grimkhor

grimkhor t1_jaf4l2e wrote

>Recipients who receive more than $150 million in direct funding "will be required to share with the U.S. government a portion of any cash flows or returns that exceed the applicant’s projections by an agreed-upon threshold," the department said.
>
>Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award."

I read that part. I know. The issue is for that "loan" you have also to do these things.

>provide affordable childcare
>
>must provide details of any plans to buy back their own shares over five years
>
>Applicants must address six program priority areas including plans "to commit to future investment in the U.S. semiconductor industry
>
>Applicants should also "create opportunities for minority owned, veteran-owned, and women-owned businesses; demonstrate climate and environmental responsibility; invest in their communities by addressing barriers to economic inclusion; and commit to using iron, steel, and construction materials produced in the United States."
>
>winning awards will be required to enter into agreements restricting their ability to expand semiconductor manufacturing capacity in foreign countries of concern

That's a big list of costs for basically a loan that you only pay back 75%. Esp. the last point that is not only about China but about ANY country the government doesn't like.

1

grimkhor t1_jaf2ozh wrote

lol no if you're a failing semi company you can take the money and without profits you just raise capex, pay some executive bonuses and it's gone. They just do the whole eco friendly and diverse hiring then leave the garbage with the government. Fantastic companies that nobody ever heard of like "Solitron Devices" will gladly take that deal I bet.

Sounds like a true communist speaking that thinks government regulated companies are the solution.

1

grimkhor t1_jaexh07 wrote

I just explained to you why why someone would no like it because it's more government control and less free market. If you don't hand out free money to boost local development guess what there will be no boost in local development. This won't boost local development but will only put government in control of weaker players in the field.

2

grimkhor t1_jaenqez wrote

So if you take the money they basically want some profits and they want you to hire more inclusively and follow what the government says about your customers. Sounds like a lot for some not so free cash. I doubt any besides the very desperate will take it.

0

grimkhor t1_jaen5pl wrote

Reply to comment by hummmduno in S&P 500 analysis. by hummmduno

>The pattern could be a mere coincidence

How high up ur but is that stick that so say another mans crayons are a coincidence but ur random patterns are a fact. How about all of that is a coincidence.

5

grimkhor t1_jae5puv wrote

Reply to Motley fools by MeestarT

Anyone who follows tips of someone with fool in their name deserves everything they get.

14

grimkhor t1_j9y3x0n wrote

Reply to Bing vs chrome by Arlo1515

I changed browsers in the past and a big reason is because they started to suk. If search doesn't fulfill my needs and something else does I will switch. Currently my needs for search are 100% fulfilled by google so there's no reason to switch. I don't think AI will change classic search too much. I think they will take some market share as Edge is often already mandatory in cooperate and that might widen now. It's not a major game changer like many think for search but it can be game changer as a standalone development like direct windows integration.

0

grimkhor t1_j6m8d22 wrote

Just send me your money and I tell you in 3 months that you lost 98% that way it's easier for all of us.

>I know there’s a lot involved, just looking for opinions on the best TRADING ways to turn $500 into $5000, or $50k.

You belong here. Do you think everyone is just using the worst ways to trade for fun. There's no best way regard.

9

grimkhor t1_j65nvkw wrote

Later in the conversation I posted a statistic about crimes as the other guy went down the same regarded rabbit hole without doing their homework and actually knowing the stat. Just read it. I don't wanna start a second conversation that ends in a way that we should compare USA to third world countries only.

−1

grimkhor t1_j65m8m2 wrote

Actually if you argue based on exact words that makes you a pedantic fail and very bad at making arguments. You should be ashamed to represent your country in this really regarded way. I actually wish that you really think about the content of the words said and not about exact word usage so you might next time not look as regarded and might add something to the content of the discussion.

0

grimkhor t1_j65liqa wrote

You really want to say that USA is more of a third world country and we should apply the standard of government corruption and failed states to USA instead of the one you would expect from a first world country. OK if you want compare USA to third world countries I agree as a third world country USA is not that bad. I'm actually shocked that you think it's backpaddling because USA IS a first world country what comparison did you expect.

0

grimkhor t1_j65kpiy wrote

Ok I listen which first world country is above USA. We can also look at crime which USA is also unreasonably high among first world countries.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

But as long as both you and the criminals have guns. You just have to be a badass to shoot all the criminals img

0