Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

notebookcheck.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 560 posts

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#101

Post by Herring »

phkahler wrote: post #60
hunglee2 wrote: post #33

Unprecedented rapacity by the United States - not only forced tech transfer, and then having to pay for the privilege of being robbed; the hegemon is consuming its vassals, as it withdraws from its commitments.

Well China has been forcing tech transfer for 30 years now.

Look at Intel's history. Concentration of power (monopoly) generally leads to corruption/abuse and stifled innovation. It's bad even for the monopolist.

The second China becomes powerful enough to throw their military around like the US is when I start supporting tech transfers the other way. A more distributed power structure is much better for overall progress.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#103

Post by YetAnotherNick »

cherryteastain wrote: post #32

Tariffs 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…

> Not buy TSMC made chips? Obviously that is impossible

Why do you think that? Trump clearly wants them to use Intel's 18A which is likely similar to TSMC 2 year old N3P, which is not an impossible option.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#104

Post by bit1993 »

ezst wrote: post #47
cherryteastain wrote: post #32

Tariffs 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)".

> it would be a pity if nobody came to the rescue when China eventually puts its Taiwan plans in motion!

Wouldn't that just mean that Taiwan has to choose between two villains, and China can take the advantage of this by changing its narrative and taking the position as a hero, protecting Taiwan from the US.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#105

Post by csomar »

araes wrote: post #78
duxup wrote: post #2

This 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 are $50bn in debt.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#106

Post by dismalaf »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #94
dismalaf wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel is not profitable. Did I say they were? Google gross versus net margin. > If their R+D and Capex investments stopped, the sum total of the existing+legacy cash flows wouldn't nearly cover Intel's substantial liabilities. You sure? https://www.intc.com/financial-info/balance-sheet Current assets are $43 billion. Total assets are $192 billion. $30 billion yearly in gross profit. Debt is only $50 billion. They s…

It's actually better than that. TSMC wouldn't help intel with their 14a node. They would kill it, fire all of Intel's foundry R&D, and just build TSMCs 14a node.

I mean, it's the same thing... So yes.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#108

Post by sdsd »

slt2021 wrote: post #69
duxup wrote: post #2

This whole economy by corruption and coercion is not going to work out.

[flagged]

The Roman Empire began with a corrupt Senate murdering Caesar for being a dictator. Based on Rome's history, the surest sign would be for JD Vance to murder Trump, declare democracy saved, and then Trump Jr to become emperor of NATO.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#109

Post by molticrystal »

I understand the push to build fabs in the US to avoid tariffs, as the US likely sees this as a strategic hedge for the global chip supply in case China disrupts Taiwan or Japan, or some other rare catastrophic event occurs.

Whether it is correct or not, Trump seems to view the US as a larger version of Mar-a-Lago, so he'll always feel he can charge a premium for access to its consumer base and market while offering discounts to those he sees as ingratiating themselves.

But it is supposed to be a free market that should reward efficiency and competence, not prop up companies that don't have their act together. If the goal is domestic chip production, funneling funds to TSMC's proven fab operations and to build more US fabs makes more sense than bailing out Intel, regardless of whether it is improper to demand such concessions at all.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#110

Post by Alupis »

notahacker wrote: post #77
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't pointing "all our military spending" against Russia in Ukraine. Not by a long shot (no pun intended).

Of course not. But I think it's also true to say if the US hasn't been willing or able to effectively use its military power at the margin to stop a historic enemy from annexing its neighbours with impunity, your average regional power doesn't have to worry about the US using its military power to dominate world trade.

Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow.

People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does.

If Ukraine is so important to the world order, why has Europe (you know, Ukraine's actual neighbors) not stepped up with their full military power? Why is Europe not threatening troops, missiles, aircraft, tanks, etc... even nuclear obliteration if Putin doesn't yield? Why is it the US has to swoop in, from half a world away, and save the day (again, and again, and again...)?

The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine. Maybe Europeans should?

Post reply on HN