Trump Confirms US Is Seeking 10% Stake In Intel (arstechnica.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: After the Trump administration confirmed a rumor that the US is planning to buy a 10 percent stake in Intel, US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) came forward Wednesday to voice support for the highly unusual plan, finding rare common ground with Donald Trump. According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the plan would see the US disbursing approved CHIPS Act grants only after acquiring non-voting shares of Intel and likely other chipmakers. That would allow the US to profit off its investment in chipmakers, Lutnick suggested, and Sanders told Reuters that he agreed American taxpayers could benefit from the potential deals.
"If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders said. While Lutnick gave Trump credit for coming up with what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described as a "creative idea that has never been done before" to protect US national and economic security, it appears that Lutnick is driving the initiative. "Lutnick has been pushing the equity idea," insiders granted anonymity previously told Reuters, "adding that Trump likes the idea."
So far, Intel has engaged in talks, while the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and other major CHIPS grant recipients like Samsung and Micron have yet to comment on the potential arrangement the Trump administration seems likely to pursue. They may possibly risk clawbacks of grants if such deals aren't made. On Wednesday, Taiwan Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-huei said his ministry would be consulting with TSMC soon, while noting that as yet, it's hard to "thoroughly understand the underlying meaning" of Lutnick's public comments. So far, Lutnick has only specified that "any potential arrangement wouldn't provide the government with voting or governance rights in Intel," dispelling fears that the US would use its ownership stake to try to control the world's most important chipmakers. Further reading: Intel is Getting a $2 Billion Investment From SoftBank
"If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders said. While Lutnick gave Trump credit for coming up with what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described as a "creative idea that has never been done before" to protect US national and economic security, it appears that Lutnick is driving the initiative. "Lutnick has been pushing the equity idea," insiders granted anonymity previously told Reuters, "adding that Trump likes the idea."
So far, Intel has engaged in talks, while the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and other major CHIPS grant recipients like Samsung and Micron have yet to comment on the potential arrangement the Trump administration seems likely to pursue. They may possibly risk clawbacks of grants if such deals aren't made. On Wednesday, Taiwan Economy Minister Kuo Jyh-huei said his ministry would be consulting with TSMC soon, while noting that as yet, it's hard to "thoroughly understand the underlying meaning" of Lutnick's public comments. So far, Lutnick has only specified that "any potential arrangement wouldn't provide the government with voting or governance rights in Intel," dispelling fears that the US would use its ownership stake to try to control the world's most important chipmakers. Further reading: Intel is Getting a $2 Billion Investment From SoftBank
For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:5, Insightful)
...likes socialism: tariffs, partial co. ownership by gov't, a co. loyalty list, telling CEO's to step down, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
dispelling fears that the US would use its ownership stake to try to control the world's most important chipmakers.
The US government is literally already telling them what to do and how to do it.
Re:For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:4, Informative)
Hm. Socialism's titular quality is social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. There's another name for a system that specifically advocates state control, through ownership or otherwise, especially of security-related industries.
Re: For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:3)
Disenfranchisement of votes takes the democracy part out of the equation. A neat and tidy centralization of industry under the Executive. The voters wanted to have a CEO running America "like a business". And fortunately for Trump, most of us aren't well read and don't recall how Italy worked in the early 20th century.
Re: For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for us, la Presidenta is an extraordinarily piss poor "CEO". He ran a Mom and Pop business and even then declared bankruptcy 6-7 times. Ma and Pa Kettle ran a tighter ship. NYS found he was cooking the books in that trial up there; it is still on appeal but that appeal will go nowhere until he leaves office or goes tits up. He found that he could bamboozle banks and insurance companies out of money, but the NYS judge wasn't ready to listen to his whiny excuses.
Speaking of going tits up, he's now trying to work God into allowing him entry into heaven....claims saving 7000 people a day should count. He was no problem shipping 7000 migrants a day out of the country when their only crime was working for a living, paying taxes, raising families, i.e., all the things the Christian Right honks on about. Too bad for the migrants they aren't white. He has no problem with Israelis killing Palestinians to help keep Natanyahu out of jail. And he has no problem with Russian killing Ukrainians because they want to.
Re: For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, people tend to forget that Trump was mostly just a TV star and influencer who used 'business' as his gimmick.
Before that, he was a Nepo baby child rapist.
