Trump Says Intel Will Give 10% Stake To U.S., Becoming Third-Largest Shareholder

[toobfreak]

No. I don't believe Trump shares Stalin's ideology. But that doesn't invalidate my point. There should be no marriage between the American government and American businesses. That sets a very, very dangerous precedent.

You're probably right, however, you are about a century late in your concerns. Wasn't General Eisenhower warning us of a military-industrial complex long ago?

 

[SaxonJackson]

You're probably right, however, you are about a century late in your concerns. Wasn't General Eisenhower warning us of a military-industrial complex long ago?

Yes he did. And the warning is still valid. Personally, I don't believe in caving in just because things look like a losing battle. Fight until we drop.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes he did. And the warning is still valid. Personally, I don't believe in caving in just because things look like a losing battle. Fight until we drop.

Well, if this were the democrats trying to coerce a business into taking a pro-globalist non-American position, I'd be concerned, but in this case, Trump is looking at using government to help shore up a few businesses vital to America's strength, success and security, so, I'm not nearly so concerned.

 

[my2¢]

Intel has some major catching up to do.

OpenAI has been making it rain infrastructure deals. The AI startup just dropped another $38 billion on Amazon Web Services, adding to agreements with Oracle, Microsoft, AMD, and a plethora of other deals that total over $1 trillion this year so far. But there's one company conspicuously missing from the invite list to this very expensive party. Intel, the former belle of the Silicon Valley ball, is now watching everyone else dance.

Intel, one of the world’s biggest semiconductor companies, will be laying off another 669 employees from its facilities in Hillsboro and Aloha.
The cuts are expected to happen before the end of the year.
It comes after the tech giant already cut around 2,500 positions over the summer.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No. I don't believe Trump shares Stalin's ideology. But that doesn't invalidate my point. There should be no marriage between the American government and American businesses. That sets a very, very dangerous precedent. Once that door opens, future Presidents like an Obama or a Biden or a Harris, etc., can partner with various companies who contribute to their campaigns or share their ideology. Future governments could very wall say: "if owning 10% of a company is good then owning 75% is better." They start controlling the means of production. They start controlling prices. They start showing favoritism for one company over their competitors. That's where free market Capitalism dies and Marxism thrives.

And you say "Marxism", but it was Trump, a capitalist, who did this.

China, which is far more conservative than it Communist, also owns and controls parts of businesses, a lot of businesses. And it shakes down businesses when it needs money.

Russia is similar.

Guess where Trump gets his ideas from.

Don't fall into the trap that because it's this, it therefore must be that.

Ownership of businesses was done by the Nazis and other fascist countries.

But you're not wrong that it won't end well.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Well, if this were the democrats trying to coerce a business into taking a pro-globalist non-American position, I'd be concerned, but in this case, Trump is looking at using government to help shore up a few businesses vital to America's strength, success and security, so, I'm not nearly so concerned.

I see your argument like this:

If Obama cut down the American flag and tossed it in the mud it would reflect his anti-American ideology.
If Trump cut down the American flag and tossed it in the mud it would reflect his love for America because he plans on buying a better flag.

My stance is that we should never throw an American flag in the mud.

When anyone from the Swamp Party does something that our Founding Fathers would frown upon, I have no choice but to call them out. In a Free Market economy, it is NOT the duty of the American Government to "shore up a few businesses." If Intel isn't keeping up with the times and market demand then it's time for them to move aside so a more competent company can take its place.

But regardless of Trump's intentions (the road to hell is paved with good intentions), he's setting a dangerous precedence and opening the door to future Presidents. If Trump is allowed to partner with companies today then a Far Left Socialist President can get away with it tomorrow.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I see your argument like this:

If Obama cut down the American flag and tossed it in the mud it would reflect his anti-American ideology.
If Trump cut down the American flag and tossed it in the mud it would reflect his love for America because he plans on buying a better flag.

My stance is that we should never throw an American flag in the mud.

When anyone from the Swamp Party does something that our Founding Fathers would frown upon, I have no choice but to call them out. In a Free Market economy, it is NOT the duty of the American Government to "shore up a few businesses." If Intel isn't keeping up with the times and market demand then it's time for them to move aside so a more competent company can take its place.

But regardless of Trump's intentions (the road to hell is paved with good intentions), he's setting a dangerous precedence and opening the door to future Presidents. If Trump is allowed to partner with companies today then a Far Left Socialist President can get away with it tomorrow.

