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

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

#441

Post by ivewonyoung » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:33 AM UTC

cyberax wrote: post #410

ivewonyoung wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And BTW, I agree that Social Security overhead is unacceptable. It should be privatized and increased to at least $500 billion to be comparable with health insurance companies. It's not acceptable at all to make private companies look bad.

If it was a company it'd have failed already.

> The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns

https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci...

And that's just one instance.

Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little?

But taxpayer money? Free and easy money to keep wasting coz no one cares. Tragedy of the commons.

For the main system they're also using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.

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

#442

Post by mancerayder » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:34 AM UTC

The French government owns stakes in big corporations. And why not, why wouldn't the public own some stake and government (us, in theory) have some control?

Airbus being an example.

Is it because Trump did it? If Biden had done it, the comments from the right would sound like the sarcasm in this message thread.

Trump's temporary, he's not taking his stake home when his term expires.

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

#443

Post by squigz » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:35 AM UTC

flamedoge wrote: post #370

miohtama wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only 1 winner and 1 loser: Intel. It's the only chip manufacturer "left" in the US. The argument is national security: the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Whether this will happen or not can be debated, but this is what the government expects.

so.. shouldn't US take stake in TSMC instead?

What good would that do if China invades Taiwan?

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

#444

Post by adapteva » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:35 AM UTC

Any strings attached? If not, ironically a big chunk of those US tax payer dollars will likely end up in Taiwan/TSMC.

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

#445

Post by Citizen8396 » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:35 AM UTC

8note wrote: post #411

scarface_74 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it’s still owned by a foreign country and Taiwan is restricting TSMC from manufacturing their most advanced processors from being manufactured in the US. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/ta...

this is not to say that intel will be manufacturing competitive chips to what TSMC is. are you worried that china will invade taiwan, and then somehow taiwan will still be around to prevent the US fabs from making the best chips? its a bit far fetched

it's not like the technology to produce these chips are a drop-in replacement

the threat Taiwan faces is existential, and one of the only things that the US has at stake are these chips

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

#446

Post by LPisGood » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:36 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…

> See how much hate DOGE gets for even proposing cuts or higher efficiencies

I think you should be aware that “proposing cuts” is not why people why DOGE got hate. I find it disappointing that serious people believe that.

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

#447

Post by freeopinion » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:37 AM UTC

bko wrote: post #418

Obscurity4340 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not that I agree with bail-outs, but 2008 financial crisis that resulted in a number of bail outs actually netted the treasury a profit. > In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the 2008 financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion,…

Was that profit diverted from companies that were better managed and didn't get a bailout? We can see who won. Who lost? And why is the government deciding winners and losers? Why especially when the government is one of those winners?

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

#448

Post by LPisGood » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:38 AM UTC

ivewonyoung wrote: post #441

cyberax wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And BTW, I agree that Social Security overhead is unacceptable. It should be privatized and increased to at least $500 billion to be comparable with health insurance companies. It's not acceptable at all to make private companies look bad.

If it was a company it'd have failed already. > The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci... And that's just…

>Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little?

Yes, absolutely. I think you might be overestimating VC’s a little bit.

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

#449

Post by shusaku » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:38 AM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #334

If the US had bought 10% of TSMC, with no voting rights - just increased dependency - it would have sent a very strong signal. Its an interesting idea, not a serious suggestion.

The US has been slowly but steadily sending the opposite signal over the past year: “just wait a little and you can have Taiwan”

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

#450

Post by johnecheck » Sat, Aug 23, 2025, 1:39 AM UTC

tbrownaw wrote: post #235

chneu wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GF is a few nodes behind. Micron doesn't make semiconductors, they mostly make flash and whatnot. TI doesn't have the capacity or knowledge to expand to Intel's size/capacity

> doesn't make semiconductors, they mostly make flash and whatnot Um. All that stuff is still semiconductors, just with different patterns printed on them.

You're right but also wrong. Flash is just semiconductors etched in a different pattern than logic, but you don't print on semiconductors. Semiconductors are 'printed' on wafers via photolithography.