The argument I have heard about the US taking 20% stake in Intel is that when a company asks for federal money then it’s only fair if the federal government gets some equity in return.

You can’t socialize losses and privatize gains.

> You can’t socialize losses and privatize gains.

Yes, yes, and yes.

We kept doing this, a bank or company stretches too much after making record profits, and then cries for federal funding and free money.

The federal reserve is a lender of last resort and they shouldn’t have given that much money without any collateral etc. Even if they just kept the stock and then sold it afterwards, we wouldn’t be in this much debt. We spend trillions covering private losses, this was plain stupid.

easiest way to get downvoted on HN is to point out that we are the largest socialist country on the planet exactly because of this. there isn’t any shit we won’t socialize losses on (farming, banking… you name it, US has got your back)

Socializing is not the same as socialist per se, the latter of which has the specific definition of workers controlling the means of production, and I don't see that anywhere in the US much less the world.

you can throw any semantics at this you want and re-define it however you see fit. but there are few things more socialist than government taking a stake in companies. if this Intel story came out or Venezuela or China we would be crying a foul saying “oh look at that socialist shit, glad I live in America”

Sure, I don't disagree on the argument, I'm just saying that people have been using the word socialism wrong for so long that it now just means when the government does something, basically.

> federal reserve is a lender of last resort and they shouldn’t have given that much money without any collateral

The Fed only lends against collateral.

if we are not a communist country (everyone seems to think that we are not) why the F would we socialize losses?!?

> if we are not a communist country (everyone seems to think that we are not) why the F would we socialize losses?!?

Hold on, the logic is any country that socialises anything to any degree is communist? Where the hell did you get that from?

If you use the word "Socialise" then the current trend of reactionary ill-informed is to assume "Communism". It's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that needs to be had.

> it's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that needs to be had

OP [1] is the first person to make the argument that socialising anything implies communism in this thread. The entire shtick is a straw man. It doesn't need to be argued if it's only brought up by the side tearing it down.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575045

The first in this thread. I often come across people making this claim.

the terms are used interchangeably for the HN crowd but you get the point... US is the largest socialist country on the planet by far. Not communist country yet but Project 2025 is working hard on that :)

> terms are used interchangeably for the HN crowd

Except they’re not. They’re only mis-used in this thread by those claiming they’re mis-used.

fair enough!

> argument I have heard about the US taking 20% stake in Intel is that when a company asks for federal money then it’s only fair if the federal government gets some equity in return

Great forward-looking concept. Terrible ex post facto. The precedent set is that the government can demand equity for past favours at any time.

Also, now that the U.S. owns a stake in Intel, where does that leave competitors? We're already seeing a push to force AMD and Intel to merge [1].

[1] https://www.tomsguide.com/tech/us-government-considering-cas...

>You can’t socialize losses and privatize gains.

Companies do this all the time though.

For example, here in Louisiana the utility companies do this. After a major hurricane, Entergy will fix and upgrade tons of infrastructure and then get to tack on a +$15.00/m on to your utility bill for the next 5 to 10 years to recoup the costs all while they are making millions in profits each year.

Why pay for it themselves when they can just force the public to do it.

Please don’t use a smiley, because if you don’t understand what “commie shit” in the context of the US means…

Stay quiet.

:)

Calling the current US administration "commie" wan't on my bingo card. I swear most people these days have no actual concept of the things they argue against.

They are as commie as it gets but lets say heavily promoting socialism, nationalizing private companies, subsidizing farmers etc etc… and it is getting worse by the minute

If it takes a misunderstanding of communism to get trump kicked out, I'm all for it, but this is far from "as commie as it gets". What's the definition of communism as far as you understand it?