TL;DR

The Sanders-Trump Intel deal, while seemingly beneficial, is a risky gamble with taxpayer money. History shows that government interventions in the market often lead to unforeseen and negative consequences, putting ordinary investors at risk.

Story

The Senator Sanders-Trump Intel Deal: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

John, a retiree relying on his savings, saw headlines about a government bailout for Intel. He thought: ‘Safe as houses.’ He didn’t see the fine print.

How it Happened: President Trump proposed converting government grants to chipmakers (like the $10.9B for Intel) into government stakes in those companies. Senator Sanders, surprisingly, supported this. The plan sounds like a win-win: companies get funding, the government gets a piece of the action. But is it?

It’s like a government-backed Ponzi scheme. The initial investment looks good, but the returns are not guaranteed, and the risks are huge. Remember the 2008 bailout? Some banks recovered, others failed, leaving taxpayers with the bill.

Human Impact: For John, this is a gamble—he’s trusting the government to manage a complex investment and ensure a fair return. This isn’t guaranteed. Many ordinary Americans lack the financial expertise to judge this deal, which is inherently risky. This isn’t just about Intel’s profits or losses; it’s about who benefits and who foots the bill.

Lessons Learned: ‣ Government Stakes: The government investing in private companies isn’t inherently bad, but it’s risky. History’s full of government interventions that went wrong, from the S&L crisis to the dot-com bust. Transparency and accountability are crucial. ‣ Political Alignment: The fact that both Senator Sanders and President Trump support this raises questions. Are their motives purely about the economy, or are there other factors at play? This political alignment doesn’t always mean this is good. ‣ Due Diligence: Never blindly trust any investment, especially those involving government intervention. Do your research, understand the risks, and diversify your investments. Never put all your eggs in one basket.

Conclusion: The deal looks like a win-win, but it’s a gamble, where average citizens bear the brunt of the risk. If you’re banking on the success of this investment, you’re playing with fire, and you might get burned. It’s a dangerous game, much like playing with fire. Remember Enron? Similar schemes collapse. Always be skeptical of ’too good to be true’ investment deals.

Advice

Never blindly trust investment deals, especially those involving government intervention. Do your research, understand the risks involved, and only invest what you can afford to lose.

Source

https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1mvt1d4/us_senator_sanders_favors_trump_plan_to_take/