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

671–680 of 765 posts

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

#671

Post by alfiedotwtf »

x2tyfi wrote: post #423
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flip side: why would Apple, Amazon, Google, AMD, NVIDIA etc build their own when they can outsource it cheaper? Companies are run to make a profit… they don’t care about sovereignty as long as the money is coming in.

Because it’s extremely lucrative and strategically valuable to the US

… but the shareholders are global?! That’s not really a compelling argument unless you made it a requirement that all major/strategic companies must have 100% domestic ownership!

BUT - all you then need to do is create a Delaware LLC that buys the strategic stock, which is owned by $SCARY_FOREIGNERS

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

#674

Post by re-thc »

BeetleB wrote: post #602
re-thc wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're paying the rest of the CHIPS Act money. Overall, they're putting in over $10B into Intel. So taking a scholarship means you're giving a % of yourself to the school? Was this ever mentioned when Intel signed up? Did you know about it?

> So taking a scholarship means you're giving a % of yourself to the school? > Was this ever mentioned when Intel signed up? Did you know about it? See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44993388 The main point is that even with the prior administration, it wasn't a given Intel would receive all the money. This way, they get the full amount, and fast.

> This way, they get the full amount, and fast.

Intel has >20B in the bank. If they really want to they can wait and sell shares for a better deal like with SoftBank.

i.e. not the main point.

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

#675

Post by rayiner »

cma wrote: post #591
rayiner wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And then you find the executive is what chooses to enforce rulings against the executive

Correct. But this is true in almost any conceivable system. The entity charged with enforcing the law will be charged with enforcing the law against itself. “Who watches the watchers?” The founders thought of that and their solution to that was elections and a relatively short 4-year term.

Conceiving of the executive as having subparts independent of the elected executive actually breaks the system. Because now, whatever subpart you assign the law enforcement function is unelected and insulated from political accountability. Now, nobody can watch the watchers!

It turns out the founders were smarter than the current facility of Harvard Law School.

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

#676

Post by ivewonyoung »

cyberax wrote: post #598
ivewonyoung wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

That is one issue among several reasons to pick a politician. Also politicians have limited powers to fire non-performers which gets bogged down in the court system to fire just one person.

> I have zero leverage on AT&T.

People can switch away easier from companies, it happens all the time, companies lose and gain customers all the time. Bad or mediocre service has killed many companies, the effect is far greater than on governments because they get to fund themselves from you even if you don't like or want them. Govt is the ultimate monopoly.

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

#677

Post by softwaredoug »

impossiblefork wrote: post #649
softwaredoug wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by that logic, state provided healthcare is not socialism. But a labor union providing health insurance is socialism. Can we get some of that state owned health care :-p

If we go by Marxist definitions, universal healthcare, universal education, etc. are communism, not socialism ('to each according to their need', which I interpret as capacity to provide a return on an investment of resources by society in one). We have really little socialism in modern society, instead we have market systems combined with elements of communism. The only socialist elements we have are copyright and p…

I’m going by the GOPs definition where “Socialism bad” because bigger govt. I realize there are internal inconsistencies of that definition.

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

#678

Post by hellojesus »

Jensson wrote: post #661
thisisit wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here I thought the point of a grant/subsidy is that it allows companies to take risk - by setting up factories, funding research without worrying about the monetary cost etc. Government benefits through one, generating employment - direct and indirect employment, raising taxes through personal taxes (indirectly impacting tax collection) or second the country being at the forefront of the innovation etc. That is how a…

> But I guess trying to nationalize companies and "benefiting" from company profits was something people were missing. How did no one see that? Ah yes, third world countries try this routinely for "national security" and it always leads to moral hazard pointed out by the person above you. This isn't nationalizing it though, this is just an investment into it. Investments aren't bad.

Investments can be bad. The market efficiently destroys malallocated capital through competition.

The problem with government taking stakes in private companies is that it creates moral hazard. By taking ownership in Intel, the government has effectively "propped it up". This means that Intel competitors that made less risky decisions to remain solvent are now losing; their bet was Intel was operating poorly, and instead of capitalizing on Intel's downfall so they can fill the gap, the government has plugged the gap. This action distorts markets away from their competitive equilibrium. In the process it generates moral hazard and deadweight loss.

Investments by the government can make sense, but generally it makes the most sense when investments support public goods (arguably also when supporting goods/services that the private market would not). Cpus are neither.

Just like the SVB bailout, or Freddie/Fannie/Sallie establisments, this is bad.

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

#679

Post by re-thc »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #663
intended wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do that by letting them fail. You let them fail because that ensures that everyone else in the economy fixes their shit and stays competitive. America developed more world class successes, by getting out of the way and letting badly run firms fail. Especially since NVIDIA is a competitor.

Intel failed because the Taiwan government started tsmc and supported an amazing business model that turned out to be perfect for SC manufacturing. Unfortunately, this is in a country that China is threatening to takeover while building the largest bomb shelters and field hospitals right across the strait. China is forcing us to invest kind of like they are forced to prop up Huawei to make GPUs for deepseek. Conflict…

> Intel failed because the Taiwan government started tsmc

Not true. Intel failed because it failed to deliver its own products on its own timelines.

TSMC was behind until Intel failed on its own. No government’s involvement changed things.

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

#680

Post by [deleted] »

torginus wrote: post #648
s1artibartfast wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something like 60% of the top of 100 companies in China are entirely state-owned. Most of the rest are government stake

https://msadvisory.com/china-biggest-companies/ Look at this list - all the big ones here which are state owned are investment banks, petro companies and telcos. Everyone else on the list (mainly internet companies, BYD, gaming, and B2C sales/distribution) is privately owned.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN