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

721–730 of 765 posts

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

#721

Post by SergeAx »

ch4s3 wrote: post #273
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’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.

Intel is the number one chip contractor for the US military. There's no scenario today where the US government allows Intel to go down.

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

#722

Post by russellbeattie »

BeetleB wrote: post #158
russellbeattie wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We haven't invested any public dollars into Intel, we just took 10% of it.

The US government is paying about $9B to Intel for this (on top of the $2B already paid).

> "About $7.8 billion had been been pledged to Intel under the incentives program, but only $2.2 billion had been funded so far. Another $3.2 billion of the government investment is coming through the funds from another program called “Secure Enclave.”"

The funds were already going to Intel. Trump just decided to demand 10% of the company for the already earmarked incentive programs. It was pure extortion.

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

#723

Post by SJC_Hacker »

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

> Because it’s extremely lucrative

It could be extremely lucrative if they get it right.

Simply trying to copy TSMC would also be a poor strategy.

Companies have "core competencies" (or should). The manufacture (not design) of high-end silicon has never been one for any of these companies except Intel, and they have just lost big time.

> strategically valuable to the US

Yeah, they don't care.

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

#724

Post by SJC_Hacker »

gonzopancho wrote: post #321
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.

And the current administration is unlikely to help Taiwan in the event of said invasion.

Quite the opposite. Part of the reason Trump wanted to end the Russia-Ukraine war so bad was because they wanted to gear up for the "big fight". Ukraine simply wasn't a big strategic priority which is why they wanted to either end the war (best case), or shift responsibility over to Europe if that failed.

Lookup Elbridge Colby - served in first Trump admin and now Undersecretary of Defense. Along with Hegseth and JD Vance, they are all that same line of thought

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

#725

Post by SJC_Hacker »

turbo_wombat wrote: post #63
cuttothechase wrote: post #18

Genuine question- How does Govt picking winners and losers going to help? Intel is no Too big to fail Bank. Why save Intel of all chip manufacturers? Wouldnt it be like 25 years too late, with Intel and its heydays !? Would Govt now ensure parity by investing in "marquee" entities across different industrial domains?

You are asking why save Intel of all chip manufacturers, and the answer is because there aren't any other major chip manufacturers in the US. AMD no longer has a fab. TSMC dominates the global market and basically has no competition. In the event that Taiwan is invaded, the US would suddenly have a huge problem getting access to any kind of high end chips, be they CPUs or GPUs. This would be a major problem economica…

In the event that Taiwan is invaded, the EVERYONE would suddenly have a huge problem getting access to any kind of high end chips, be they CPUs or GPUs.

China would not takeover TSMC intact. Even if they did, they would not be able to operate it for quite some time (years), if ever.

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

#726

Post by aurareturn »

vlovich123 wrote: post #586
aurareturn wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Uber lost $31b. They make about $4b/year in profit now. It'll take them 7 years to make it all back assuming they don't grow anymore.

$31b put into Nasdaq would have netted investors $300b before dividends. So honestly it was a bad deal.

And let's not forget that Uber can be killed by self driving cars.

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

#727

Post by aurareturn »

vlovich123 wrote: post #586
aurareturn wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Uber lost $31b. They make about $4b/year in profit now. It'll take them 7 years to make it all back assuming they don't grow anymore.

$31b put into S&P 500 would have netted investors are more in return over the last 15 years. So honestly it was a bad deal.

And let's not forget that Uber can be killed by self driving cars.

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

#728

Post by thaumasiotes »

re-thc wrote: post #670
thaumasiotes wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First think about why it happens, and then decide whether you think this is the same.

So if I decide so it’s true? I don’t get where you’re going with your comments?

Whatever you decide is, by definition, what you believe is true. You don't seem to be particularly skilled at accurately determining what's true, but there's not much I can do about that other than providing the advice I've already given you.

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

#729

Post by Paradigma11 »

Nevermark wrote: post #317
JackYoustra wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if someone believes this, they should buy intel and just do it outright! But no one does because it's not as easy as "just think long term" - if it were, berkshire has the liquid money to buy intel several times over.

A large new powerful shareholder come in supporting long term thinking does make a difference. Public shareholders are generally short term motivated. One clear reason it doesn't make as much sense to Buffet is he wouldn't get the national security hedge that made the stock a buy for the government.

I wouldn't call those two years till the next elections long term.

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

#730

Post by camdroidw »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #724
gonzopancho wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the current administration is unlikely to help Taiwan in the event of said invasion.

Quite the opposite. Part of the reason Trump wanted to end the Russia-Ukraine war so bad was because they wanted to gear up for the "big fight". Ukraine simply wasn't a big strategic priority which is why they wanted to either end the war (best case), or shift responsibility over to Europe if that failed. Lookup Elbridge Colby - served in first Trump admin and now Undersecretary of Defense. Along with Hegseth and JD…

Elaborate a bit more on the last para, please? I know Rubio is a hawk and bannon (who Trump still talks to) wants war
Post reply on HN