- The Biden administration was giving money away, while the Trump administration is not about that
- On US stakes in companies, need to see where US is adding fundamental value
- There is monstrous discussion on defense companies. Lockheed Martin makes 97% of revenues from US government.
(Lockheed Martin derives a substantial portion of its revenue from the U.S. government. However,
in 2024, bout three-quarters of Lockheed Martin’s revenue stems from government contracts, with the majority of that stemming from the Department of Defense specifically.)
- Lots of discussions are needed on how US finances its munitions acquisitions
- If US universities get US funding, the people should have a piece of the patent benefits from those patents.
- If the companies need government help, it is between the co CEO and the Pres.
- On US stakes in companies; companies were getting money for free.
- Most countries subsidize there major businesses. What happened is we lost our businesses to other countries.
- Mortgage fraud is a serious crime. If Cook committed mortgage fraud, she should go off and sunset and hope to God that the police aren't following her.
- Interest rate should come lower
- Rates should be lower for the good of the American economy.
- Higher rates costs the US government $360 billion a year.
- The government wants a smooth interchange on trains from East to West.
Opening the can of worms that would allow the US government to go to companies, and universities and charities and say "you owe us", could ultimately take money from one bucket (companies, universities and charities) and put it into another bucket (i.e. the U.S. Treasury). The potential issue is that the money has already been spent in the treasury, so ultimately it's a tax on the people (or a risk to the consumer).
Last week, the $6.5 billion that was granted to Intel through the Chips Act was not going to be granted because they did not meet benchmarks.
Today/this week the government is going to give Intel the $6.5 billion. In return, the US government got "$11 billion equity for nothing". However, did that increase the risk to the US taxpayer? And was it for nothing?
There is no free lunch.
Intel did the deal, because they did not have the capital/money to do what they wanted to do to transition their business. They were not going to get the money from the Chips Act (apparently) because they were not reaching benchmarks.
So is the Trump deal really a bailout?
It might just be..
The question then becomes "How will Intel survive?"
By competing.
Are they competing now?
Apparently not or not enough. They cannot fund expansion.
Now that they have an incentive for Intel to survive. will they protect its investment in the future by bringing back the competition toward Intel, or making those companies more uncompetitive?
If Intel's business dries up further and still cannot compete, the potential exists that to avoid the loss, Trump will be forced to save it in other ways. Remember, he does not like to lose and he did this deal.
