SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
SoftBank Group Corp. Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son told President-elect Donald Trump he would create 50,000 new jobs in the U.S. through a $50 billion investment in startups and new companies.
The money will come from SoftBank's previously announced $100 billion technology fund, according to a person familiar with the matter. That investment vehicle has a $45 billion commitment from the government of Saudi Arabia and $25 billion from Tokyo-based SoftBank, which operates technology and wireless companies around the world.
[...] Some investments from SoftBank's fund, which was unveiled in October, were probably destined for the U.S. anyway, given the nation's leadership in the global technology industry. But Son hadn't previously committed to creating a specific amount of jobs through the investment vehicle.
More coverage from Washington Post and Reuters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @07:17PM
Saudi is the lead investor [reuters.com] in that softbank fund.
Money that is earned on their investments here will be funneled out of the country and into saudi coffers where it will go to fund radical islamic terrorists, just like they've been doing with oil money for decades.
How is that serving US citizens?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:38PM
So the Saudis have 50b that isn't ours, I could not care any less if the Saudis turn it into 70b that isn't ours if we can siphon off some of that 20b difference.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 07 2016, @09:45PM
Apparently you do care enough to studiously avoid answering the question of how using american industry to fund terrorism directed at the US is beneficial for americans.
If we get $5B of that profit and the terrorism ends up costing americans $10B in ancillary costs, where's the value in that?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday December 08 2016, @02:48AM
Your false assumption is that we are going to continue to police the globe for free, as we have been doing, for the same of countries that we do not even share a continent with.
With strong borders, a strong military, and less corruption in our government, I believe we will be relatively secure. Secure, at least, compared to our hypothetical situation where Shillary is President and we have an actively controlled Saudi puppet in charge of the country.
So say this:
Saudi Arabia funds terrorists in the Mid-East, and they start to give another oil country problems. The US Military can be HIRED to protect that country, or we could decline, instead of being compelled to by military-industrial complex campaign donors.
Fun fact: 9 out of 10 major arms manufacturers in the US donated to the Clinton campaign.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @05:23AM
Haha! I see you've been chugging the orange koolaid. And by koolaid I mean the donald's oxycontin tainted piss.
Look at that jackass now -- he's picking a twitter fight [washingtonpost.com] with the local union foreman at carrier who called him out for claiming he "saved" 1100 jobs when carrier themselves confirmed it was only 800 jobs.
That's your brilliant god emperror in all his glory.
I bet he threatens to cancel the carrier "deal" because the union won't suck his dick.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:40PM
Do you dispute anything Linkdude said, or are you just changing the subject because he is right?
I don't support The Donald, but I do support discourse that furthers Soylent and the knowledge of Soylentils. Your post does not further that goal, while Linkdude's (if it is true) did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @02:27PM
> Do you dispute anything Linkdude said, or are you just changing the subject because he is right?
I dispute everything he said because its barely more than rambling incoherent nonsense.
When one person in the debate goes full crazytown, the debate is already over, there's nothing left but to point and laugh.
Nothing linkdude wrote "furthers the goal" of anything but enabling linkdude to let off the mental pressure of his cognitive dissonance.
On the other hand. pointing out trump's insanely disproportionate response to criticism that is (a) accurate and (b) completely to be expected from someone who has spent 30 years working on behalf of his fellow union members shows just how incompetent trump is and why trusting anything he does with respect to jobs is foolhardy.