If he had invested his inheritance in index funds he would have made more money than with all of his scams. Those scams led to the presidency because people thought he was successful (he wasn't) and their religion is prosperity. God loves him because he made a lot of money! Except he didn't, but they ignore that part because it interferes with the narrative they want to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the trains ran on time.
Sorta. Mostly due to stuff that happened before Mussolini came to power, but all very convenient to take credit for, while blaming any bad stuff on someone else. Wait a minute....
Re: (Score:2)
A one third success rate is pretty good for an entrepreneur. It's going to be a terrible success rate for a world power.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. Socialism's titular quality is social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. There's another name for a system that specifically advocates state control, through ownership or otherwise, especially of security-related industries.
I'm not an expert, but I think you're confusing socialism with communism. The way I think of it: a socialist system runs everything, whereas a communist system owns everything. I welcome comments and corrections on this.
Re:For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:4, Informative)
He's talking about fascism, not communism. Sheesh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are not well defined terms really, but for example the USSR was a state socialist system where the state owned and operated every significant business and controlled the market and prices etc. on behalf of the people. We know how well that went in the end, but the system did run for decades.
In communism, the state neither owns or runs anything. Instead communes (small workers collectives) own and run their local business. The state is only there to manage things that small communes can't, like foreign
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds naive. Especially the last part "Ideally in an advanced communism system, the state can eventually be abolished. This is an obvious utopia."
You are always going to have asshole countries that want to run things their way or aggressive countries that will commit land grabs on their neighbors. The list of poor relations is not a short one.
I suppose if by advanced, we mean an AI supercomputer with robots that just provided everything for everyone and some how we all just get along because all our nee
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds naive. Especially the last part "Ideally in an advanced communism system, the state can eventually be abolished. This is an obvious utopia."
Well, it is indeed naive. Tragically, communist ideology truly believed that was an achievable and inevitable end goal, tragically to the point of being the end of millions of lives in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I think of it: a socialist system runs everything, whereas a communist system owns everything.
Not quite. Communism and Socialism are part of several spectra regarding social ownership of the means of production, management or disposition of resources. Different flavors of socialism have aims that are gradual, and have no problem integrating with capitalism so long as social objectives are achieved.
The different flavors Communism, oth, have tended to call for more radical transformation that require a monopoly on political systems and the means of production (which have always led to horrific resul
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few right angles or polar opposites in political-economic theory. The simple version is that socialism emphasises social ownernship of the means of production (the means of produciton are tools, machines, that sort of thing), and equitable distribution of resources. Communism sees socialism as the first step, abolishing social classes, and follows it up with abolition of the state. It's sort of socialism meets anarchism, which is not surprising since communism grew out of alliances between so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There ain't no such thing, especially not if one entity owns enough. There's "voting on the record at the annual meeting" stock and other kinds.
Re: (Score:2)
He's trying to put Socialism back into NASI
Re:For an "anti-socialist" he sure (Score:4, Interesting)
This is classic *fascism*, not socialism. How can people be so utterly unaware of the specific policies associated with the major political ideologies of the last several decades? It was literally one of the main tenets of Italian fascism and was very prominent in Nazi Germany too. And of course Putin's Russia, too. Getting big corporations to toe the line in return for profits has been a part of the fascist playbook forever.
Re: (Score:1)
Fascism uses a degree of socialism. Companies which kiss the dictator's ass get favors.
Re: (Score:2)
No, fascism doesn't use a degree of socialism. This makes no more sense than saying a plane uses a degree of car because both have wheels with tyres, or are made of metal. Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with companies kissing dictators' asses to get favours. At least in traditional or state socialism, the state owns the means of production, not through golden shares or equity stakes, but in the form of wholly-state-owned enterprises. Things like Aeroflot or VEB Sachsenring (made the Trabant car)
Re: (Score:2)
You’re missing the point: carbon is a precursor to both diamonds and DNA, but DNA doesn’t have a bit of diamond in it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once the rich get their cut and the religious can use the state to force their hierarchy on others, it magically isn't communism or evil anymore, even if everything else is exactly the same.
Military parts (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...likes socialism: tariffs, partial co. ownership by gov't, a co. loyalty list, telling CEO's to step down, etc.
He's a fascist. He wants control.