Democrats don’t need any precedent. They just do bailouts.

 

[dblack]

Democrats don’t need any precedent. They just do bailouts.

"It's different when we do it!!!!"

 

[toobfreak]

I see your argument like this:
If Obama cut down the American flag and tossed it in the mud it would reflect his anti-American ideology.
If Trump cut down the American flag and tossed it in the mud it would reflect his love for America because he plans on buying a better flag.

Then you don't see my argument at all.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Then you don't see my argument at all.

I see your argument and know where you're coming from. But it's simply not a good argument.

Someone could argue that the reason they started a campfire right next to a dry meadow was that they needed immediate warmth and they chose the least windy spot. But when the meadow goes up in flames and starts the forest on fire, we can see, in retrospect, that it really wasn't a great idea after all.

Seeking immediate pleasure at the expense of long term pain isn't a good argument, in my opinion.

Trump is a master conman. Don't allow yourself to be duped.

 

[Nobody911]

No — this transaction alone isn’t socialism. It’s a government equity investment/industrial policy tool, not state ownership or control of the economy.

Why not :

• Definition: socialism broadly means public (state) ownership or democratic control of the means of production and central planning of economic activity.
• Here: the U.S. bought a minority stake (~10%), agreed to be a passive shareholder(A)with no board seat and limited governance rights, and keeps the company as a private, market‑driven firm.
• Intent and scope: the move is targeted industrial policy/national‑security investment to support domestic chipmaking, not transfer of whole industries to public ownership or abolition of markets.
• Precedent: governments sometimes take equity stakes (bailouts, strategic investments) without converting economies into socialism — examples include wartime production, rescues in crises, or strategic minority holdings.
• Practical effect: unless the government acquires controlling ownership and directs production decisions broadly, the market and corporate governance remain intact.

Why some call it “socialism” (and where that label is misleading):

• People use “socialism” rhetorically to criticize any state intervention, subsidies, or corporate welfare — especially when taxpayers fund private firms.
• That usage conflates targeted government intervention with systemic public ownership; it’s a political/metaphoric use, not an accurate ideological classification.

Concise verdict: this is state investment/industrial policy, not socialism in the usual economic/political sense.

(A) passive shareholder is an investor who owns shares in a company but does not take an active role in managing it or directing its day‑to‑day operations. Passive shareholders generally:

• Do not seek board seats.
• Do not engage in regular governance activities (proxy fights, independent proposals).
• Typically vote with management or follow board recommendations.
• Aim to earn returns through dividends and capital appreciation rather than control.

sources:

1. Intel and Trump Administration Reach Historic Agreement to Accelerate American Technology and Manufacturing Leadership
2. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/22/intel-goverment-equity-stake.html

 

[berg80]

Nvidia shares were not doing much on Tuesday as Wall Street failed to see the bigger picture of how the company can benefit from finally getting the green light from the U.S. government to sell its second-best chips in China.
After Monday’s close, President Donald Trump said on social media that Nvidia will be allowed to ship H200 chips to “approved customers in China,” and the U.S. government would take a 25% cut. Trump said he informed Chinese President Xi Jinping, who “responded positively.” The post confirmed a media report earlier in the day that an announcement was coming.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/09/cramer-sees-any-nvidia-sales-of-h200-chips-in-china-as-a-pure-bonus.html?__source=newsletter%7Cinvestingclubcomms%7Canalysis%7C20251209

Does anyone remember the federal government extorting a company by demanding a 25% cut of revenue in order for the company to do business with a foreign country?

 

[berg80]

Pentagon takes big stake in new Korea Zinc smelter in Tennessee, will get 10% of company​

The Defense Department is getting a 40% stake in a $7.4 billion mineral smelter to be built in Tennessee in partnership with Korea Zinc, Reuters reported Monday.

The critical minerals smelting and processing facility could produce 540,000 tons of materials in the U.S. per year, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

The deal comes as the U.S. seeks to form critical mineral partnerships that are not dependent on China.

Reuters said that Korea Zinc will sell new shares worth $1.9 billion to a joint venture controlled by the U.S. government and unnamed U.S.-based strategic investors. The government and investors would then control 10% of Korea Zinc, according to the news outlet.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/15/pentagon-korea-zinc-refinery-tennessee.html

This kind of ownership stake in commercial enterprises is a radical departure from the way the government has operated........and it's already become normalized under a guy with a track record of corporate bankruptcies.