8-27-25 - 8am - Corporate America

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do you remember Stuckies? Whatever happened to Stuckies?

Speaker 2 (00:08):
That was our.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
Cracker barrel, Midwest cracker Barrel. I just like listening to
the wind comes sweeping down the bright it is.

Speaker 3 (00:24):
It is, by the way, one comment about cracker barrel,
and then we're moving on to Intel Today's Corporate America Day.
If you think that my discussion about cracker barrel was
about cracker barrel, then again I have totally failed as

(00:44):
a as a host, because it was about corporate America.
Cracker Barrel just happened to be the most recent example
of how left wing activism infiltrates almost everything that we do,
and that those of us who consider ourselves to be

(01:04):
cultural warriors. I'm certainly not an Andrew Breitbart, but I
am a happy warrior that I hope the point's not
lost on you that corporate America is as much of
a battlefield as is politics. Corporate America is driving the
country as leftward as are Democrats trying to do.

Speaker 4 (01:30):
So.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
Cracker Barrel is.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
Cracker Barrel is the package that that story came in.
It could have been I don't know, it could have
been Bristol Myers Squib, It could have been you know,
it could have been Microsoft, could have been anything. It
just happened to be Cracker Barrel. And speaking of corporate America,
we know that when our government, or any government for

(01:53):
that matter, when they start to intervene in private markets,
the results are usually bad because, as we've talked about
incessantly on this program, taxpayer money goes out, corporations take it,
very little flows back to the public beyond a vague
promise of you know, we're going to preserve jobs, save jobs,

(02:14):
or the jobs that weren't lost. There may be some jobs.

Speaker 5 (02:19):
You know.

Speaker 3 (02:20):
We're going through this whole thing right now about the
Denver Broncos are teasing the idea that they might move
the stadium somewhere, and so, you know, Mike Johnston, the
mayor of Denver, is having a cow and so now
they're already trying to fix some of that area down
where the old Gates River Plant used to be, at

(02:41):
the intersection of kind of between Santa Fe and Broadway
on I twenty five, and they're all of a sudden
they're pouring money into that. And of course the argument
is that keeping the Broncos in Denver will return x
amount of sales dollars will create so many jobs, blah
blah blah. So therefore it's important to the economy of Denver. Well,

(03:04):
if that's true, that it is also important to Aurora
or Loan Tree or any other location they might be considering.
And then you have the same promises that are made
about Solendra. Oh my gosh, if we just put all
this money into Slender back during the Obama era, well,
I think about all the return we're going to get
on our investment taxpayers.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
You'll love it.

Speaker 1 (03:25):
You'll absolutely love it.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
So for decades, both Republicans and Democrats have indulged in
that really bad habit of throwing money into the private sector.
Washington spends billions on grants, subsidies, loans, and the companies thrive.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
Generally, shareholders profit.

Speaker 3 (03:48):
Taxpayers get nothing beyond the return of the principle if
you know, if they if weil, if we bail out Chrysler,
we get paid back. The Trump administry has this strategy
called the Golden Share strategy, and it's trying to change
the dynamic. The argument is that if the government taxpayers,

(04:14):
if taxpayers invest some of our money forcibly taken from
us in private companies, then you and I as taxpayers,
have to share in the upside. Some might argue that socialism.
Some will argue that it's not socialism. Some will argue

(04:35):
that it's really bad sound business practices for the government
to be trying to prop up a business or try
to save a business. Others argue that if it saves
the jobs, if it really does keep an industry from
moving overseas, then it's worth it. Trump tweeted out not

(04:56):
quite a week ago. Trump tweeted out or posted on
truth social It is my great honor to report that
the United States of America now fully owns and controls
ten percent of Intel, a great American company that has
an even more incredible future. I negotiated this deal with Lippbootm,

(05:17):
the highly respected CEO of the company. The United States
paid nothing for these shares, and the shares are now
valued at approximately eleven billion dollars. This is a great
deal for American and also a great deal for Intel.
Building leading edge semiconductors and chips, which is what Intel does.
Is fundamental to the future of our nation. Make America

(05:39):
great again. And of course, what thank you for your
attention to this matter. This is one of those stories
that I am still perplexed. I'll give you some more
details in just a second, but let's first go to

(06:00):
Scott sent the Treasury Secretary, who was on with Maria
Barbarromo on Fox Business. This is from Oh, this is
from this morning, Groops plug in.