Fascists are quite happy to sell you things, unlike communists who will give you things (except the things you actually want or need).
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just give you the Google AI overview, when you type "socialism definition" and "fascism ownership of companies":
Socialism: Socialism is an economic and political system where the people collectively own or control the means of production, rather than private individuals or corporations. It's characterized by social ownership of resources and a focus on equality and public welfare, often achieved through government or state control of key industries and resources. So
Re: (Score:2)
By those definitions, which sound correct to me, we've more or less been a fascist country for the past 4 decades. Paton was right when he said we should of just kept on driving to Moscow.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not socialism. Its just another pump and dump. Raise the price, let his pals get out while the government is holding the bag, and declare bankruptcy. Hack it to pieces and sell it to private equity. And if we are lucky, we can get that bill passed that lets 401ks hold private equity so we can pump and dump it again.
Its not about socialistic ideology, its defense .. (Score:2)
For an "anti-socialist" he sure likes socialism ...
Not really. The action is not motivated by socialistic ideology. It is motivated by having a gov't presence in a company that is considered critical to the national defense supply chain. And also monitoring interaction with the military supply chains of other nations.
Its like the "golden share" the US Gov't holds in US Steel, where it gets a member on the Board of Directors.
It's all about monitoring and influencing decisions from the inside. IFF the gov't restricts its concerns to actually military su
Re: (Score:2)
it's fascism
No, it's not. Hint: Fascism is not whatever you dislike. Now go forth and be a little less a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to see what the backlash is. There are enough races for the Senate happening that in theory, a major backlash could give them 69 seats in the Senate, if they won every single senate race. Obviously the entire House is open every cycle, so it's possible the Democrats could get a super majority. They could remove Trump from office. The last two impeachments the Republicans controlled the Senate, making it virtue signaling and nothing else. With more then 66 Democrats in the Senate, you would get t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Small ... (Score:3)
I thought republicans were the party of small government .. Obviously i was mistaken he wants to be everywhere and anywhere he finds a hole. I blame Melania for not giving him " any " :D
Re: (Score:2)
I thought republicans were the party of small government
I, too, was dropped on my head several times as an infant.
Re:Small ... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought republicans were the party of small government
They still are, it's just that the current generation want to shrink the government until it's just one man.
Re: (Score:3)
They still are, it's just that the current generation want to shrink the government until it's just one man.
One very damaged, confused, selfish, angry felon of a man.
Re: (Score:2)
its good to be a tyrant
Until they kill your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought republicans were the party of small government
They still are, it's just that the current generation want to shrink the government until it's just one man.
One man plus a few million jackbooted thugs.
Mixed feelings. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not against the US Government taking a stake in corporations in return for investments. I am against altering the deal after the fact. Pray I do not alter it further...
The CHIPS Act did not contain a provision for taking a stake in the companies benefiting from the investment. The idea was that the United States would benefit from the increased economic activity and domestic production facilities being funded. The Act required that companies meet milestones of development and employment targets in order to claim funds -no payouts in advance. Applications were tendered. Deals were signed. Work begun.
This should be done as an additional agreement in exchange for additional funding under a new Congressional Appropriations Act, not as an alteration of the existing deals authorized under the CHIPS Act.
Understanding Graft, and why it's bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Graft, at least in the US parlance, is when a government official provides government funding to enhance the viability of a private enterprise, while simultaneously investing in that enterprise themselves, and making a killing on the return from that investment, through leveraging the stability and exclusivity of the government's financial contributions to the success of that enterprise.
Why it is bad:
Investing in companies in this manner creates necessary exclusivities which gives unfair market advantages to the recipient of the graft's financial capital. It also creates a quid pro quo relationship between the government official that created the deal, and the enterprise that accepted it, which can be exploited in any number of truly devious and heinous ways.
Now--
If the government wants to support struggling American chip foundries, they can universally invest across the board, while simultaneously imposing a hard rule against *ANY AND ALL* public servants privately investing at the same time.
This, at least in theory, removes the majority of the reasons why the dealmaking is *BAD*. (not all, just most).
Since our legislators balk at the idea of ANY AND ALL forms of *restriction* to their investment activities while in office, and since Pres Trump seems *incapable* of understanding that Quid Pro Quo is *BAD*, I have to come out very much against the government *INVESTING* in companies in this manner.
