31–40 of 765 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And?
And fundamentally, I believe that any industrial stimulus should come with a mixture of government ownership as well as claw-back provisions should interests contravene national security. Edit: cannot reply to you. This deal literally comes with claw-back provisions.
Or is it just a transparent shakedown?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? By ensuring that the US retains at least the ability to manufacture second tier CPUs vs complete reliance on Asia? This doesn't seem unreasonable.
The US can't employ poverty-tier labor to enable competitive margins, though. American businesses and global trade partners already largely reject Intel's foundry services.
Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
> How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? By ensuring that the US retains at least the ability to manufacture second tier CPUs vs complete reliance on Asia? This doesn't seem unreasonable.
Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
Yeah why not fund a new foundry startup?
Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US can't employ poverty-tier labor to enable competitive margins, though. American businesses and global trade partners already largely reject Intel's foundry services.
Haven’t you read Curtis Yarvin’s vision for America? Our leaders, VCs, and owners have
Forgive me...how is this different than taxes? And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?
> "The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars,” President Trump wrote" This wasn't any sort of investment, it was blackmail. No corporation in the country would voluntarily give up 10% of the company to the federal government - for free - unless overtly threatened. The Trump administration is hoping that by exerting control over Intel, it can be…
But I will say, I find the concept that when we invest public dollars in a private company, the public retains a stake appealing. I think about the strategic oil reserve, and how the government actually can make money by buying and selling oil to the open market. The idea that if we inject money into a company to help our domestic industries, that the government can sell it's stake back out at a later time is appealing.
(And again, to be clear, not a Republican or a Trumper here, and I assume in Trump fashion he will find some way to screw everyone involved and get paid himself personally... but the concept of the government acquiring a stake rather than just giving them a grant is on it's face... maybe not terrible?)