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

US Intel

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#351

Post by acdha »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #349
3D30497420 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> every decision the US takes could be considerate, but as likely also completely random and reversed and bent at any moment in the future. This my main problem with this investment. I can certainly appreciate the benefit of US government investment to ensure "homegrown" production capabilities. However, this depends a lot on a level of understanding, intelligence, and planning from the US federal government which is…

> If no one trusts Intel now, I cannot begin to imagine how anyone would view Intel plus the current US government as more trustworthy. Because people making these decisions aren't chronically online....

This is relevant how? You can be the most dyed-in-the-wool old school businessman who only reads physical newspapers and the first thing you’d think of is the way all of your suppliers are reporting unpredictability and your buyers are talking about reduced demand. Businesses like predictability and between the chaotic massive tax hikes and aggressively politicizing the federal reserve, they don’t have a stable environment.

Re: US Intel

#352

Post by tick_tock_tick »

xnx wrote: post #11

Does the US need a domestic Intel more than domestic ASML (or Zeiss for that matter)?

The USA already owns the important part of ASML (the IP). ASML is a Dutch company purely at the USA's leisure.

Re: US Intel

#354

Post by tkiolp4 »

ulfw wrote: post #173
troad wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have developed an economy oriented around selling one another websites, and we are only belatedly noticing that none of our enemies seem to have followed.

What 'enemies'?

Exactly. If any, the US is one of those countries everybody else is afraid of. Americans may be proud of that, but that’s pure bullying.

Re: US Intel

#355

Post by tick_tock_tick »

slt2021 wrote: post #27
Telemakhos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what is being said. The Intel stake is a first step to a US sovereign fund that will include ownership stakes in many corporations.

is merging interests of the state and corporations marks a return to good ole fascism ? or is it just an alternative way of taxing capital? instead of taxing wealth and capital, just take an equity stake in it ?

Or is it more socialism, the public taking ownership in the fruits of labor?

Honestly this is pure horseshoe theory where Bernie Sanders and Trump hold the same views.

Re: US Intel

#357

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

> Intel fell behind TSMC, who was powered by massive orders from Apple in particular

> the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for the next five, ten, or even fifteen years, the seeds of that failure will eventually sprout, just like those 2007 seeds sprouted for Intel over the last couple of years. The only difference is that the repercussions of this failure will be catastrophic not for the U.S.’s leading semiconductor company, but for the U.S. itself.

Re: US Intel

#359

Post by Fade_Dance »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #342
fxtentacle wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's almost as if prioritizing returns on investment over EVERYTHING!!! else has bad side-effects for the economy as a whole.

It seems really unlikely so many elements of American society decided to prioritize returns simultaneously… but more like those who didn’t… eventually couldn’t compete anymore and left the market. Leaving behind only those completely focused on returns.

I'd reframe that slightly. There is a vast foundation of stable, optimized businesses that are in commoditized/low-growth ares. They function as the underpinnings of the American economy.

When turning the spotlight to capital that is seeking returns, it is true that these areas may be mediocre places to deploy fresh capital, but it doesn't mean that these players aren't competing, and they will probably be cranking out sheet metal and port cargo logistics optimization well after 90% of the AI startups fold.

The caveat is of course Private Equity, which is about 10 trillion in assets. They can derive high returns from these areas, but it requires leverage.

Re: US Intel

#360

Post by Fade_Dance »

sitkack wrote: post #274
bix6 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s ridiculous. It’s so easy to find VC funding for software but heaven forbid you try and make agricultural innovations. Biotech is slightly better but still a struggle. Hardware only counts right now if it’s defense tech but even then people would rather have another SaaS.

We need regulation around how VCs work. They are in a house flipping game and nothing more, slapping on a bad kitchen remodel and then handing the hot potato onto the next sucker.

Why not just let it play out in their own arena? We already had the major unwind with the interest rate hikes. The tide went out and the players with their pants off were exposed for the most part.

That said, allowing VC into 401ks and such I would agree is an abominable idea, because this stuff isn't marked properly until it is in distress. Actually, that area could use better regulation. Volatility laundering is already a systemic risk. Many of these vehicles have creative ways to not mark to their market value, which makes pension fund managers and leered participants happy because it greatly improves the perceived risk metrics and performance, at the equal expense of cloaked fragility.

But perhaps just let them have a thunderdome, and if they want to breach the walls and enter areas like retirement funds where society agrees standard are higher, there is a strong set of filters/regulations that must be adhered to.

Post reply on HN