Speaker 6 (06:15):
Because of course, if you're a free market capitalist, oftentimes
you don't want to see government taking stakes in businesses.
But I wonder if this is a national security issue
more than anything else, can you walk us through your
thinking and the president's thinking in terms of taking a
ten percent stake in Intel and what could happen next?

Speaker 1 (06:35):
It's sure, Maria.

Speaker 7 (06:37):
And look, if we go back to say that the
COVID times, we could see that there was an airline
rescue plan and.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
A lot of that was debt.

Speaker 7 (06:48):
And I can tell you some of that debt is
still outstanding at one percent.

Speaker 1 (06:52):
So it was a good deal.

Speaker 7 (06:54):
For the American people to keep the airlines fine, but
financing private businesses still one percent was not a good deal.
And what President Trump is doing, President Trump is going
to be the only president in modern times who creates
assets for the American people rather than debt. And we

(07:14):
looked he saw that Intel had been given grants and
wanted to know why the American taxpayer wouldn't participate in
the upside. So there's eleven billion of immediate value, and
I think there's a very good chance here that it
could be much more. But as you said, chips are
a strategic necessity for US. One of the things we

(07:38):
learned during COVID was that the United States has five
to seven strategic vulnerabilities in critical industries. And President Trump
has said about de risking that. And while we're de
risking it, there's also substantial upside for the American taxpayer.

Speaker 6 (07:54):
Well, it's very hard to argue with free money, and
the fact that for Intel was already there from the
Chips Act and the President turning that into equity and
the government having a stake and creating this value of
eleven billion dollars is pretty incredible.

Speaker 3 (08:11):
Talk to Art's pause for just a moment, because I
think this important distinction to make, because otherwise I would
be arguing without any other information that the phrase control
the means of production seems to or could apply here,
and that phrases you know, originates from the works of

(08:33):
Karl Marx and Frederick Ingels, particularly in the context of
their development of Marxism in the nineteenth century. Now, while
the exact phrase doesn't appear verbatim in the text, it
encapsulates a core idea from their writings in the Communist
Manifesto and in Marxi's Doscopital. They argued that the means

(08:54):
of production, the tools, the factories, the land, the resources
that are used to produce good and services that you
and I consume are controlled by the capitalist class the
bourgeois in a capitalist system, enabling them to exploit the
working class the proletariat by appropriating any surplus value. And

(09:15):
they propose that for a classless socialist society to emerge,
their proletariat must seize control of the means of production,
abolishing private ownership and establishing collective or communal ownership. Now,
the concept is most explicitly tied to their call for
workers to overthrow capitalist systems. In fact, the Communist Manifesto

(09:37):
says this, their proletariants have nothing to lose but their chains.

Speaker 1 (09:43):
They have a world to win.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
So the idea of controlling the means of production became
the central, if not a, if not the central tenet
of Marxist theory, and then it got popularized in pair
of phraised and socialists and communist discourse.

Speaker 1 (09:58):
As from the.

Speaker 3 (10:00):
Mid to late eighteen hundreds, everyone began to discuss more
and more. You know, the communist manifesto, is this seizing
the means of production? Is this controlling the means of production? Well,
back it up and listen to what Maria.

Speaker 7 (10:19):
States has five to seven strategic vulnerabilities and critical industries.
And President Trump has said about de risking that. And
while we're de risking it, there's also substantial upside for
the American taxpayer.

Speaker 6 (10:33):
Well, it's very hard to argue with free money. And
the fact that the support for Intel was already there
from the.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
The support was already there.

Speaker 6 (10:43):
Why Chips acts and the President turning that into equity
and the government having a stake and creating this value
of eleven billion dollars is pretty incredible, tarkcho.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
So that's how all this came about, which I'll get
into some detail in just a minute. The chipsack passes,
they're trying to re establish chip manufacturing in the US.
Intel gets eleven billion dollars and Trump says, wait, you
got eleven billion dollar grant?

Speaker 1 (11:10):
What do we get out of it. I mean, I know, we.

Speaker 3 (11:12):
Get that perhaps you're going to expand and grow and
create jobs and being able the blah blah blah, the
same thing it's about a football franchise or a stadium,
same kind of bull crap story that we get. Maybe
I shouldn't say bull crap, but the same kind of
argument that we get that, Hey, taxpayers, this will create jobs,
You'll help grow the economy, and that will maybe sometimes directly,

(11:34):
but most of the time indirectly benefit you.

