[dead]
US Intel
531–540 of 581 posts
Re: US Intel
#532[flagged]
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
To have a conversation about the US government buying a stake in Intel, and the threats of China in that space, requires one to have a conversation about both politics and ideology. It’s disingenuous to claim anything else. And to point out the irony of the passing fad on straws but deep love of fast fashion highlights the hypocrisy of US society in general and why we are incapable of having nice things or getting anything meaningful done at a scale of other countries such as China, Taiwan or even South Korea. And love or hate DEI you also can’t say companies like Target jump on and off that band wagon at shareholder will, when they aren’t ever jumping on the “we should invest in R&D and the next generation” because why would they, we haven’t asked them to so why would any other company Intel included.
Re: US Intel
#533Foundries aren’t the only special case. The test should be, if we can’t afford for it to fail, it shouldn’t be left to the market. Another example? Farms. Also healthcare (expect to hear more on this front in the next few years as more and more hospitals go under, especially in rural areas).
Well, "the market" is just a descriptive model that represents the aggregated pattern of economic activity within society -- there is no "outside" of the market, and everyone, including political states, are just market participants. Arguing against things being "left to the market" in the abstract is not sufficient to address the particular incentives that are producing undesirable outcomes, and does not offer any v…
To add on, the fundamental question is which risk is more palatable for something we "can't afford to fail?"
Is the risk of a hospital closing for purely financial reasons more or less acceptable than the risk of a state-run hospital being inefficient but guaranteed to exist? For critical infrastructure, I think that's a conversation worth having, and it's one that hand-waving about an all-encompassing 'market' obscures; dismissing a legitimate critique by framing the market as an all-encompassing force is just a rhetorical move.
Your comment seems to suggest that any attempt to change the market results in unfavorable results, but this doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I think you replied with a valid philosophical point, but you leaned too much on using it to challenge that anything could be done (when you yourself presented the idea that a mechanism was needed).
There is no such unmanipulated free market anywhere:
Perfect Competition: In reality, we have monopolies, oligopolies, and immense barriers to entry.
Perfect Rationality: Behavioral economics has thoroughly demonstrated that people do not act like perfectly rational, self-interested computers.
Perfect Information: There is almost always a significant knowledge gap between a seller and a buyer.
Since no truly free market exists, every economy is already a managed one. The real debate isn't whether we should intervene, but how we intervene and whose interests those interventions serve. I read selimnairb's point as that, for essential services, the rules should serve the public interest of stability and access, not just the private interest of profit.
We can examine the risks case-by-case. Here, the government is investing in a foundry. We could view the leverage this gains the US government as increasing the risk for political engineering above the previous risk of financial engineering. In financial engineering, Intel might prioritize its obligation to shareholders. In political engineering (if Intel were nationalized), Intel might keep an inefficient fab open to save jobs or just to win votes.
In the category of financial engineering as a risk, you might lump activity like stock buybacks put above R&D as exemplar of Intel. In fact, a criticism of CHIPS and this new government intervention often centers around the idea that Intel's leadership should not be rewarded.
Finally, a related case on the topic of Intel and national security: China's state-directed economy prioritizes national goals over private profit. After entering "the market," part of its core strategy has been to compel service to national interests rather than shareholders, and it seems that strategy has arguably driven its recent economic rise.
Re: US Intel
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You do know that the per capita number is from your own link? Japan sits at number 19 per capita. ctrl-f "per capita", nothing comes up. I do notice that Japan is #19 in terms of % of GDP however... I actually think your confusion here explains a lot. You don't know the difference between "per capita" and "GDP". That shows you don't speak English well. That's probably why you don't know much about the US. The fundam…
Oh my god. This is so funny. You truly have to stoop down to insults because you are so fragile? Who hurt you? Sorry, the massive difference of "per capita" and "% of GDP". Which would be aligned assuming equal GDP. Given GDP differences between the donor countries the differences aren't meaningful. But sorry, I should have specified as "% of GDP" where the US is a joke comparatively. What is even more funny is that…
>Oh my god. This is so funny. You truly have to stoop down to insults because you are so fragile? Who hurt you?
You were the one who started with dickish behavior. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
>Given GDP differences between the donor countries the differences aren't meaningful. But sorry, I should have specified as "% of GDP" where the US is a joke comparatively.
Actually it does make a difference here. See the link I provided: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1hd7aud/military_ai... Considering per capita, 8 months ago the US was more generous than almost all of Europe. Per capita is arguably the correct metric, since part of why US GDP is greater is because Americans work longer hours and take less vacation.
In any case, even if we consider the metric less favorable to the US (% of GDP), the US gives more as a fraction of GDP than almost every country outside Europe. If the US is a joke, than Spain, Ireland, France, and Italy are even funnier. We're very generous in every sense considering this isn't our war.
But since you call US aid a joke, I hope you won't miss it when it's gone. And I appreciate you confirming the points I've made, with your remark: Helping Ukraine gets us nothing but grief.
>You mean the roaring 20s right before the great depression? Because that is the last time the US was isolationist.
