Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Intel

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#91

Post by dwarksidle »

9dev wrote: post #34
dwarksidle wrote: post #4

[dead]

Icarus is flying high this time of year, it seems. Don't forget that some of these traditional business minds have seen the Soviet's planned economy crumble in real-time not too long ago. They may also have taken note how virtually all human-managed funds tend to do worse over time than market-driven index funds. Make of that what you will; the arrogance of some people to assume they know better than anyone else sure…

> Make of that what you will; the arrogance of some people to assume they know better than anyone else sure is stunning.

So you make this comment right after making a really reductive, ignorant comment on the Soviet planned economy collapse?

Yeah I'm 49. I was there. Watched Soviet Union fall on live TV. Berlin wall too. After years of intentional outside effort to force it to fall.

Market-driven has worked because media told everyone it has to work, and no other nations were strong enough to exert outside influence until modern China came along.

Tell everyone the Soviet economy must work without outside influence to collapse it, does it still collapse?

You're shipping propaganda of your culture.

Re: US Intel

#93

Post by bilbo0s »

slt2021 wrote: post #78
bilbo0s wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More an alternative way of controlling capital. If you wanted to tax capital via equity stakes, you'd simply have demanded a much larger stake. What we're doing is starting down the road of "capitalism with Chinese characteristics". It's a tacit admission that the Chinese model can be effective at achieving a nation's strategic economic goals. (More effective than the model we previously championed.) The real flip si…

10% is not a controlling stake, and US already controls Intel via regulation. Most importantly, Intel's market cap is minuscule $100 bln, it doesnt allow control over meaningful amount of capital Socialism with Chinese characteristics - it reduces private wealth and curbs control of oligarchs like Jack Ma. I feel like US is the opposite, where oligarchs directly control the government already

Sorry, I believe I've been misapprehended.

I didn't mean the intent is to control Intel's capital.

I meant controlling capital flows. In this particular case, controlling the flow of capital in a strategic sector out to TSMC et al. The idea is that regulation, state backed companies, etc etc all concert to oblige the market to keep those capital flows inside of your jurisdiction.

China does the same. It's extraordinarily difficult to exfiltrate capital from China. One of the only ways to do it is to turn the capital into products and exfiltrate those products out of China in place of the capital.

I think, long term, the US wants the same sort of environment over here.

Re: US Intel

#94

Post by qwytw »

scarface_74 wrote: post #52
wat10000 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel was the best until fairly recently. Then they still looked like the best to a non-expert observer, and then still looked at least competitive until even more recently. The modern world changes too fast for our governments to adapt to. Especially when we're talking about state of the art semiconductors and our leader was born before the invention of the transistor.

Intel hasn’t been “the best” since the world cared more about mobile in 2010. There GPUs have always been also ran. It just wasn’t a big deal until crypto and later machine learning. Even for integrated graphics, Intel has been behind Apple’s/TSMC ARM based processor before the Mx based Macs.

Well on desktop and server they pretty much had no competition until the late 2010s or so. So they were the best by default.

Re: US Intel

#95

Post by bix6 »

franktankbank wrote: post #42
zoeysmithe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a real folly in capitalist countries thinking they can be self-sufficient walled castles. Capitalism by its nature will seek out the lowest cost be it in labor or manufacturing. That means often means outsourcing. Our system has no breaks for this. In fact it works actively for this, hence the neolib ideal of "just move towards efficiencies, and let the chips fall where they may." This is ideal under capitali…

Efficiency is in tension with resilience. I think the pursuit of efficiency at the high end results in a less efficient system because of all the second order effects.

I like that framing. I also think it’s a disservice to only think in terms of capital efficiency since who really cares how efficient your capital is if you can’t produce food when there’s a shock?

Re: US Intel

#96

Post by mallets »

minkzilla wrote: post #79
mvc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all advanced countries follow this reasoning, where does that leave us?

Robust and redundant manufacturing spread across the world with more opportunity for innovation?

Trillions of dollars spent just for redundancy? Most wouldn't even succeed in building a working process, forget profitable.

Re: US Intel

#97

Post by readthenotes1 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #90
themgt wrote: post #7

I’ll be honest: there is a very good chance this won’t work .... At the same time, the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for t…

Perhaps then fabs should be considered important enough for the US then that a new entity, perhaps not unlike NASA, is created to create and run these.

NASA seems to outsource a lot. Would you like Boeing to create the fab next door to you? What could go wrong??

Re: US Intel

#98

Post by marbro »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #72
zoeysmithe wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a real folly in capitalist countries thinking they can be self-sufficient walled castles. Capitalism by its nature will seek out the lowest cost be it in labor or manufacturing. That means often means outsourcing. Our system has no breaks for this. In fact it works actively for this, hence the neolib ideal of "just move towards efficiencies, and let the chips fall where they may." This is ideal under capitali…

> Nationalism/protectionism and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible Huh? France and Germany are prime counter examples of your statement.

[dead]

Re: US Intel

#99

Post by qwytw »

cubefox wrote: post #80

Maybe it's worth noting that the new CEO's explosive statement, Intel would give up development of leading edge nodes (14A and beyond) unless they find a large external customer in advance, hardly got any attention on Hacker News or other websites. But that was almost certainly the reason the US administration got involved. This blog post thankfully makes this point clear. In the past, most people (including myself)…

> But that was almost certainly the reason the US administration got involved

Now the US government can coerce Nvidia, Apple or someone to use Intel's fabs with no real political repercussions...

Re: US Intel

#100

Post by vonneumannstan »

zoeysmithe wrote: post #15
themgt wrote: post #7

I’ll be honest: there is a very good chance this won’t work .... At the same time, the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for t…

There's a real folly in capitalist countries thinking they can be self-sufficient walled castles. Capitalism by its nature will seek out the lowest cost be it in labor or manufacturing. That means often means outsourcing. Our system has no breaks for this. In fact it works actively for this, hence the neolib ideal of "just move towards efficiencies, and let the chips fall where they may." This is ideal under capitali…

>Also what exactly happens if intel goes under? We have to buy 'foreign' licensed ARM? Manufacture in Asia? We're already doing that. And we have AMD which is a good, if not, superior product, regardless of manufacturing locale. We don't need local fabs the same way we don't need local factories for a lot of other things. You can't just depress wages with a wave of a hand nor do tariffs work outside of some really focused edge cases.

This is the same short sighted nonsense that got us into this mess. What happens if China invades Taiwan tomorrow? They can cut off the supply of chips to most of the world and global economies will collapse overnight. You really haven't thought through the implications of having critical dependence on a single small island that a global power is incredibly invested in controlling.

Post reply on HN