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

471–480 of 560 posts

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

#471

Post by pjc50 »

duxup wrote: post #16
ldoughty wrote: post #3

I'm kinda of shocked that chip & many tech companies play ball.. They are a required / no alternatives industry by so much of the USA, with limited alternatives. Is it really more cost-effective for each of these companies to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to avoid tariffs when they could easily pass on these costs because we have no alternatives?

I think people in power are pretty fond of non democratic systems, they like them. They make friends and get favors. Far easier than competing. And what's the alternative for many of them? Lawsuits? SCOTUS has quit doing their job. The checks and balances are out the window. There is no leadership / anyone in power at the national level when it comes to democracy in the US at this time.

SCOTUS was stuffed with political appointees to give the results the Republican party wanted. Overturning Roe v. Wade was just the start of that.

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

#472

Post by pjc50 »

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.

Entire discussion seems to be ignoring the Russian nuclear weapons, so the war has to be conducted entirely with Ukranian-flagged troops.

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

#473

Post by ExoticPearTree »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #455
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…

I don't know why analysis like this doesn't go a bit deeper. Yes americans will pay more, but TSMC will also see less demand. Intel has it's own foundry, maybe it can start competing against TSMC, because now TSMC costs a lot more and intel's cost of manufacturing in the US to compete against TSMC can be recouped much better thanks to the new market prices set by the TSMC tariffs? Government's shouldn't put up with m…

I think the problem with Intel's foundry is that it cannot produce the same quality and quantity at the level of TSMC.

I was looking through the list of fabrication technology for the latest CPUs, and while they say they are 3nm, it is using TSMCs technology (Arrow Lake S: Fabrication process: Compute Tile (Contains the CPU cores) TSMC's N3B node.)

My guess is that Trump is trying to save Intel by forcing TSMC to buy them under the guise of "I'm forcing companies invest in the US".

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

#474

Post by newsclues »

duxup wrote: post #136
newsclues wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Visibility is the difference. It happened before, and perhaps even worse (more competent people were corrupt). Now, people are just making it public.

The existence of any corruption really has nothing to do with the amount. The amount matters.

Not all corruption is visible or known.

If suddenly corruption is done in the open, you see it more, and think it may be because the total amount is greater, but it is only more visible.

We don't know how much historical corruption was invisible, thus it is hard to accurately say there is more.

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

#475

Post by herbst »

croemer wrote: post #285
herbst wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A swiss news paper wrote something along "so far the main effects seem to be the rising prices of Swiss goods in America, not really a falling market" He is threating Switzerland with 250% tariffs on meds while his people still suffer under horrendous health care prices. That man is beyond crazy

For drugs that are monopolies, tariffs actually don't impact the end price and hit the producer. In the short term, for drugs that are already on the market. In the long run, it reduces incentives to develop drugs. Tariffs are a tax on consumers for commodities but not for monopoly products.

So the assumption is they take the hit of 250% and just keep providing the US with these unique drugs when the US is "only" at max 20% of the total market? Afaik even less the more specialized drugs get.

Edit:// it's not just me. Swiss media does barely seem to understand anything anymore either

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

#476

Post by arathis »

nosignono wrote: post #207
tw04 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so the logical conclusion is that American consumers will end up paying the tariffs. That’s been the point all along… they are significantly raising taxes on the bottom 90% of Americans and most are too stupid to even understand it. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy somehow.

It has nothing to do with stupidity. Stop painting people as idiots because they exist in one of the most information hostile environments in human history. This isn't some natural state that's unrecoverable. The people you describe have been given a highly addictive media environment tailor made to engender outrage and drive behavior. It shouldn't be a shock when most people cannot resist it. The first step to chang…

I’m not in the US, so I don’t know what it’s like from the inside but from the outside it’s so comically obvious how straight up stupid and brazen trump and his cronies are that it beggars beleif.

How can so many be so gullible?

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

#477

Post by wat10000 »

dylan604 wrote: post #440
wat10000 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talk about deliberately obtuse! We’re not criticizing these people for voting for someone in favor of tariffs for other reasons. We’re criticizing them for voting for that person because they’re in favor of tariffs despite not knowing what tariffs actually are. Your response of “maybe people voted for other reasons” is completely missing the point here.

The original post was painting anyone that voted for the current admin as stupid. The conversation also assumed that anyone that voted for POTUS did so because of tariffs. That's clearly not true. Are there people that voted for POTUS while also having no clue about tariffs, yes and this is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that anyone that voted for the cheeto-in-chief is automatically stupid. It helps to keep u…

Given your extreme misunderstanding of my Obamacare vs ACA comment in another thread, I’m not confident in your interpretation here.

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

#478

Post by _t9ow »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #266
Herring wrote: post #58

[flagged]

Post the rest of the quote

You were downvoted, but you were right in pointing out that the quote was taken out of context. Here's the full context:

"Nixon should be told," Kissinger said, "that it is probably an objective of [Clark M. Clifford, the Secretary of Defense] to depose [Nguyen Van Thieu, the President of South Vietnam] before Nixon is inaugurated. Word should be gotten to Nixon that if Thieu meets the same fate as [Ngo Dinh Diem, a former President of South Vietnam whom the U.S. initially supported, but who was later murdered in a CIA-backed military coup], the word will go out to the nations of the world that it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."

Kissinger was motivating why the U.S. should continue to support Nguyen Van Thieu, the dictator of South Vietnam; but today his words are frequently taken out of context to suggest a self-aware take of U.S. foreign policy.

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

#479

Post by heraldgeezer »

jrflowers wrote: post #390
heraldgeezer wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started in like December or January... Was COVID 5 years ago fuck me. Also, COVID weight gain would be during lockdowns, and ALSO my job went fully remote. Being fully remote was an issue for sure. So it's like COVID was extended for me. I never really weighed myself and then felt weird like a big mechelin man and I saw I was 10-12 kg heavier, makes sense why I feel bad I thought, and I did not weigh before and jus…

> Love the downvotes, btw. I’d wager that you’re getting downvoted for two reasons, first because current science is strongly indicating that “obesity is a moral failing” is factually untrue, so being smug while dead wrong is off putting. And second reason would be the framing of the issue of obesity as being solved by just losing weight. A lot (maybe most? Almost all?) of people that are overweight have at some poin…

Yes, there is an issue of easy access to calorie rich foods, but at a certain point it is the individual.

I can listen to brain rot gangsta rap all day or baroque classical both on Spotify. It's what I click on that determines it. The hard part is learning what is good.

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

#480

Post by ExoticPearTree »

delfinom wrote: post #276
cyphertruck wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually wouldn't. The sale price will be pretty close to the current market price, maybe %10 more. If the Government kicks in funds to underwrite the deal (say a loan to TSMC) then the deal would likely happen exactly at market price. That means investors who sell are getting the current low market price or a little bit higher--- they will still be down the massive amount. This is really bailing out current manag…

But TSMC isn't a design house. Intel has both fab and design. TSMC's management could only help out on the fab side.

> Intel has both fab and design.

The fab part is not a good deal since Intel struggles a lot with it and they are not even on par with what TSMC was producing a few years back using older processes.

I would guess in this deal, TSMC would produce the chips and fire all the Intel foundry people.

Post reply on HN