As usual, capitalism in decay will rely on the bourgeois state to rescue it from the horrendous inefficiency of markets under a privately dominated economy. This is the correct stance, moreso than the tarriff nonsense, but the US Empire is an imperialist bourgeois dictatorship and as such nationalization needs to be analyzed within that context. The US Empire isn’t a socialist state like the PRC, it isn’t owned and run by the workers.
Is this what they thought we meant by nationalizing industries?
Not a chance in hell anything will ever be nationalized under the current parties. They basically exist purely to avoid economic nationalization, socialism, transparency, etc. The only type of nationalism they would ever allow is the boyscout patriotism kind, and purely for the purposes of starting a civil war to install another capitalist regime. They have been doing it for hundreds of years probably longer but people never learn about this is school or university really. They learn about mationalism in the context of far right nationalism in Europe leading up to ww2. Its a very vague term, also a bad idea if taking literally, although the people should definitly “nationalize” the land and resources of their country for their own benifit, and not to corporations. You could also use collectivizing in place of this, or liquidating the ruling class.
State capitalism with American characteristics.
Negative. This is EuroFascism, not 5-year planning for social good
I mean the US was the model for EuroFascim
Fair, but I think there’s a big risk of letting this state intervention be compared with the PRC.
I see the US as basically PRC’s the Wario here. :)
Right. Which I think is too close. The USA is Bowser to China’s Mario. They both stomp on things. That’s the end of the similarity.
Broken clocks n what not
Letting Intel fail would be extremely stupid. Computers are the USAs strongest advantage. It’s the only place where they’re undisputed world leaders and it’s a huge industry. (They’re also #1 in finance but finance doesn’t produce value). CNBCs negative spin is ridiculous.
10% will not help Intel that much; it’s more a “get quick rich” scheme
The state is getting rich or Intel is getting rich? 10% is better than fewer percents.
Individuals will be getting very rich, and I think Intel will be gone in 6 years.
I also have no reasonable background or defense to saying it. I simply feel it in my bones, very strongly.
So you’re thinking that Intel is asking for a bailout, but not intending to spend the bailout, and that the USA is signalling they’ll be allowed to pocket the bailout money?
If they intend to spend the money, then the money is well spent going from tax-payers to Intel, because Intel is one of their most valuable assets after the chipmakers that are profitable.
You are responding to my gut feeling which is not backed up with facts.
I simply decided that much money, in a deal initiated by known thieves, will have fuckery afoot. People will manage, in a way unknown to me, to line their pockets.