Speaker 1 (11:37):
Becent continues.

Speaker 6 (11:39):
Age with that. But are you considering taking steaks in
further semiconductive companies? I mean with the president to consider
taking a steak in video?

Speaker 1 (11:51):
Well, Maria, I.

Speaker 7 (11:53):
Don't think in Vidia needs financial support, so you know
that seems not on the table right now. But could
there be other industries where we're reshaping something like shipbuilding?

(12:13):
That sure, there could be things like that. And these
are critical industries that we have to we have to
be self sufficient in the United States. And for twenty
thirty forty years this was neglected. And as I've said
many times, the only good thing about COVID was it

(12:36):
was a beta test for if we were to go
into a kinetic war or get cut off from some
of these industries.

Speaker 1 (12:45):
You know, think about it.

Speaker 7 (12:46):
Eighty ninety percent of the precursor of farmer products are
made overseas, and that's just unacceptable because, as we saw
during COVID, the manufacturing countries will keep it for themselves.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
And that's true.

Speaker 3 (13:02):
Now again, the president here isn't new two slightly different.
The president isn't completely analogous, but it's close enough because
if you recall, in the wake of the two thousand
and eight financial crisis, Obama took ownership stakes in GM
and some others as part of a bailout package. Taxpayers

(13:25):
got GM stock, and then when GM stabilized, the Treasury
sold those shares and recouped not all, but most of
our investment. I just have a difficult time with the
idea of the government investing in the private sector. But

(13:46):
I also I'm real, I live in the real world,
and I know we do it all the time. In fact,
if you want the worst example, it's how we put
money into NGOs to accomplish political goals. But I digress.
But the principle here is simple. If the public takes
on risk, it deserves a shot of the reward. Just
like any other investor, I decide to invest in something,

(14:09):
I'm taking a risk and I get a shot at
a reward, assuming that I get a return on investment
where the company actually increases its share value and I
can eventually sell that share higher than what I bought
it for, and so I make some money. Of course,
I to maake capital gains, so my increased value gets

(14:31):
diminished because the government taketh that away. So Trump has,
as Bessent says, has revived and refined this principle instead
the way they would describe it, ensuring that bailouts and
subsidies are not handouts. Now in a second term with

(14:55):
Howard Lutnika Treasury and I mean at Commerce and sent
tru this government has begun negotiating equity states. They call
them golden shares in companies that get federal dollars. And
the most prominent example, and the most recent example, is Intel.

(15:16):
In August this month, Intel agreed to issue four hundred
and thirty three plus million new shares of common stock
to the US government. They gave us a nine point
nine percent stake in the company. Again, to Barboromo's point,
it wasn't new spending, but they took money they had

(15:37):
already given to Intel, and they restructured a previously approved
chips acting Defense Department funds. So instead of simply handing
out ten billion dollars in grants, the administration converted that
support into equity, now at roughly twenty dollars and fifty
cents a share. The government bought in at a discount,

(15:57):
meaning that taxpayer's gain an immediate, at least paper profit.
As a result, we you and I now own a
substantial piece of one of the nation's most strategically vital companies.

Speaker 5 (16:12):
The president about the ten percent, I met a man
who was a very nice man, and I called.

Speaker 4 (16:17):
For his removal because I saw something.

Speaker 5 (16:19):
But a man named Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkinson,
is a great guy, a friend of mine, supporter of.

Speaker 4 (16:25):
My big surpriv supporter of his.

Speaker 5 (16:27):
And he wrote a pretty nasty story about the head
of Intel. And I said, well, if that's right, he
should resign. And he came in, he saw me, we
talked for a while. I liked him a lot.

Speaker 4 (16:39):
I thought he was very good.

Speaker 5 (16:40):
I thought he was somewhat a victim, but you know,
nobody's a total victim. I guess and I said, you
know what, I think the United States should be given
ten percent of Intel, And he said I would consider that.

Speaker 4 (16:56):
I said, well, I'd like you to do that because.

Speaker 5 (17:00):
Intails to the left behind, as you know, compared to
Jensen and some of our friends Vidia, some of the
people and the people, and because Intel should have never
been Intel was the biggest, most powerful chip company in
the world, and then.

