The biggest problem with this is, suppose there’s a bid out for a contract. This puts AMD and any other chip maker at a disadvantage. I honestly don’t know what to call it other than fascist economic policy.
I’ll bet it boosts sales for AMD. I’m glad I ditched Intel during the Celeron days.
US Government’s stake in Intel are non-voting shares.
Actually, though, I would welcome AMD putting in a better bid on a contract than Intel, and the US gov still taking the Intel bid. It would spotlight the reason why fedgov shouldn’t own shares in any company. Fedgov would deserve the ■■■■ storm that would create.
1 Like
and if intels Bid is lower because they “are” the governments partner?
They’re free to bid “NO COST!! YOU GET A FREE SHIPMENT, AND YOU GET A FREE SHIPMENT…”, of course. But they’re still a for-profit corporation with voting stockholders to answer to, and a BOD, and corporate responsibilities, etc.
No it’s my opinion as to who is MAGA and what they said. Calling that lying is well a stretch but if you think it is that’s your prerogative.
If i am Lyin i am dyin! 
I’d be more OK with this if it were some kind of deal where they’re simply getting 10% of the high-end chips for use in government systems, but we all know it’s just a matter of time before “secret” things start going into the chips meant for the open market, and other slimy gimmicks.
3 Likes
and with the government owning 10% of the company subject to coercion from the government. Certainly, would be lots of insider trading opportunities though!
1 Like
yep, thats why I said, a share of the profit not not shares of the company. Product not stock works too.
1 Like
Great. Your opinion is worthless libbism.
Telling people they are ignoring the MAGA posts while hiding behind your worthless opinion of which ones those MAGA posts are, is typical libbism too.
1 Like
More reason why it’s not a good idea for the government to do it. (Maybe you missed it, but my post you originally responded to was NOT in favor of this.)
1 Like
ahhhh… I did miss that! Thank you for the clarification!
1 Like
My greater concern comes next time we have a lefty president.
We REALLY should not let that Djinni out of the bottle.
1 Like
Excellent. All those things. Thank you for noting my libbism.
I don’t believe for a second that you support any of this just so you know and for a big reason too. Having a passing conversation about the pros and cons of a governmental action isn’t supporting it.
That was exactly the “matter of time” I was getting at. 
2 Likes
You are right. But I never said they needed to do it. That is not what the conversation was about.
Why? Every other outrageous thing to come out of Trump’s mouth in the last nine years has had virtually no effect on his public persona. I gave up saying “well, that will be the end of Trump” back in early 2017. 
1 Like
Why would you think this thread should go any differently than most others? 
(Just look at the Garcia threads for example. )
1 Like
So when Donald Trump wants the govt to own part of a company it’s fascism.
Is it still fascism when people not named Donald Trump do it?
.
.
.