Re:Understanding Graft, and why it's bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Understanding Graft, and why it's bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And the South will rise again, along with the Pacific States of America splintering off. It could happen. It is just highly unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting for "We're Not Trump" didn't go so well last time. I think more people vote for something rather than against something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Herring.
Graft is a problem whether or not the government takes a stake in companies getting funding under the CHIPS Act.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not against the US Government taking a stake in corporations in return for investments. I am against altering the deal after the fact. Pray I do not alter it further...
"So far, Intel has engaged in talks, while the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and other major CHIPS grant recipients like Samsung and Micron have yet to comment on the potential arrangement the Trump administration seems likely to pursue. They may possibly risk clawbacks of grants if such deals aren't made."
This is quite disturbing. Americans rightfully blame Foxconn for not fulfilling their end of the deal in Wisconsin. Now, Trump is threatening to not fulfill the government's end of t
Re: (Score:2)
Forget about the courts, la Presidenta has already shown that his alleged administration will not listen to them. We have demented easily frightened chicken for a president.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not against the US Government taking a stake in corporations in return for investments. I am against altering the deal after the fact. Pray I do not alter it further...
The CHIPS Act did not contain a provision for taking a stake in the companies benefiting from the investment. The idea was that the United States would benefit from the increased economic activity and domestic production facilities being funded. The Act required that companies meet milestones of development and employment targets in order to claim funds -no payouts in advance. Applications were tendered. Deals were signed. Work begun.
This should be done as an additional agreement in exchange for additional funding under a new Congressional Appropriations Act, not as an alteration of the existing deals authorized under the CHIPS Act.
The CHIPS act had no teeth, as most government handing money to corporations moves in the US have no teeth. Sure, there are milestones that are supposed to be met, but when the money gets handed to executives as bonuses instead, or used for stock buybacks, there's no real recourse, and no provision for getting the money back. I rarely have anything positive to say about the Trump administration, but this is something I've wanted to see for a long, long time. If taxpayers are forced to continually throw thei
Re: (Score:2)
I am not against the US Government taking a stake in corporations in return for investments.
America has truly fallen. *sigh*
Go with yourself brother. Preach Fascism to the masses. Eventually, the government will own all corporations.
Instant Communism (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, there is a good idea for the US to invest in US stocks. Specifically by buying the S&P 500. That has 99% of the benefits Trump claims to want, without any of the problems buying one particular company has
Here are the list of problems with buying 1 company I thought of in 5 minutes of thought
1) Definitive conflict of interest with other American companies competing with Intel. Will the US army use only Intel chips? Trump is the kind of shmuck that claims he has no conflict of interest when they clearly do exist.
2) Intel has been losing money and losing value for a decade. Why would we possibly buy a piece of crap that is losing money? Unless he intends to cheat and boost it with US tax pay money.
3) Will other countries trust the intel chips? The US does not trust Chinese technology because we know they put in back doors. Suddenly Intel could be forbidden for government use in all other countries.
4) This is outright communism. The government owning a business, forcing other American companies to compete with the US? Yeah, that is communism.
Re:Instant Communism (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, forgot the information backing up my opinion.
The largest current intuitional owner of Intel is Rafferty Asset Management it owns 0.443% of Intel. Less than one half of one percent.
Buying 10% of Intel is not an investment, it is an ownership position. As in they would get a man on the board, probably being able to pick the chairman. And there is no way I would trust the US government to forgo this control - not even if we had a President that did not think he was King.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, forgot the information backing up my opinion.
The largest current intuitional owner of Intel is Rafferty Asset Management it owns 0.443% of Intel. Less than one half of one percent.
Buying 10% of Intel is not an investment, it is an ownership position. As in they would get a man on the board, probably being able to pick the chairman. And there is no way I would trust the US government to forgo this control - not even if we had a President that did not think he was King.
And if you think Intel's current management are bad, wait until you see the disaster when they're appointed by Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
The government owning a business, forcing other American companies to compete with the US? Yeah, that is communism.
No, that's fascism. In communism there jhst wouldnt be any competition allowed.