"Frustrated by French meddling in U.S. politics, Washington warned the nation to avoid permanent alliances with foreign nations and to rely instead on temporary alliances for emergencies... Washington’s remarks have served as an inspiration for American isolationism, and his advice against joining a permanent alliance was heeded for more than a century and a half."
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/washington-fa...
The US economy mostly did great during that century and a half. Furthermore, the Great Depression was not simply caused by "isolationism". This is more intellectual sloppiness on your part.
I advocate a Swiss approach to foreign policy. That doesn't mean disengaging from other nations. It means not promising to help them with their problems.
Your continent, your problem. This is the approach that most of the world adopts towards Ukraine. The US was foolish to get involved. And we've been punished severely for it, by people like you. No more.
Re: US Intel
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The contrarian parties tend to get very popular in the years between election cycles as the governing party can't deliver on everything and has to compromise. So what happened in Hungary, or Italy, or other examples mentioned by troad? Are you aware that RN, at this very moment , has by far the most seats of any party in the French parliament? Those far-right sentiments didn't magically disappear on election day. >T…
> Are you aware that RN, at this very moment, has by far the most seats of any party in the French parliament? Those far-right sentiments didn't magically disappear on election day. And the Social Democrats has been the largest party in Sweden since the early 1900s. Given that the left, with all parties combined, haven't held a majority since 2006 while managing to rule with a minority government from 2014 to 2022. Y…
[deleted]
Re: US Intel
#536Maybe it's worth noting that the new CEO's explosive statement, Intel would give up development of leading edge nodes (14A and beyond) unless they find a large external customer in advance, hardly got any attention on Hacker News or other websites. But that was almost certainly the reason the US administration got involved. This blog post thankfully makes this point clear. In the past, most people (including myself)…
The problem with leading edge fabs is they require obscene amounts of capital to develop and are apparently (based on Intel's experience) extraordinarily risky to build. That's a hard thing to sell in any environment.
Well it's easy to sell if you are the one currently ahead of the competition (TSMC) and very hard to sell if you are behind (Samsung, Intel).
Re: US Intel
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me or is the author only making an argument for why Intel is too big to fail? He says hes steelmanning the equity stake but then he doesn't argue why it's necessary. He devotes 2 sentences to CLAIMING its necessary after aruging that Intel is too big to fail. The article is basically like this: > Leading edge domestic foundry companies are a national security concern. Therefor Intel is too big to fail. OK.…
>The US can give them money as grants. Grants put skin in the game for the US because they require Intel to meet the terms. It's not the same as taking part in decisionmaking? Intel could just say 'no' to grants. They don't have to accept the terms.
And they can say no to the government with the equity stake and the government can divest.
I'm not arguing they are exactly the same... I just think the author shouldn't state the hypothesis at the end of the article without examining it.
Frankly I think it's a good summary of why Intel may be too big to fail. It's just framed wrong.
Re: US Intel
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think an invasion of Taiwan brings risk of a new, worse status quo? I think that's primarily why China doesn't invade. If it were possible to just achieve an easy, total victory then there is no reason to wait for Taiwanese people to change their mind about joining China. Im also confused why you say China's inaction on Taiwan isnt about TSMC its about patience, but patience is running out because China wont n…
Do you think an invasion of Taiwan brings risk of a new, worse status quo? I think that's primarily why China doesn't invade. If it were possible to just achieve an easy, total victory then there is no reason to wait for Taiwanese people to change their mind about joining China. In my humble opinion, if China wanted to, they could win it now. China's vast resources and manpower will be overwhelming. Doesn't matter if…
> They want to wait when it's so obvious that Taiwan would lose and lose quickly that Taiwan simply gives itself up.
I agree they prefer a peaceful resolution but that would be in the form of Taiwan wanting to become part of China and deciding to reunify. It makes no sense to surrender without being forced to.
Re: US Intel
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think an invasion of Taiwan brings risk of a new, worse status quo? I think that's primarily why China doesn't invade. If it were possible to just achieve an easy, total victory then there is no reason to wait for Taiwanese people to change their mind about joining China. Im also confused why you say China's inaction on Taiwan isnt about TSMC its about patience, but patience is running out because China wont n…
China has no reason nor any incentive to invade Taiwan. They are moving ahead with a strategy of overwhelming force and patience. In short China will simply continue to greatly expand its Navy and overall military size. It will do so until its so overwhelming that Taiwan will simply end up voting to join back with China as it will be in its own interest. China has no need to speed this process up and can simply do ex…
But why would Taiwan vote to join China if China isn't going to actually attack it? Makes no sense. China could have 10x the military of the US and park it right outside Taiwan everyday for 100 years but if they dont do anything to Taiwan it has no incentive to reunify.
The scenario where Taiwan peacefully reunifies is where they decide they want to be part of China of their own interest.
Re: US Intel
#540Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Billions for fast food delivery apps, not a dime for defense or sustainable agriculture Defense venture capital funding is literally in the billions and has resilient even in a broader VC pullback: https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insight...
Beyond Meat also hit 15 billion market cap at peak.
I don't consider synthetic nutrition agriculture; what I'm talking about is regenerative farming practices or high tech alternatives to pesticides i.e. Carbon Robotics.