trump (actually idiot Hasset) spent $8.9B, that did not have to be spent. 3 minutes ago, Cameroni said: Superb thinking by Trump Sure, whatever gets you off.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Author 13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Trump has not "taken" anything. It seems that the government, not Trump, is buying a minor stake in Intel. So Trump had nothing to do with the decision. Got it!
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Author 1 hour ago, Cameroni said: You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Intel's stock price has soared. So much for big Wall Street investors don't like this investment, the exact opposite is the case. And what about females?
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Author 26 minutes ago, connda said: The U.S. government took a 60.8% equity stake in General Motors and a 9.9% stake in Chrysler during the 2009 bailouts during the Obama administration. Just saying...... Extreme situation, not a straight up investment decision.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 hour ago, gamb00ler said: Governmental ownership of the means of production is a VERY socialistic policy.... even slightly communist. 22 minutes ago, CallumWK said: Russia and China also invest in companies. It's called socialism, how do you like that? @Liverpool Lou@Cameroni @GammaGlobulin @connda Interesting ideological disagreement among the members. Seems timely to make use of AI in this thread! Let's try Gemini. Could someone putting forth the Intel deal as being an example of socialism or communism be considered economically or politically unsophisticated in their thinking? Yes, it would be reasonable to characterize someone referring to the Intel deal as an example of socialism or communism as being economically or politically unsophisticated. Here's why: * Misunderstanding of Key Terms.... * Ignoring Nuance:.... * Rhetorical Oversimplification: The use of "socialism" or "communism" in this context is often a form of political rhetoric rather than a serious economic analysis....In this sense, it is a politically unsophisticated way of framing the argument, as it relies on inflammatory labels rather than a substantive critique. * Lack of Historical Context: Government interventions in the U.S. economy, especially during times of crisis or for strategic purposes, are not new... In short, while people can legitimately disagree with the Intel deal on a number of grounds—such as market distortion or the precedent it sets—labeling it as "socialism" or "communism" suggests a lack of understanding of the core concepts and a preference for political sloganeering over economic analysis. Might these be factors leading someone to believe in such ideas? Low IQ? Brainwashed by biased media sources? A substandard education? This is a very sensitive and complex question that touches on fundamental aspects of human behavior and political science. It's not as simple as pointing to a single factor, as people's beliefs are shaped by a confluence of influences. It is also important to address these factors with care, as they can be easily misused to label or stigmatize people. Here is a breakdown of the factors you've raised and how they are understood in academic research: 1. Brainwashed by Biased Media Sources: * Impact of Media: This is a well-documented and widely accepted factor. Media outlets often have a specific political slant, and their selection of stories, framing of issues, and choice of experts can reinforce pre-existing beliefs (a phenomenon known as confirmation bias). * Information Bubbles: The rise of cable news and the internet has allowed people to self-select their news sources, leading to the creation of "information bubbles" or "echo chambers." 2. A Substandard Education: * Correlation with Political Sophistication: There is a strong and well-documented correlation between education level and political sophistication. * Critical Thinking Skills: A key aspect of a good education is the development of critical thinking skills. A substandard education might not adequately equip a person with these tools, making them more susceptible to oversimplified or misleading political rhetoric. * Vocabulary and Concepts: A person who has not been exposed to basic economic and political theory may not understand the precise definitions of terms like "socialism," "communism," or "means of production." Their understanding may be limited to the way these terms are used in common political discourse, which is often as a pejorative rather than a technical descriptor. 3. Low IQ: * Academic Research: This is the most controversial and sensitive of the factors you listed. Some academic studies, particularly those in psychology, have found a correlation between lower cognitive ability (as measured by IQ tests) and a greater tendency to hold certain political beliefs... In conclusion, all three of the factors you mentioned—biased media, substandard education, and cognitive ability—are discussed in political science and psychology as contributing to a person's political beliefs. However, they are not deterministic. The most widely accepted and least controversial explanations focus on the role of information environments and education in shaping a person's understanding of political issues. Attributing a person's views solely to "low IQ" is a highly charged and often unhelpful oversimplification of a much more complex set of influences.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 hour ago, CallumWK said: You obviously have as much knowledge about how a stock market works, as you have about legal matters, and females. Brilliant ,as so true.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 hour ago, BLMFem said: 14 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Trump has not "taken" anything. It seems that the government, not Trump, is buying a minor stake in Intel. So Trump had nothing to do with the decision. Got it! I didn't say that but you did say that "Trump took 10% of intel" which is gratuitously false. He did not take anything.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 hour ago, connda said: The U.S. government took a 60.8% equity stake in General Motors and a 9.9% stake in Chrysler during the 2009 bailouts during the Obama administration. Just saying...... I finally figured it out. People use "Down Thumbs" when they can't handle the facts. I just posted a factual statement. Personally I don't care which flavor of president takes an equity stake in a private company. No US president or the US government should take any equity stakes in private companies. It's a free market: Sink or swim.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Author 8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said: I didn't say that but you did say that "Trump took 10% of intel" which is gratuitously false. He did not take anything. Yes, the American taxpayer paid, just like they do for the tariffs. But it's not like Intel had a choice.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 22 minutes ago, BLMFem said: Yes, the American taxpayer paid, just like they do for the tariffs. But it's not like Intel had a choice. The American taxpayer paid under Biden who approved these massive investment injections for Intel, but under Trump the taxpayer got surety in the form of shares in Intel. Whereas Biden would have just given it for free.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 15 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said: Which Republicans have stated that buying stock is Socialism? LOL.... only Trump sycophants care what the F a bunch of other cultists say. The GOP are only worried about getting elected and maintaining power... .they'll say whatever curries Trump's favor.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 Trump takes 10% of Intel, Trump takes??----or America takes ---your post are getting by the day, he really does live in your head doesn't he.........
