Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
"You're fired", was indeed his catchphrase for the farcical reality TV show he stared in portraying a competent business owner.
US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
161–170 of 560 posts
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#162Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article pretty much says it right in the opening section > investing a further $400 billion in the US alongside buying a stake in Intel seems improbable from a purely financial standpoint TSMC's entire assets are ~$200,000,000,000 [1] (cash, inventory, accounts receivable, land, buildings and equipment.) Buying 49% of Intel ... maybe. Intel's outstanding Market Cap is current ~$88,600,000,000. (4,377,000,000 outs…
What part of any plan they have had tells you they are likely to stop losing money any time soon? They are basically selling for asset price right now...because the market doesn't believe they are worth more than their assets.
No plan, but wouldn’t be the first time a juggernaut is turned around.
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#164Tariffs kinda make sense when you have a deficit in a widely available item. Big trade deficit with Bangladesh? Sure you can buy cheap textiles from Thailand or Vietnam or something. Unfortunately this approach does not work when you lack a viable domestic alternative and you're up against a monopoly. What will the US do if TSMC does not blink? Not buy TSMC made chips? Obviously that is impossible, so the logical con…
With this administration, it's probably just more blackmail, in the form of "it would be a pity if nobody came to the rescue when China eventually puts its Taiwan plans in motion! (Not that playing ball is a guarantee of anything either)".
This isn't blackmail. A security guarantee has value. Exactly what value is hard to say since the US is the only credible seller of such guarantees in this world order
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
because even without deliberate sabotage a war in Taiwan would shut TSMC down for at least a decade. Changing the toilet paper supplier can drop yield by 20% until they sort it out. How do you think a warzone will affect it?
TSMC built a fab in Arizona that in 2 years was up and running delivering chips to Apple, so it doesn't take that long ... Obviously a protracted or nasty war would have a severe impact, but it's hard to see why China would want to harm TSMC, even if worse case for US they stopped them from exporting.
you're assuming way less action from the US than there would actually be. it's not about the exports, it's about the supply chain to supply a fab. they need euv machines, wafers, thousands of specifically sourced chemicals etc.
it's not about what China wants, it's just not feasible to operate a fab in a warzone
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#166This whole economy by corruption and coercion is not going to work out.
The article pretty much says it right in the opening section > investing a further $400 billion in the US alongside buying a stake in Intel seems improbable from a purely financial standpoint TSMC's entire assets are ~$200,000,000,000 [1] (cash, inventory, accounts receivable, land, buildings and equipment.) Buying 49% of Intel ... maybe. Intel's outstanding Market Cap is current ~$88,600,000,000. (4,377,000,000 outs…
They could do the China[1] / EU[2] strategy of announcing they'll do it, but never following through with it. When your opponent has the attention span of a drunken gnat, it's a surprisingly good strategy.
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#167This whole economy by corruption and coercion is not going to work out.
This is how China has been operating since forever. They don't seem to be doing too badly.
Are they? But Silicon Valley is in the USA and not China. I would imagine the legal and business environment has something to do with that.
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of any plan they have had tells you they are likely to stop losing money any time soon? They are basically selling for asset price right now...because the market doesn't believe they are worth more than their assets.
No plan, but wouldn’t be the first time a juggernaut is turned around.
Wouldn't be the first time they became obsolete either...and I think even with the US governments help they are too far down the drain to come back.
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... American consumers will end up paying the tariffs This has always been the case. I have never heard of a company absorbing tariffs on behalf of consumers in the day and age of "trickle down economics".
So far indications are many companies are eating the tariffs, for now. Even making them visible has drawn the ire of Trump a few times already. But I generally agree that it can't go on forever / not how it works historically.
Eating the tariffs by firing workers means more out of work with less purchasing power and prices are going up too. It's fail all the way down.
Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... American consumers will end up paying the tariffs This has always been the case. I have never heard of a company absorbing tariffs on behalf of consumers in the day and age of "trickle down economics".
So far indications are many companies are eating the tariffs, for now. Even making them visible has drawn the ire of Trump a few times already. But I generally agree that it can't go on forever / not how it works historically.
A lot of them are "eating" them in the margins of the unreasonable "inflation" increases they used to see how much the public was willing to pay for their products. (Normally, this would be okay in a functioning capitalist market except we've let way to many companies gain a monopolistic position with no real market competition to force a reasonable middle ground between profit and elastic demand.)