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

531–540 of 765 posts

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

#531

Post by rpmisms »

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…

I actually am interested in the government having a voting share in big companies. They have an interest too, and seeing what it is is neat. Basically, I see this as bringing certain dealings above board.

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

#532

Post by frankzinger »

creato wrote: post #365
renewiltord wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah sure but then you do it properly. Why did Trump have to coerce them into the deal (by threatening to fire the CEO)? Just imagine what's going on behind closed doors.

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

#533

Post by jauntywundrkind »

rayiner wrote: post #494
sgnelson wrote: post #468

Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds." This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government. If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there wi…

Unfortunately, this ship sailed quite some time ago. For example, after the 2008 financial crisis, the Senate rejected a proposed bailout of GM. But Bush approved it anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320... > However, it had been argued that the Treasury lacked the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers, since TARP is limited to "financial institutions" under Section…

[flagged]

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

#534

Post by mdorazio »

andrewflnr wrote: post #491
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a straw man. There is no amount of scrappy cleverness that gets you from zero to manufacturing cutting-edge chips without shitloads of capital investment, years/decades of R&D, a huge manufacturing workforce, and big contracts. There's no such thing as starting small and scaling in that business.

You don't think $8.9B would do it?

TSMC has already put $65B into the Phoenix fab and is adding at least that much more, so no. You're off by an order of magnitude.

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

#535

Post by rpmisms »

softwaredoug wrote: post #480
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…

The “our president made a deal!” part of it makes me skeptical of actual long term patterns past a Trump administration. While not walked back completely, a lot of what Trump does is minimized and scaled back after the initial theatrical moment. Still in a bad place, but usually some TACO moment happens. And then, in the end, it’s some executive action that lasts as long as the current president is in power.

Democrats will not walk this one back. Having a stake in a hugely important industry is valuable. Being able to directly shape Intel's path is going to be historically important.

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

#536

Post by rchiang »

andrewflnr wrote: post #491
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a straw man. There is no amount of scrappy cleverness that gets you from zero to manufacturing cutting-edge chips without shitloads of capital investment, years/decades of R&D, a huge manufacturing workforce, and big contracts. There's no such thing as starting small and scaling in that business.

You don't think $8.9B would do it?

TSMC's estimated costs in 2020, were $12 billion for their first fab. In 2025, their updated estimates were $65 billion for the first three fabs and $165 billion for when they get to six such facilities. So, $8.9B is a lot of money, but isn't anywhere close to getting to the equivalent to what TSMC has in Taiwan.

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

#537

Post by acomjean »

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?

All I can think here is the government forcing back doors

(like the failed Clipper chip) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

The thinking might be the government needs a local industry for security. Think submarine manufacturing. Not a huge private market for that, but best to keep local so the supply can’t be cut off.

Though usually the government isn’t the best stewards of companies. When I worked for a large government contractor someone joked “yesterday’s technology tomorrow”. Some of that is for reliability, but it wasn’t cutting edge in a lot of ways.

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

#538

Post by apical_dendrite »

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…

Startup companies blow through hundreds of millions of VC dollars with little to show for it all the time. Theranos raised $700 million for a technology that never worked. Plenty of others wasted hundreds of millions building half-baked products that nobody wanted or that made no business sense. Remember Quibi?

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

#539

Post by rpmisms »

mplewis wrote: post #398
theptip wrote: post #230

> the government made an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock, purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share, giving it a 10% stake in the company > Of the total, $5.7 billion of the government funds will come from grants under the CHIPS Act that had been awarded but not paid, and $3.2 billion will come from separate government awards under a program to make secure chips Interesting accounti…

Just another Trump shakedown. Nothing to see here.

It's extremely good business for the US. Trump doesn't get to take this with him.

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

#540

Post by rpmisms »

shusaku wrote: post #449
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”

If the US can replace the need for Taiwan... Yeah. They no longer matter to us if we can replace the manufacturing capacity.
Post reply on HN