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 hour ago, Oliver Holzerfilled said: Could someone putting forth the Intel deal as being an example of socialism or communism be considered economically or politically unsophisticated in their thinking? 1 hour ago, Oliver Holzerfilled said: Might these be factors leading someone to believe in such ideas? Low IQ? Brainwashed by biased media sources? A substandard education? Any qualified lawyer would object if in trial you asked a witness this type of question. Those are leading questions, designed to elicit an answer you favor. That type of question will also definitely skew the results you get from either a search engine or an AI engine. Bzzzzzzzzzt! Better luck next time, loser.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 17 minutes ago, Cameroni said: The American taxpayer paid under Biden who approved these massive investment injections for Intel, but under Trump the taxpayer got surety in the form of shares in Intel. Whereas Biden would have just given it for free. After this 'investment' many decisions by Intel or by the Federal government will be tainted by claims of favoritism or non arms-length dealings. That is a strong reason to avoid this type of arrangement.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 13 minutes ago, gamb00ler said: After this 'investment' many decisions by Intel or by the Federal government will be tainted by claims of favoritism or non arms-length dealings. That is a strong reason to avoid this type of arrangement. Well, seems to work well in Germany, Japan, China, France, Spain and most countries in the world. In fact in Germany literally every big company is part owned not just by national but by local government as well.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 9 minutes ago, Cameroni said: Well, seems to work well in Germany, Japan, China, France, Spain and most countries in the world. In fact in Germany literally every big company is part owned not just by national but by local government as well. And some country's execute homosexuals.... US doesn't and historically the US Federal government eschews direct investment in production (barring wartime and financial crises). It has never been viewed as a role the government should take.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 AI says: Key Principles of Socialism Social Ownership: A central tenet is that the means of production (factories, land, resources) are owned and controlled by the community as a whole, either through the state or through public institutions, rather than by private individuals or corporations.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 4 minutes ago, gamb00ler said: And some country's execute homosexuals.. Yes, Saudi Arabia with whom the US is doing a lot of business lately. Not sure what executing homosexuals has to do with the price of cheese though. The US, like all developed counries has a long history of subsidising national businesses. Protecting national business has always been seen as the role of every government. Trump is just better at it.
August 26, 2025Aug 26 On 8/25/2025 at 2:30 AM, BLMFem said: So a GOP president demanding government ownership in a private company. No Dem president has ever done that. Trump also wants to tax innovation through a tax on patents. This one's gonna be hard for the MAGAverse to explain away. Expect much noise about Biden, Hillary, Soros, The Laptop, the usual drivel.😁 WSJ: Trump takes 10% of Intel, as Washington becomes Chinatown on industrial policy. https://archive.ph/6fbBC "President Trump on Friday trumpeted that the U.S. government will take a 10% equity stake (worth about $8.9 billion) in Intel, the struggling maker of computer chips. The President made CEO Lip-Bu Tan an offer he couldn’t refuse. “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States,” Mr. Trump said of their meeting this month." How about this? President Barack Obama struck a cautious note Monday as he announced the bankruptcy of General Motors and the government’s decision to invest another $30 billion in the company, take a 60% ownership stake in the beleaguered automaker, and take control of a number of slots on the board of directors. https://www.politico.com/story/2009/05/obama-reluctant-shareholder-in-gm-023165
August 26, 2025Aug 26 1 hour ago, Cameroni said: Yes, Saudi Arabia with whom the US is doing a lot of business lately. Not sure what executing homosexuals has to do with the price of cheese though. The US, like all developed counries has a long history of subsidising national businesses. Protecting national business has always been seen as the role of every government. Trump is just better at it. These lefties are acting like this has never happened in the past.
Create an account or sign in to comment