How about the US government owning 10% of Intel? I hate corporate welfare. That's privatization in reverse. We want the government to divest of assets, not buy assets. So terrible. One of the bad ideas that's come out of this white House. I am very, very uncomfortable with that idea. [00:00:18] I'm very uncomfortable with that one. But that's grist for another mill on another day. One of the worst ideas, one of the bad ideas to come out of this white House. I'm glad they could find one there. Last Friday, the Trump administration announced that the US government [00:00:33] would be taking a 10% stake in Intel, which manufactures semiconductor chips in the United States. But they're getting a lot of pushback from fellow conservatives like we just listened to are stating that the government should stay out of private companies affairs. [00:00:49] Before we get to more of those unhappy Republicans, Jank, let's get the terms of the deal. Per a statement from Intel. The government's equity stake will be funded by the remaining 5.7 billion in grants previously awarded but not yet paid to Intel [00:01:06] under the US Chips and Science Act, and 3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the 2.2 billion in chips grants Intel has received to date, making [00:01:23] for a total investment of $11.1 billion. In other words, the government is taking money that it was originally going to give to Intel for free, nothing in exchange and trading that for a stake in the company. [00:01:39] Now, the US government is now the largest single shareholder in Intel. And here's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Besson explaining why this was an important deal for the administration. For national security. We need to make our own chips here. [00:01:58] We cannot rely on Taiwan, which is 9500 miles away from us and only 80 miles from China. The Chips act was just a giveaway to rich companies. I mean, why in the world is the United States of America taking money [00:02:13] and giving it to companies like TSMC, which is worth $1 trillion? I mean, why would we give them money to come to America? Donald Trump understands how to do this. What he does is he says, if you don't build in America, you're going to pay a 100% tariff. [00:02:31] And then watch them come flying in. It is a worse deal than giving it away. But when you put these money in the hands of Donald Trump, you're going to get a better deal for the American taxpayer. Joe, there industries that we have to onshore. I would say that the single point of failure for the global economy [00:02:49] is that 99% of the advanced chips in the world are made in Taiwan. Okay, first on Lutnick. I love when they say that. And we'll continue this here. But but I love when they say that. Well, we're just giving them money. We're just giving money. [00:03:04] Giving money away. How is that any different than the massive tax breaks that you give to oil companies that don't have to pay a dime in tax? I love when they say those things when they talk about giveaways, but they're happy to give away to the to the oil companies. But regardless, these arguments are not winning me over. [00:03:21] But they're also not winning over a lot of conservatives. And Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky, is one of those. If socialism is government owning the means of production, he writes on Tweet on Twitter. Wouldn't the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism? [00:03:37] Terrible idea. Conservative commentator Erick Erickson wasn't happy either. So many of you were opposed to Mandani wanting to seize the means of production in New York City, but are totally fine with Trump's commerce secretary wanting the U.S. Government to become the largest shareholder of Intel. [00:03:55] This is socialism with an R next to its name. Representative Thomas Massie, also of Kentucky, said this to Fox business. Nothing in the Chips act authorized the U.S. Government to buy stock in Intel. Conflicts of interest arise when the government gets in bed [00:04:11] with private companies. Intel is now more likely to cooperate with the government. Intrusions into private computing and government regulatory agencies are more likely to play favorites with Intel. The Chips act was a doomed, Democrat led ploy for corporate welfare. It should be rescinded, not expanded, into government acquisition [00:04:30] of private companies. Trump is clearly upset with the pushback because later he wrote on Truth Social I paid zero for Intel that is worth approximately approximately $11 billion. All goes to the USA. Why are stupid people unhappy with that? [00:04:46] I will make deals like that for our country all day long. I will also help those companies that make such lucrative deals with the United States. I love seeing their stock price go up, making the USA richer and richer. More jobs from America for America. Who would not want to make deals like that? [00:05:03] And the Trump administration might be making more deals like this. Here's white House economic advisor Kevin Hassett. Okay, so we should expect the US government to be taking more equity stakes in businesses around the country. That is something that if you're a CEO this morning watching us, you should say, [00:05:22] okay, the sovereign wealth fund may be coming and and trying to effectively buy in some kind of equity stake. It's possible. Yeah, that's absolutely right that if the in the past. The federal government has been giving money away lickety split [00:05:37] to companies and the taxpayers have received nothing in return. And so now what's happening with the Intel deal is the Chips act. Money is going out as planned. But instead of it just going out and disappearing into the ether, the U.S. Taxpayers are getting a little bit of equity. [00:05:52] I could really not see how anyone would think that's a bad thing, unless you thought that the government was then going to go in and run the company. But but these are going to be shares that don't have voting rights. The government is going to stay out of it. They are the largest shareholder there. I love that we're now at a place where we're being run by people who say, [00:06:09] lickety split and grist for the mill. It has been a long time since the government made an investment like the Trump administration just made into Intel. You have to look all the way back to the 2008 financial crisis to find examples like the government's 92% ownership of finance and insurance giant AIG in 2008, [00:06:27] or its more than $30 billion assistance to General Motors after the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Intel is an interesting case because it represents the United States best hope of keeping the manufacturing of semiconductors here in the United States. [00:06:44] Okay, so I'm going to point out Republican hypocrisy in a second. But, no, I love this. I think it's definitely the right move. And I've been saying this for a long time on The Young Turks. [00:07:00] Okay. So, the Chips act says, okay, here, Intel have $11 billion for nothing. Because we think it'll help the country kind of a little bit. We hope for