Speaker 4 (17:20):
They started leaving, and they started leaving.

Speaker 1 (17:25):
Will hear Trump finish on the other side?

Speaker 3 (17:27):
Don't go away, Hey, let's go to Gary from the

(17:48):
retirement planning stair of the Rockies. Gary, I've always wanted
my audience to know more about you guys personally, you know, as.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
The owners of the company.

Speaker 3 (17:57):
So as an example, can you tell me what the
retirement plannings of the Rockies who they partner with, say
for charities?

Speaker 2 (18:07):
You bet. I'm always glad to talk about this. This
is the subject, Michael, it's really close endar to our hearts.
We believe there's a responsibility that individuals have to give
back and frankly, that there's something that will bless many
people as they do. So over the years, we've developed

(18:28):
some good relationships As you know we talked before, I
spent a lot of time driving tractor volunteering on a
farm that is owned by the church. It sends food
all over the world and needy people. And I do
that because I love the cause and I also love
driving tractors. But you know, the other thing we support,
there's two of them that we really like. I'll tell

(18:48):
you about one today that I'm quite involved with right now,
But we support the McKee Wellness Foundation in Loveland in
northern call that they're a great organization that supports really
good things for people that need medical care, and the
things they've done are just amazing. I'm also involved right
now in a campaign with the what is called the

(19:10):
House of Neighborly Service, and they're building what's called the
Birth of Life Center here in Berthy, Colorado. They have
a center in Loveland that's been there I'm guessing thirty
five or forty years, and what it is, Michael, is
a it'll be a nineteen thousand square foot hub of care.

(19:31):
It'll be run by the House of Neighborly Service in
conjunction with the City of Bertha, and they've bought a
really nice building that will be renovated. It'll take a
couple of years, but it's a capital campaign they're working on.
It'll provide, for example, the basic needs and services for
needy people in the community, food and clothing, utility and

(19:54):
prescription assistance, transportation, any number of things. They also are there.
And the idea is you'll have this center, Michael, think
of this where people will struggle with the needs and
the mental health issues will have one place they can
come that'll have eight to ten nonprofit organizations housed in

(20:15):
the same center. What's the idea that they come there
and they can get care and we can try to
help these folks that need it so badly. And that's
the intent is this center will be developed. It'll be
a beautiful, beautiful building right and just right and downtown
berth it and they'll of course provide case management and

(20:35):
all these different services for folks that need to help,
and educational resources. And in fact, yesterday we did a
service project, me and my family and some folks from
the church and went and moved about, you know, five
or six thousand pounds of food into their pantry because
they have people that come there needing food all the time,

(20:58):
and you have food and resources they need has gone
up so much, especially in the last couple of years.
In fact, six twenty seventeen, My condition to know that
they've had a six hundred and twenty one percent increase
in client visits and they've given three hundred and fifty
seven percent increase in the food they've had to hand out,

(21:19):
especially after the fires, yeah a year or so ago,
and the three hundred and fifty seven percent increase in
utility pay it's mine. I mean, I'm here to tell
you these guys do a lot of great good and
you know what, I'm at the stage in my life
I'm seventy five years old now. Or I want to
support things that matter. I want to help people with

(21:39):
things that can bless the lives of good people who
just turn a little bit down and out. And so
we've we've found a real good relationship with them. They're
currently on a capital campaign. They know the total fundraising
goal was six and a half million. So far we
raised three point nine, so we're at sixty percent of
the goal for you, so we need to rate still

(22:03):
another two point six. But we've got a piece of
land that we're selling up here that they're selling that
they're going to build on. Then this other opportunity came
along and that one that I'm about one point two million,
so we're about a million four short of where we
need to be in So I would just encourage people
to listen, to get involved, gosh, if you have any

(22:23):
sense of and by the way, any kind of donation
is wonderful. We're going to post a link on our
website in fact, where people can donate to the Birth
of Live Center capital campaign. And there's a number I
can give Michael if that makes sense to just have
folks call if they want to donate, and then do
that as well.

