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

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 765 posts

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

#361

Post by tobias3 »

coldpie wrote: post #294
edot wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re going to give taxpayer money to a for-profit company, taxpayers should receive a share of the company in return. I generally don’t like 90% of the policies we’ve got going on right now, but I actually feel okay about this one.

Doesn't this create an incentive for the US Gov't to boost Intel and harm their competitors? That seems not great to me from a competition & healthy markets standpoint.

The problem is more severe. Previously the US government was passing laws (such as the CHIPS act) and then enforcing/executing them.

Now it is just doing whatever it wants.

This is only good for a very small sub-set of people, everyone else is worse off.

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

#362

Post by _zoltan_ »

carom wrote: post #269
internetter wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Global Foundries is on 12nm. TSMC is at 3.

TSMC gets their machines from ASML who licenses their technology from the Department of Energy. The US will be OK.

This shows me you are not aware of just how much work goes into EUV and beyond besides simply buying the machine.

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

#364

Post by parineum »

stego-tech wrote: post #163

Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses. I’m sick of seeing this sort of behavior pan out time and time again, though I’m hardly surprised by it at this point. Speaking of things that wouldn’t surprise me, if Intel can’t manage an about-face in the next three to six years I fully expect them to become a Nationalized enterprise if only to preserve fabrication and chip design capabilities domestically. Same with B…

> Capitalism for profits, socialism for losses. I’m sick of seeing this sort of behavior pan out time and time again, though I’m hardly surprised by it at this point

I'm not sure how this applies.

The US government just gained a 10% stake for nothing (that wasn't already given). Effectively going from the scenario you are painting to now taking a part of the profit as well.

I guess you were surprised after all!

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

#365

Post by creato »

renewiltord wrote: post #302
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…

In the end, it turns out that people didn't dislike Chinese policies of nationalized industries. They only disliked that the Chinese were doing it. I can't wait for the "I don't think social credit scores are a bad idea. Cancel culture is good actually".

"People" you are referring to want a level playing field. If the Chinese government is tilting the field, there aren't a lot of good options. You can either watch the Chinese subsidize draining most productive capacity from the rest of the world, erect trade barriers (my preference, but it would require cooperation with other countries, which... ain't gonna happen for a while now), or try to tilt back.

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

#366

Post by [deleted] »

foxglacier wrote: post #313
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.

Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which w…

[deleted]

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

#367

Post by Barrin92 »

sobiolite wrote: post #91

Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.

The Chinese have been surprisingly willing to let companies and sectors die even at the expense of growth (see real estate), I think it's honestly too charitable to compare the US to China, which has at least some degree of technocratic governance, the US went straight for something out of the Tropico franchise

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

#370

Post by flamedoge »

miohtama wrote: post #66
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?

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?
Post reply on HN