U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#381

Post by yieldcrv » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:03 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #228

yieldcrv wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We even have no assurance of keeping private property via civil asset forfeiture! Private ownership was the adults main point of pride to distinguish from the Chinese when I was growing up. And now the Chinese private property frameworks are closer to ours and ours are closer to theirs.

Civil forfeiture existed since 1660s, and was used initially to confiscate smugglers' vessels. Then it was dug out during Prohibition, and turned toxic in 1980s when the agencies doing the forfeiture (e.g. police) were allowed to keep the confiscated property. Ideally it should be used for restitution (e.g. to victims of fraud), but... I suspect you were growing up when this was in full swing already.

We also have criminal forfeiture, which was leveraged a lot more then. Civil forfeiture use expanded dramatically in recent decades due to profit sharing with DOJ alongside court challenges failing, suggesting the need for constitutional amendment if awareness of the practice improves.

Both should have more reforms.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#382

Post by Hikikomori » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:03 AM UTC

Hikikomori wrote: post #65

cuttothechase wrote: post #18

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?

This government? Bribe them on the side.

I take that back. It's the old one you bribe on the side, this one you can bribe in the open.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#383

Post by Obscurity4340 » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:04 AM UTC

bcrosby95 wrote: post #346

ch4s3 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.

If shareholders are losing ownership it's less a pure bailout and more a strategic investment and/or takeover. It also potentially lets the average taxpayer benefit rather than just those its directly propping up.

How does the average taxpayer ever actually end up benefitting point blank?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#384

Post by giobox » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:04 AM UTC

hbarka wrote: post #181

Shakedown list: Nvidia 15% of revenue AMD 15% of revenue Intel 10% of capital Who else is next?

A deal for 15 percent of revenues of specific AMD and NVidia part sales in China != 15 percent of all their revenues, not even close.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#385

Post by nebula8804 » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:04 AM UTC

fishgoesblub wrote: post #27

cuttothechase wrote: post #18

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?

I don't expect a good reason given the history of this Administration, but a reason in my mind to save Intel is there's only 3 license holders for x86 CPUs. Intel, AMD (American), and VIA (Taiwanese). A dead Intel leaves a single American company that is able to make x86 processors, and a monopoly for actually good x86 CPUs. But somehow I suspect there's no logical reason for this besides lining the pockets of those…

A dead Intel could open the door to have more then three license holders. Isn't Intel the reason there are only three license holders?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#386

Post by SkyPuncher » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:05 AM UTC

cuttothechase wrote: post #18

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?

This isn't a generalizable problem. There just aren't many companies that would be in a comparable situation to Intel.

Intel is:

* Critical to national security

* An advanced, industry that's extremely hard to spin up

* Essentially, one of two companies in it's industry.

Very few other companies meet all of those criteria.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#387

Post by etempleton » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:08 AM UTC

chneu wrote: post #168

pixelatedindex wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Would it though? The TSMC foundries are pretty much in every continent. Are they just going to stop operating if this happens? Because that seems akin to killing a golden goose. Also what is up with Global Foundries? I don’t hear a peep about them.

GF is like a decade behind in research. Without years to ramp up and update their fabs they're not relevant.

Probably closer to two decades behind at this point.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#388

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:09 AM UTC

ivewonyoung wrote: post #322

sergiomattei wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”. When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.

One big difference is management control. People feel that government administered services tend to have poor management and citizen services more often than not. One big example is the DMV since almost every has experience dealing with it, long queue times are almost universal because no one gives a crap and it's very hard to fire a government employee. Or the passport issuance, or applying for permits. Or unemploym…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#389

Post by GypsyKing716 » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:11 AM UTC

jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

Government is starting to be to big to fail. Living in the Great Lakes region its just the reality of it, as the geopolitics of the region are outplayed by idiots in other parts of the state.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#390

Post by etempleton » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 12:11 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #33

This is worse than I expected. They're apparently putting in no new money and retroactively demanding stock in exchange for grants that were already awarded. If Intel can't afford to build 14A and we're putting in no net new money... then Intel still can't afford 14A? Unless they were lying.

There werestrings attached to the CHIPs act money. Not saying this is some great deal. It isn't. It is a deal made from a place of necessity and weakness for Intel, but it gives them the cash infusion they need in the short term. Right now Intel's only goal is to have enough money to get 14a off the ground and attract at least one large external customer to prove their capabilities.