Speaker 3 (22:45):
The phone number, and then you're going to have a
link up on your website too, right we are we are.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
The number is for a down named Pam Berry the
e R O I. Pam is the senior campaign manager
for this capital campaign and then that numbers nine seven
zero two nine zero eight six again nine seven zero
six five two nine zero eight six or of course

(23:12):
reach out to us on our website rpcenter dot com
and we'll get that link posted on there early next week.
Just because my son Joseh is gonna do't know how
to do it, he does.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
Right, understood, understood. You know that that gives us a
lot of insight into the company too.

Speaker 1 (23:30):
I love that.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
So what what's great about this is, you know when
I send people to you, I wouldn't have a feel
for you know, kind of you understand the whole the
whole concept that you know, the private sectors can do
so much better, so much more and can be compassionate,
whereas the government just simply cannot do that. They're just inefficient,

(23:52):
they're not compassionate, and they're just not very effective. So
I just kind of wanted them to know kind of
what you guys kind of do on the side and
that and those are great stories.

Speaker 2 (24:02):
So I would just see, we have, Yeah, we have
a civic and moral obligation to do that, and I
believe that.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (24:08):
So if if you've ever wondered about the guys at
RP Center, this is exactly a great example of who
you're dealing with. So again, if you have any retirement questions, issues, problems,
whatever it might be, I want you to give the
Retirement Planning so of the Rockies a call. Make sure
you tell them Michael Brown sent you. It's nine seven
zero six sixty three thirty two eleven nine seven zero

(24:32):
six sixty three thirty two eleven, or go to their
website rpcenter dot com. So back to Intel, I want
you to finish hearing the President because clearly critics on
the right charged with this smax of socialism. The President
describes how he, you know, heard from Tom Cotton. He

(24:54):
didn't like the chairman of Intel, and then he met him.

Speaker 4 (24:59):
Yeah, man, he was a very nice man.

Speaker 5 (25:01):
And I called for his removal because I saw something
by a man named Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkinson,
is a great guy, friend of mine, supporter of my
big surpriv supporter of his two and he wrote a
pretty nasty story about the head of Intel. And I said, well,
if that's right, he should resign.

Speaker 4 (25:19):
And he came in, he saw me, we talked for
a while. I liked him a lot. I thought he
was very good.

Speaker 5 (25:25):
I thought he was somewhat a victim, but you know,
nobody's a total victim, I guess.

Speaker 4 (25:29):
And I said, you.

Speaker 5 (25:32):
Know what, I think the United States should be given
ten percent of Intel, and he said I would consider that.
I said, well, I would like you to do that
because Intel's to the left behind as you know, compared
to Jensen and some of our friends video, some of

(25:53):
the people and the people, and because Intel should have
never been Intel was the biggest, most powerful company.

Speaker 4 (26:01):
In the world.

Speaker 5 (26:02):
And then they started leaving and they started going to
foreign countries, in particular Taiwan. And if we had a
president that would have said, Okay, you can go to Taiwan,
but we're going to put a one hundred percent.

Speaker 4 (26:15):
Tariff, for a two hundred or three hundred or.

Speaker 5 (26:16):
Five hundred percent tariff, anybody that sells into the United
States have.

Speaker 4 (26:20):
Sapay, they wouldn't have left. They would have never left,
and we wouldn't.

Speaker 5 (26:24):
Have So in the meantime, we had people that were
in some cases good politicians that weren't.

Speaker 4 (26:28):
Good on trade.

Speaker 5 (26:29):
I loved that man, but he was not good on trade.
I totally disagree. He allowed the car industry to be
taken out of this country, who was fifty percent of
our car industry.

Speaker 4 (26:40):
But that's all coming back. It's all coming back.

Speaker 5 (26:42):
But if somebody would have said that with Intel would
be a giant right now. Now with that, they've had
some bad management.

Speaker 4 (26:49):
Over the years and they got.

Speaker 5 (26:51):
Lost and I said, I think you should pay ten
percent of your company, and they said, yes, that's about
ten billion.

Speaker 4 (26:57):
Dollars for these I don't get.

Speaker 5 (26:59):
It just comes to the United States of America, and
I said, I think it would be good having.

Speaker 4 (27:04):
The United States as your partner here agreed, and they've
agreed to do it, and I think.

Speaker 5 (27:07):
It's a great deal for them, and I think it's
a great deal. He walked in wanting to keep his
job and he ended up giving US ten billion dollars
to the United States.

Speaker 4 (27:16):
So we picked up ten villion, and we do a
lot of deals like that. I'll do more of them.