national security. Right. And in return, we're going to get absolutely nothing. How about putting guardrails so they can't fire people? [00:07:16] No, we're not going to do that. They fire 20,000 people right after the bill. Right. Okay. Now Intel is in trouble, and they need the money. So they say, oh, this is socialism for the government to take a piece of Intel. No, it's the exact opposite. It's capitalism. In capitalism, the way that it works is if you give money [00:07:34] equity into a company, you get a piece. I'm sorry. If you give money and capital into a company, you get equity back. That's shares. That's how capitalism works. Socialism is. I now take your company for no reason. And so when CNBC and their panicked voice are like, [00:07:50] does this mean that more companies. No. If you have a perfectly healthy company and you don't need the government's help, then no, it's not going to happen to you. The government is not just randomly seizing your company. You're coming to the government with your hand out and going, please give me $11 billion for free. [00:08:05] And the answer from now on should be, no, I'm not going to let you know. You're going to give me equity like you would for an investor. Why not? Why shouldn't the American people have that? Does that mean you have to keep it forever? No. You could buy it and then sell it, right? So, for example, during the 2008 crash, we bought the US government, bought 60% [00:08:24] of GM. You know what they did with it? They started making cars and centralized. No, they sold it back. Okay. So by the way, they should have done that with the banks. They should have taken over the banks. And if they were going to make profits in the future, we should have had a share in that. Instead we just gave them money for free, which is what we always do. [00:08:41] So there's two different sets of folks here when we talk about Republicans. First, there's the Non-trump Republicans who are all in a panic over this because they're like, oh no, no, our corporate donors are beloved corporate donors. We were feeding them and they were giving us legalized bribes. What are you doing? We're supposed to give away the money for nothing at all. [00:08:59] The American taxpayer shouldn't have anything. No. Only the corporations should get the money for free. No, no, it's a robbery. It's been a robbery the entire time. Then for Trump. Is there hypocrisy there? Yeah, of course there is. Michael is absolutely right. It's not just the tax cuts or the tax breaks. The oil companies get $35 billion a year in subsidies. [00:09:18] For what. For what. You're the most profitable companies in the world. So Trump is like oh Intel. Okay. That for whatever reason, that suits his purposes. Meanwhile, since the oil companies bribed him to no end legally, they give him endless money. Now he's like, oh, yeah, 11 billion, I want steak. [00:09:36] That's good. And I'm telling you, as a fair person, I love that the $35 billion were given for no goddamn reason to the oil companies. I don't want any steaks. No, I don't want any shares of ExxonMobil or all these companies. We've been giving them 35 billion a year for endless period of years. [00:09:52] You know how long we've been giving them subsidies? A hundred years. They've been robbing us for 100 years. They're the most profitable companies in the world. You know what? We've gotten out of it? Nothing. So I love this trend. I love that the corrupt Republican politicians [00:10:07] and pundits are crying over it. But it should be done across the board. You you get a portion, you get shares in return, and then you sell it. And if we started actually bringing in revenue for the American taxpayers [00:10:23] that way, that would be amazing. Last couple of things I'm relieved to disagree with Massie. Again, I disagree with him on that. And then and then. Oh, yeah, this is important. Guys, look, let's be honest, it turns out Intel would have given away [00:10:41] all these shares if Biden had asked for it, but Biden didn't ask for it. The Democrats didn't ask for it. So this is a very rare case. Trump huffs and puffs about his negotiation ability. We still have war in Ukraine, still have war in Gaza. The tariffs are a disaster, so I don't see it. [00:10:58] But on this one he's right because he said, yeah, I want shares. And they're like oh right away okay. If they had asked earlier they also would have gotten shares. Yeah I don't think it's that simple. There has to be precedent for it. But the thing that and I don't necessarily. Agree with it here and. He did it there wasn't right I know but but but just because Trump is doing [00:11:16] something that has no precedent doesn't make it something that you want to do. - Precedent. - No no no no. But there's a difference. Michael, I'm sorry that I'm interrupting. No, but, like, if he breaks the law or he breaks the constitution, you saw me flip out over it over on today's show, right? But there is no law against this. [00:11:33] So if he's doing something on precedent that's positive for the American people. Great. Great. To an extent. And that's my biggest part. My biggest problem with this is not, in theory, that this is not a bad idea, because I disagree with those Republicans who are who are going against it, too. [00:11:50] And I find myself agreeing more with you in principle. But this does speak to me. All I hear now when I hear Donald Trump is this authoritarian authoritarianism, and this fits right into that, this demanding way of running the country that seeps into everything he does. [00:12:07] And even when, by accident, something might seem like a decent idea, I do think that you can go through Congress when you have this legislation, you have the Chips act, and you have the Congress and the Senate debating it, that yeah, this is an idea that we could maybe take forward next time. There's that kind of a negotiation. [00:12:23] But to have a president who fancies himself an authoritarian do this to me, even if it's something I like. I don't like the way it's being done. The other side is that to me, it's all political, too. So Donald Trump can say that he's the one who kept semiconductor jobs in the United States when the Chips act was. [00:12:39] What did that for Intel? So in theory, I don't really disagree with you, but I don't like the fact that he's doing it in this way. Yeah, okay. I hear you, especially given the context. But look, there's an easy answer to that. I would tell Intel, okay, do you want the 5.7 billion or not? Because if you don't want it, no problem. We don't take any shares. [00:12:57] Right. Well, and the other side of that is Kevin Hassett saying these aren't voting shares. Are you telling me that anybody on the Intel board is going to go against the president of the United States or the United States government who owns these aren't voting shares. They're voting there should be a certain number of years. And then you sell back. [00:13:13] - Exactly. - Okay. See, we got a deal. Look at that. Every time you ring the bell below, an angel gets its wings. Totally not true. But it does keep you updated on our live shows.