The US government has taken a stake in Intel. Defense industry contractors may be ahead

On the heels of a controversial decision to take a ownership stake in the American chip-producer Intel by the US government, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik suggested in an interview on Tuesday that Donald Trump’s administration could see the Pentagon contractors as it casts for more public-private opportunities.

Lutnik told CNBC, “It is a matter of great talk about how we finance the acquisition of our sages.”

“Lockheed Martin makes 97 percent of his revenue from the US government,” he said about the legend of the defense industry. “They are originally a hand of the US government.”

Lutnik’s comments resonate to those of Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, who said on the same network on Monday that “at some points, there will be more transactions.”

A Bloomberg report on Intel transactions on Friday said that Trump was embracing “a new brand of the economic state”. But in his first administration, an officer took more caustic.

An associate director for the management of the White House and the economic policy in the budget said, “Washington can only be called corporate socialism-profitable, deficit, social and taxpayers have taken hostage for the fate of politically associated firms.”

background

In this summer, the White House has announced several direct intervention in areas. In June, it called Trump “Golden Share” as part of the purchase of US Steel by Nippon Steel of Japan. Trump criticized Nippon Boli during the 2024 Presidential campaign, but now the US government Can imagine the decision of the company It looks as opposed to national security.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department secured MP content, 15 percent in a rare Prithvi Khan, and the Trump administration acquired a deal to allow China to sell Microchip by taking 15 percent of sales revenue to Nvidia and AMD.

Then last week, the government said that it was taking a 9.9 percent stake in Intel, one of the most storey Silicon Valley companies, which was converting us $ 11.1 billion in earlier funds.

‘Intel should have been sold for car parts’

In particular, the Intel trick has revealed an edge of the response, which has been distracted by a neatly divided division among the frequently seen parties in the US, now the government is now a major shareholder in a company in the process of reducing more than 20,000 workers.

“I hate this idea, I really do,” businessman Kevin O’Leeri said, who usually support the policies of Trump administration, On CNBC on Monday“The US has made it so spectacular for 200 years that the government lives in its lane.”

“Intel should have been sold for car parts three years ago,” he said.

Republicans like former vice -president Mike Pence and current Northern Carolina Sen have also criticized the Intel trick. Tilis said that this communist provokes the “enterprise owned by semi-state” seen in China.

Kentaki Sen Rand Paul, a Republican with a separatist Libra, asked on social media last week, “If Socialism is the owner of the means of production, will the government not be part of the Intel, not a step towards socialism?”

Berney Sanders, progressive independent from Vermont who cocuses with Democrats spoke in favor of the move.

“If microchip companies make profit from liberal grants received from the federal government, the US taxpayers have the right to return that investment,” they posted on social media.

We call us not an outsider

Both the current White House and the administration of Biden have demanded us to reduce the dependence on chips made abroad, in Artificial Intelligence.

In many media interviews last week, Lutynik does not seem to be contrary to Sanders, taking pain to emphasize the government and taxpayers, now really is really getting back, as is opposite to the Biden administration. Direct funding of Intel under Chips and Sciences Act,

“It was just a cheaper of money,” Lutnik said on Tuesday.

He said that the US is away from an outsider globally.

“Most countries in this world subsidize their most important industries,” he said, recently pointing to Britain to withdraw the remains of British steel.

US Orthodox Editor-at-Large Daniel Macarthi said in an editorial this week that many conservatives are clinging to old views about the economy. The government, he said, is using the Intel deal as part of a drive to create a sovereign money fund, while not without risk, not, further thinking.

“The President is not looking at the past- it is about keeping the United States competitive with other countries in the 21st century, including Communist China, which controls the world’s second and third largest sovereign wealth funds,” Macarthi wrote,

‘I want to try and get as much as you can

These steps give rise to allegations of hypocrisy, although Trump does not care.

On Monday, A reporter told He called 2024 presidential candidate Kamala Harris – all types of Pejoratives – which included a “communist” and a “Marxist”, but neither he nor Biden asked for the nationalization of a private company.

Trump agreed that this was a new Republican method of “Industrial Policy.”

“This is sure,” he said. “I want to try to get as much as possible. I hope I have many more cases like it.”

The Intel Move, which was seen by both the administration and the company, came only two weeks later to resign Trump’s CEO Lip-Bo Tan, when he was an enterprise capitalist due to the previous investment in Chinese technology companies. In the middle, Trump and Tan met at the White House.

Others are pointing to the economic cost of such industrial policy.

Gun wrote in the AIR, “Every dollar that the government buys shares is a dollar that cannot be used to reduce the debts, reduce the loan or provide public goods in fact.”

The editorial board for the national review, usually suited to Trump, exposed to that point last week.

The board wrote, “There is no business to play any business in a government in a $ 37 trillion debt and to run a $ 2 trillion deficit.”

There is also a possibility of pressure campaigns, as Trump has worked with law firms, educational firms and media companies during his second term in the office.

“Other American technology firms may now feel pressure to buy Intel products, not because they represent the best technology, but to be targeted by a administration, as well as bias with direct financial and political interests in Intel’s success or to escape,” Scott Lincicom has written from the free-marketed Cato Institute, In Washington Post,

Talking to ReutersDouglas Chia, an independent advisor to the soundboard governance, expressed concern about the elusive definition of “national security”.

Finally, Intel A securities states that its international business may be negatively applicableWork was done by the US government being an important stockholder, as it could subjugate the company to sanctions such as foreign subsidy laws in additional rules or restrictions such as other countries.

Last year was 76 percent of Intel’s revenue in sales outside the United States, Reuters reported that with sales of 29 percent of total revenue in China with sales.