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

591–600 of 765 posts

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

#591

Post by cma »

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…

> Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches. It just means that whatever powers the executive branch does or does not have are exercised by the President,

And then you find the executive is what chooses to enforce rulings against the executive. They were not trying to set up something like the UN security council with a defacto veto on all passed law.

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

#592

Post by burnt-resistor »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #241

I finally grok the Republican party. It's only socialism if it helps the poor. Government handouts to corporations and trade protectionism? Mainly helps the rich, so it's not socialism. Tax money spent on a special interest program? Again, if it mainly helps the rich (or their party's base), no problemo. They're the Kleptocracy Party.

Klepo-pluto-kakisto-kratocracy with socialism for the rich.

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

#593

Post by re-thc »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #587
re-thc wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> fairly routine practice for business owners to let local politicians invest in their business

Let? Like this 1? Where if you don't we threaten to fire the CEO and take over the company otherwise?

Are you sure it is let?

> local politicians

Is 1 or more individuals. In this instance it is "the government" as an entity. Not the same?

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

#594

Post by estearum »

KetoManx64 wrote: post #399
ecocentrik wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the argument was for protecting Intel, then the US government should be placing huge orders with Intel for solutions that will fund R&D and allow the company to regain its position as a foundry. They should be tapping into the defense budget. DARPA should be involved. This was an opportunity for petty extortion and a step towards socialism.

Government involvement is the fastest way to corrupt the purpose of an organization, hollow out its soul and quickly get rid of all the competant people. There's a reason that the DOGE findings made a laughing stock of government employees.

> There's a reason that the DOGE findings made a laughing stock of government employees

Can you point out which specific findings? Ideally ones that are substantiated and not just one off tweets.

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

#595

Post by burnt-resistor »

nashashmi wrote: post #403

America sovereign wealth fund.

Trump unitary executive privatized wealth fund using US taxpayer money.

And a free 747 that won't be useful or ready during this term, but hundreds of millions of taxpayer money will be poured into for the "library". The VC-25Bs were already under construction.

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

#596

Post by thorncorona »

andrewflnr wrote: post #541
rchiang wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> getting to the equivalent to what TSMC has in Taiwan That wasn't the question. The question, at least for me, is can you build non-zero chip production, enough to start building out a sustainable business. Obviously you're not going to compete with TSMC on day one, but there's a wide spectrum between that and "garage".

China tried to do it, and they aren’t even close despite their massive state subsidy programs, so no.

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

#597

Post by jjani »

bongodongobob wrote: post #395
ch4s3 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.

Well as much as you don't like it, companies this big failing is terrible for the economy and in this case, national security to a degree. I'm of the thinking that when your company gets to a certain size we'd be well off nationalizing. Apple has more money than some nation states. Something that huge has the potential to affect global politics. There's lots of other reasons too, but this isn't like letting the corne…

Then as part of the bail out break them up so that they're no longer too big to fail.

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

#598

Post by cyberax »

ivewonyoung wrote: post #555
cyberax wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my entire life, I spent much less time in DMV offices than on the line calling AT&T's customer support. USPS has also been great overall.

I switched away from AT&T. You even keep your number. Switching govt services not an option unless you take more extreme measures. > USPS has also been great overall USPS is an independent agency which is funded by its own fees charged to users, not taxpayer money. It's not like the other agencies. From Wiki: > The USPS is often mistaken for a state-owned enterprise or government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak) beca…

> I switched away from AT&T. You even keep your number. Switching govt services not an option unless you take more extreme measures.

I can vote for a politician to fix the government services. And the local politicians know that keeping the government running well enough is needed to be re-elected.

I have zero leverage on AT&T.

Some services can be government-operated or private. Trash collection is one of them, for example. I lived in many cities, and municipal trash collection companies were always better and not any more expensive.

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

#599

Post by cyberax »

ripjaygn wrote: post #568
cyberax wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little? What? You're imagining VCs caring about pizza money? Should I mention, perhaps, the AOL-TimeWarner merger? Or maybe AT&T buying DirecTV for $50B and essentially giving it away for $8B? Heck, I was a part of an utterly failed project with a $150m budget (in 2005), in a large European company. > For the main system th…

> Heck, I was a part of an utterly failed project with a $150m budget (in 2005), in a large European company Was it a just a somewhat complex CRUD app like the SSA example or most govt IT projects? Or were you guys trying for something more complicated and innovative and failed?

It was an ERP application from a large three-letter European company. In other words, a CRUD app with lots of UI forms. Nothing innovative or particularly interesting.

The hardware to deploy it was alone a couple of million. At least, I got to play with some rather cool gear (for that time).

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

#600

Post by petesergeant »

chrischen wrote: post #566
bongodongobob wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't build a new Intel. That would take decades. These aren't startups. They are massive fucking machines that can't just be disassembled and put back together by someone else. So the idea is to control them and get them back on track to better serve the collective interest.

You wouldn’t have to build a new intel. Their IP, infrastructure, and even the individual talent pool won’t simply disappear. They can either get redistributed into more competent companies like their competitors or restructured into a new venture. The only losers would be the current shareholders.

> or restructured into a new venture

Isn’t that exactly what the “too big to fail” bailouts were, in practice?

Post reply on HN