Speaker 5 (27:21):
If somebody has, like we have a restrictive covenant with
kids and we have it's Nvidia, and to unrestrict the
covenant had nothing to do with losing our powers or
military or anything.

Speaker 4 (27:36):
Is that I wouldn't do.

Speaker 5 (27:38):
But there are things you can do that don't affect
us that actually help us. And if we're going to
give somebody a free out.

Speaker 4 (27:46):
A restricted covenant.

Speaker 5 (27:47):
We have a strong restrictive covenant on certain industries, and
I will absolutely give somebody a opening on a restrict
to do a lot of business, which is good for
us as long as it doesn't hurt us. In a
security or military way, and if I do that, I
think the country should be paid because to anybody else.

Speaker 4 (28:05):
I have it in real estate where I'll have a.

Speaker 5 (28:07):
Deal with somebody and I'll have them restrictive covenant and
they'll come back and they'll say, I'd love to be
able to build over here, but I'm not allowed to
because you have recovered, you have a restricted Kasha. I'll
let you build over there, but gave me a lot
of money, no different. But the country never did it
because the.

Speaker 3 (28:26):
Country, but pay the company the country a lot of money.
Not I don't think he meant him personally. Well I
know he didn't mean him personally.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
So yeah.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
The criticism on the right is that it smacks of socialism,
and it does smack of socialism. Center Paul and others
have warned that government ownership or private companies is just
that singular step toward nationalization. Then when you dig into
the details, you begin to think that maybe it doesn't.

(28:57):
It's still the proverbial step. But the devils in the details.
We don't hold when I say we the government, we
don't hold any board seat. We don't have these voting rights.
And the agreement is in I'm sure in the buy
and sell agreement, but for the shares there is this

(29:17):
pledge to be a passive investor. We can't be like
the investor and cracker barrel and go file documents at
the SEC that object to the board and object to
the business practices. We you know, can't go to the
board meetings and stand up and you know, scream and
yell and protest. INTEL remains entirely in the hands of

(29:39):
its own management and its own shareholders. So our state,
the taxpayer stakes is capped below ten percent, precisely because
under SEC rules that avoids any impression of control, you
own ten percent or more of a of a company,
in terms of just SEC and just general investing standards,

(30:00):
you are considered to be you're a significant owner. So
far from dictating production or interfering in daily operations, controlling
the means of production, the government is really acting like
a large pension fund, an institutional investor, if you will.
They're holding stock, they're collecting dividends. We stand a profit

(30:22):
as a company as a country if the company prospers.
So no, it's not nationalization. It's capitalism. The government engaging
in capitalism with accountability, but What I found interesting was
the critics on the left have a different complaint. They
argue that the deal doesn't go far enough. They argue

(30:46):
that if we're going to own a stake in Intel,
then we should leverage that to enforce job creation, curb
executive pay, shape corporate governance. Well, first, that obviously misunderstands
the purpose of what he trying to do.

Speaker 4 (31:00):
Here.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
Yes, and I'm going to miss a break, so let
me break here and.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
I explain why the left is so crazy about this.

Speaker 8 (31:08):
Michael Cracker Barrel won't fire that CEO DEI hire because
the company's afraid they'll be sued for firing a female
or a DEI hire. So nobody gets fired anymore. No
one is to be responsible and accountable for their actions.

Speaker 3 (31:28):
And the board is a bunch of wistons too, so
I don't think they're going to do it for that reason. Also,
real quickly, and then I'll try to finish this at
the being the next hour. The critics on the left
about this Intel investment, if you will, argue that it
doesn't go far enough. They want to own and be
able to enforce job creation, control executive pay, in other words,

(31:53):
control corporate governance. They want to control the means of production.
But I think that that well, it does two things.
It shows that the left, which is why I think
this is I trust me. I understand why Trump's doing this,
and I think it's a good idea. And I don't
think it's socialism and I don't think it's controlling the

(32:15):
means of production. But it sets the precedent that if
and when a Democrat takes control, they would say we
want ten percent of your company, they would go over
the ten percent.

Speaker 1 (32:28):
They can go ten percent or above.

Speaker 3 (32:30):
So they could control executive pay, so they could engage.

Speaker 1 (32:36):
In corporate governance.

Speaker 3 (32:37):
And that's where you start crossing into controlling the means
of production.