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

581–590 of 765 posts

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

#581

Post by re-thc »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #577
Sparyjerry wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "or else' isn't the problem. The problem is the government trying to get involved in the first place. Intel was not forced to give away 10% of their company for 10 billion dollars, they simply wanted the 10 billion dollars. It's the fault of our government for propping up failing companies. Intel should be dying instead.

Intel may well have wanted to donate some ownership more than it wanted 10 billion dollars. They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government.

> They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government

What does that even give you? They can argue all they want. Doesn't mean the government will listen.

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

#582

Post by vlovich123 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #502
vlovich123 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heavily criticized auto bailout was precisely this way and actually turned a profit once the government sold its stake. This is different and I can’t imagine the government will ever sell its stake.

Did it turn a real profit or a nominal profit, I wonder? I remember hearing a brrrr sound around that time.

I was wrong. The $80B TARP program lost quite a bit of money on GM. The program overall lost $9B while saving millions of jobs and stabilizing the economy.

But it still took a share in companies that participated in TARP which is why some payed back the loan instead of letting it convert into ownership shares if I recall correctly.

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

#583

Post by electriclove »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #430
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 think it would've been much better to incentivize the likes of Apple and Nvidia to make investments in Intel. They need to have their designs fabbed, they have a good amount of geopolitical risk. They also have a lot of money on hand. Didn't Apple say they were going to invest $600B into the US? (not that that's really going to happen), ok, so why not put $50B into Intel?

Because that is not a good use of Apple’s $50B.

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

#584

Post by thisisit »

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…

“National security” is often used by third world countries to nationalise companies and industries. Often with a bad outcome.

Once the money is in, government becomes invested in the success of the company. This leads to preferential policies and government demands for the invested company. I think it is safe to say that US is going full on third world strong man government at this point.

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

#585

Post by electriclove »

ants_everywhere wrote: post #402
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…

They're converting a grant, so Intel is worse off due to this move. The only real benefit I can see is it looks more revenue neutral because the government getting something of value and Trump is unpopular for spending so much money on unfunded tax cuts.

It is going to help ensure that Intel doesn’t just waste the $8.9B they are getting

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

#586

Post by vlovich123 »

aurareturn wrote: post #516
creato wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If you truly think Chinese subsidies are artificially depressing prices, then just buy Chinese goods to take Chinese’s people’s hard earned money.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of cornering a market? Sure, uber was offering lower prices subsidized by VCs until taxis were driven off. After the fact they raised prices back up. Or what Amazon did with diapers.com? It is not wise to let your geopolitical foe gut the productive capability of your economy. It’s how America took over dominance from the UK by taking over the high tech business of the day back then (textiles).

It’s fine for the consumer in the short term but a flawed long term strategy.

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

#587

Post by thaumasiotes »

re-thc wrote: post #581
thaumasiotes wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel may well have wanted to donate some ownership more than it wanted 10 billion dollars. They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government.

> They are now in a position to argue forever that what's good for Intel is good for the federal government What does that even give you? They can argue all they want. Doesn't mean the government will listen.

It's a fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business.

Why do you think that is?

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

#588

Post by vlovich123 »

ivewonyoung wrote: post #482
LPisGood wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little? Yes, absolutely. I think you might be overestimating VC’s a little bit.

It can happen yes, but VCs have very strong incentives to not waste their own money, if they feel like putting the effort into it. If they fail they may learn the lesson not to waste money, or even end up not having money to waste. In the government all the incentives are the opposite, to keep spending money or the budget would get reduced next year. If anyone tries to save costs, they make a lot of enemies both with…

I think you may have a flawed understanding of how VCs work. VCs generally care little for one company does. That’s what the whole “invest in 500 startups” strategy is about. Now a $200M investment probably starts to leave that range and enters the “throw weight around to win”, but generally they care little about the software except as a means to an end to get returns and business growth and software value are only loosely correlated.

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

#589

Post by [deleted] »

hajile wrote: post #474
adastra22 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existing systems do this. Look up the F-35. It's what I was referencing. Bleeding edge state of the art chips aren't required though, or even practical -- these systems need a lot of validation before use, and that makes them always a few process generation behind.

I'm not talking about the plane. I'm talking about the weapon itself. Imagine a next-generation fire-and-forget weapons with radar and broad-spectrum camera arrays and an AI trained on a fused version of all this data. Typical defenses like chaff or flares would be rendered almost entirely useless. This kind of visual approach also renders modern stealth almost completely useless. When an unexpected plane is found on…

[deleted]

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

#590

Post by andsoitis »

verzali wrote: post #576
andsoitis wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What do you think about Senator Bernie Sanders backing Trump plan for government stake in Intel? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/8/20/us-senator-berni...

It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies. Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs.

> It's odd seeing Republicans endorse state owned companies.

What’s even more confusing is that the Republicans voter will rationalize this!

> Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs.

So same outcome. The question is whether the two “sides” see their common point of view.

Post reply on HN