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

751–760 of 765 posts

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

#751

Post by immibis »

saagarjha wrote: post #731
ivewonyoung wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How do you switch away from a company that has a monopoly in your area?

You're on a forum for startup founders. Found a startup.

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

#752

Post by chneu »

tbrownaw wrote: post #235
chneu wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GF is a few nodes behind. Micron doesn't make semiconductors, they mostly make flash and whatnot. TI doesn't have the capacity or knowledge to expand to Intel's size/capacity

> doesn't make semiconductors, they mostly make flash and whatnot Um. All that stuff is still semiconductors, just with different patterns printed on them.

This is a very wrong take.

Fabs run on data. It takes years to gather that data.

Fabs can't just be repurposed overnight. Yields must be good, which takes data, equipment, etc which is all extremely specialized.

Very ignorant take.

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

#753

Post by webninja »

frollogaston wrote: post #559
BurningFrog wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the government didn't pay anything for these shares.

"purchasing 433.3 million shares at a price of $20.47 per share" in the article. That was the price a day or so ago

From my understanding, these funds were already approved by the Biden Administration via the Chips act and another. Our president managed to obtain 10% of the shares for this money that was already going to intel in exchange for removing a clawback provision stipulated by the Chip’s act.

Norway has an incredible sovereign wealth fund that funds many benefits for its citizens. Perhaps if the Intel dividends are used for social security benefits, there will be bipartisan cheering.

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

#754

Post by webninja »

rpmisms wrote: post #539
mplewis wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just another Trump shakedown. Nothing to see here.

It's extremely good business for the US. Trump doesn't get to take this with him.

Geez, they shouldn’t have downvoted you for expressing a positive viewpoint :/

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

#756

Post by webninja »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #277
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 agree. In fact, I think the government should own all utilities like they do in more socialist countries. It gets rid of price gouging, and the stabilizes the market in things that are necessary for human life. The natural resources of the country should belong to all of us. Not just a select few.

I visited a South American country where the water utility was recently sold to a private corporation. The home I briefly visited had a large water barrel inside because the water now shut off for many hours of the day, including the hours I was visiting.

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

#757

Post by webninja »

anon291 wrote: post #338
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…

The government is not 'bailing' Intel out. Intel's CPU business is profitable. Their manufacturing is not. America gave intel grants to build better manufacturing to secure America's national security interests. Congress did not authorize any acquisition of Intel shares. All the talk about this from a business / investment side leaves out the simple fact that this is not actually authorized by anyone with the power t…

That might not all be true. Another comment above here claims the shares came from Intel’s own unsold stock of shares thus not causing any dilution.

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

#758

Post by webninja »

rpmisms wrote: post #535
softwaredoug wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “our president made a deal!” part of it makes me skeptical of actual long term patterns past a Trump administration. While not walked back completely, a lot of what Trump does is minimized and scaled back after the initial theatrical moment. Still in a bad place, but usually some TACO moment happens. And then, in the end, it’s some executive action that lasts as long as the current president is in power.

Democrats will not walk this one back. Having a stake in a hugely important industry is valuable. Being able to directly shape Intel's path is going to be historically important.

During a democrat presidency, when the citizens complain about the ballooning debt and underfunded social programs like social security, I expect they will sell the stock. Not necessarily for those reasons but because Trump bought it and this was a convenient excuse.

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

#759

Post by vel0city »

mempko wrote: post #750
vel0city wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're wrong because it wasn't some bailout it was a normal government loan available to to a wide range of companies. I'm not Tesla stan but it's massively misrepresenting the loan to call it a bailout. It's the kind of market investing the government should be doing, underwriting somewhat riskier loans to push the envelope on technology. https://www.energy.gov/lpo/advanced-technology-vehicles-manu...

What would have happened to Tesla without the loan? You don't think the DOE loan department had no idea of their finances? A bailout by another name is called?

If a bakery goes to a bank and gets a loan to fix their ovens is that a bailout?

Things like TARP bailouts and the auto industry bailout were weird one-off programs with very narrow beneficiaries that nobody else really had access to. This loan program in question is a normal, long standing program that anyone can apply for and has funded a lot of different things. Do you not see a difference between these?

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

#760

Post by itsmorelike »

tw04 wrote: post #696
woleium wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying that if intel went under, Musk or some other wouldn’t buy the assets and have a go?

...no? Did you see me say nobody would buy the assets in a scenario where Intel was actually going bankrupt? I said if by some magic Intel ceased to exist tomorrow, there wouldn't be some startup just filling the gap. So the idea that government investment in Intel somehow prevents a startup competitor is just nonsense. To compete with Intel would require trillions in investment and probably a decade+ of time to buil…

It's more like, large inefficient company covering 10% of the market shuts down, all other companies grow 10% on average.
Post reply on HN