Bad analogy. In the 1940s we had all the oil we needed and both Germany and Japan did not.
- We began the war with little or no weapons industry of an kind
(AND I will add we sere still importeing lots of oil form S Amerca then)
and - during the course of the war numerous products were in such deep shortage the government rationed them.
The CHIPS act was more than sufficient.
Donald Trump has opened a can of worms.
Switch.
I don’t understand.
I have always opposed big gvernment.
i don’t even like it when the government owns 10% of stadiums.
Even if the US needs to have the gov’t inteveneto keep startigic industries domestic, ther are a zillion other, better ways to do it.
This is the first time in history we have had a president who has failed to find any other way.
I am not sure how this fits into the discussion about fascism
but Bernie Sanders likes this and Rand Paul hates it.
From the article
This proposal has gained a surprising supporter — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) He suggested it aligned with an earlier effort to secure returns from CHIPS and Science Act investments.
“No. Taxpayers should not be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return,” he said in a statement.
“If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,” Sanders added.
and
Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) slammed the push to acquire a stake in the chipmaker as a “terrible idea” and a “step toward socialism.”
“If socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?” Paul wrote Wednesday on X.
reposting the link:
1 Like
The government funded the research and had a stake in the profit also.
so ask for a share of the profit, not the company
2 Likes
What’s the difference?
It is easier to sell a pharma gov partnership to a scared voter base during a hyped up flu crisis.
Universities attach patent rights for all their research as do the funding agencies.
This is all normal business.
one is money, the other is ownership
They are both money if the company turns a profit.
no need for the government to own any part of any business.
government didn’t own any part of any pharm through covid. And the government owning 10% of a company is not normal business.
What stake did the US government have in profits from companies such as Moderna?
“If only Andy Grove were here! He’d beat up Trump!” 
Fauci personally saw a financial windfall from the mRNA vaccine patent. RFK jr spells it out in his book The Real Anthony Fauci.
Lets try sports stadiums. Government funded in large part. Venue partnership with the richest sports leagues. No Stadium…No NFL.
The only difference is the terminology.
Loan guarantees are more foolish. Zero upside and no stake.
Pissing it away as the saying goes.
Solyndra – $570 million taxpayer dollars wasted
Solar panel start-up Solyndra was the first company to get government-backed loans from ARRA after its passage, collecting $535 million and receiving a $25 million tax break from California’s agency for alternative energy.
Solyndra’s federal loan came from a program created by the 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies,” and the company said it would use the funds to invest in its one-of-a-kind technology using cylindrical panels to generate solar energy.
But the company misled the U.S. Department of Energy in its application, and about two-and-a-half years after receiving the funds, filed for bankruptcy, laid off its 1,100 employees, and shut down all operations.
So a 10% stake makes sense and can always be divested down the road.
1 Like
Yup. And even though Intel is floundering (so not a guarantee of return) it’s better than just sitting on the loans and grants that fedgov gave to Intel under CHIPS.
I’m still not in agreement with fedgov ownership of business, but I understand the rationale.
1 Like
From county to state elected people just love to seed business partnerships.
They will do so if we like it or not.
They think they are smarter than the market.
