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

701–710 of 765 posts

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

#701

Post by badpun »

ivewonyoung wrote: post #322
sergiomattei wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”. When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.

One big difference is management control. People feel that government administered services tend to have poor management and citizen services more often than not. One big example is the DMV since almost every has experience dealing with it, long queue times are almost universal because no one gives a crap and it's very hard to fire a government employee. Or the passport issuance, or applying for permits. Or unemploym…

> One big example is the DMV since almost every has experience dealing with it, long queue times are almost universal because no one gives a crap and it's very hard to fire a government employee.

I don't know what's wrong with the US, but here in Poland, there are hardly any queues at the (equivalent of) DMV. And we're nowhere near US's wealth levels, so public services here (in Poland) should be worse, not better. There's something very wrong in how the US is organizing its DMVs, if the queues are such an universal problem. But, it's not an issue with government services per se, just with this one instance of government service.

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

#703

Post by BeetleB »

re-thc wrote: post #674
BeetleB wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They had that money in the bank (and much more) when they lobbied to get the CHIPS act passed. They want the money.

So yes, this is all about getting the rest of the money.

The administration is deciding they should not get it for free. Which totally makes sense given that Intel is openly signaling a willingness to halt semiconductor research.

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

#704

Post by EasyMark »

Waterluvian wrote: post #109

This feels like another signal that the U.S. as an economic superpower is transitioning into something else. I guess this is kind of like an auto or bank bailout, but is there something to bail out, or are they just gaining ownership of a doomed (in the classical sense) corporation?

hopefully it's only for 3 more years. One aspect of fascism is government politicians taking over businesses for their own power and monetary enrichment. I'm not sure how this makes Trump richer, but I'm sure there is some angle to it, there always is.

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

#705

Post by nozzlegear »

atkailash wrote: post #702

How is this not a regulatory conflict of interest? Or strong arming them to change practices under threat of pulling all the stock out?

At the risk of sounding a bit flippant, there's a popular 2018 headline from The Onion that becomes increasingly salient as time passes:

Trump Claims He Can Overrule Constitution With Executive Order Because Of Little-Known ‘No One Will Stop Me’ Loophole

https://theonion.com/trump-claims-he-can-overrule-constituti...

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

#706

Post by theptip »

mandevil wrote: post #275
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…

Because this clears the way to sell Intel Foundry and separate the chip design from the chip-manufacturing businesses completely. The CHiPs act money had claw-backs such that if Intel sold the Foundry off they had to pay the government all the money back. This new deal waives all the clawbacks and says instead the Government gets warrants, good for five years, for 5% of the company at $20/share, good once they contro…

Good context, thanks. If it’s likely that the Foundry will be sold off, do you view the extra 5% as a short-term profit and not really a geopolitical/strategic protection?

Seems the Foundry is the bit that USG really is trying to backstop.

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

#707

Post by hollerith »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #525
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…

What Trump is doing is pure extortion. Intel gives up equity, and in exchange, Trump maybe doesn't use the massive power of the state to claw back billions of dollars that were legally awarded to Intel, and Trump stops pressuring Intel to fire their CEO (note how he now calls the CEO "highly respected"). The comparison to the GM bailout makes no sense. GM got something that it needed from the bailout. Here, all Intel…

>Maybe you just like being the "well actually" guy because you think it makes you sound smarter than everyone else.

He's a lawyer at the Federal bar, so on the subject under discussion he is more knowledgeable than most of us.

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

#708

Post by yibg »

boroboro4 wrote: post #668
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The takeaway is the next Democrat president should just declare a public transit emergency and start building while the courts squabble. Same for housing reform. Same for climate change and shutting down coal power plants—once you shut it down and take out the turbines, it doesn’t matter what the courts say.

Yes, they should. However in case of democrats president Supreme Court will be surprisingly fast on issuing emergency decisions and stopping executive actions…

They should then just ignore the courts decisions they don’t like like the current administration does.

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

#709

Post by sgnelson »

andsoitis wrote: post #547
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…

> 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...

I think "fuck your whataboutism."

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

#710

Post by HDThoreaun »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #103
miohtama wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only 1 winner and 1 loser: Intel. It's the only chip manufacturer "left" in the US. The argument is national security: the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Whether this will happen or not can be debated, but this is what the government expects.

> the US expects China to invade Taiwan and this will kill TSMC in the process. Would it though? The TSMC foundries are pretty much in every continent. Are they just going to stop operating if this happens? Because that seems akin to killing a golden goose. Also what is up with Global Foundries? I don’t hear a peep about them.

The vast majority of TSMC production is in taiwan. If china invades the fabs will be destroyed. They pretty much would be forced to just stop operating, yes.
Post reply on HN