That's just a nit pick though, you're on point with the rest of your post. The US going into business like this is not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that this is concerning but I'm not quite at your level of concern with the "this will end in blood" part outside of maybe some BLM style riots like we saw in his first term. Basically, at this point I still expect power to transfer to a new administration without the need for a civil war although I do still expect a good bit of dishonesty to come up in regards to our elections for the next few years. I still have faith in our guardrails holding like they did last time though. For instance, the Supr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems likely to hit major questions doctrine (Score:4, Interesting)
The SCOTUS has been increasingly using the major questions doctrine [congress.gov] to limit executive action. The major questions doctrine, for those just joining, says that if the President wants to make a substantial and nationally significant decision about how to interpret a law, that interpretation must be supported by clear language in the bill indicating that was Congress' intent.
In this case, the CIHPS act was passed to give money away. It does not say anything about buying a stake in the company. That seems like a pretty large change to me. If Congress wanted to buy companies, they could have clearly said so in the bill.
That said, I haven't read the CHIPS act to maybe there's some ambiguous language.
Supreme Court has been using (Score:3)
It does not apply to Republican presidents.
I don't think people realize that every single institution meant to protect you has failed. The final line of defense was the voters and they failed spectacularly.
Bad things are about to come. Barring a miracle where the courts stop him, which is mentioned above is extremely unlikely, prices are going to skyrocket in October because businesses have burned through the stocks they built up w
Re: (Score:2)
The majorquestions doctrine increasingly for Democrat presidents.
According to the Wiki article [wikipedia.org] about it, it's only really been in use since around 2000. It seems it really picked up steam around 2010. Near as I can tell, the current SCOTUS really believes Congress has to be explicit in delegating authority.
I don't think the doctrine has been in play long enough to say who it affects more. Problem is, many cases take years to hit SCOTUS so the president causing the problem may be long gone by the time a decision is handed down.
Given that every POTUS this century has been
I repeat, um ... (Score:5, Informative)
From my post when Trump was just *considering* this, Um... [slashdot.org]
Didn't Republicans basically lose their collective minds when Obama approved a loan for Solyndra, claiming the government shouldn't, "pick winners and losers," and in 2024, didn't Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) blast the Biden SBA saying, "“The levers of government should never be used to pick winners and losers based on political priorities." for expanding the Green Lending Initiative?
Ernst to Biden-Harris SBA: Stop Playing Politics, Picking Winners and Losers [senate.gov]
Guess it's okay now though, for some reason? /s
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
but this is a good step at ending corporate welfare.
No, it's not. It is corporate welfare with a kickback. Don't pretend it's anything else and don't try to justify it.
Intel has been making terrible corporate decisions for several decades now. In an actual free market it should either solve its problems, sell its assets to others, or be relegated to the scrap heap of corporate history as an object lesson to others of what not to do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm very aware that it's easy to turn something like that into a totalitarian fascist paradise, because once the government controls the companies, they can do it for good or evil. Once you have power, you can wield it how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the stock market doesn't seem to be okay with it yet, anyway. I guess time will tell on that...
Re: (Score:1)
Right wingers are simply biologically and physically incapable of experiencing the mix of shame and self-awareness that comes with hypocrisy. They are utterly immune to the emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more than merely being incapable. They have understood that shamelessness is a political superpower. They luxuriate in it, they wield it effectively, and the centre and left seem completely incapable of developing a meaningful response, at least in the US and much of western Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives are against anything that benefits anyone besides themselves. The justification is whatever they can think of. They were in favor of race-based selection .. "freedom of selecting employees" when it was blacks being discriminated against. Now that they feel the pendulum has swung the other way its "racist policies are wrong".
No this is not creative (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They don't so much as stand for things as they stand against certain classes of people...
The Tea Party won and consumed the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism, according to Google: In fascist economies, private ownership of companies often remained but was heavily subordinated to state direction and control. Fascist systems, such as Italy under Mussolini, implemented corporatism, where government bodies and state-controlled corporations managed industries, coordinated production, and directed labor to serve national interests, effectively merging state and corporate power. Even when companies remained privately owned, their activities were
How the mighty have fallen (Score:3)
Yes, this is an epitaph. Intel did so much to advance the microprocessor and PC world, yet also did so much to hold it back. Never respectful of the law, only leery of it, Intel's recidivist collusion with Microsoft built the greatest cartel in human history, making multi-billionaires of numerous retainers. Intel was successful that they came to believe the fiction that any stratagem concocted in their exalted executive suite must be correct, because industry dominance proves it. And so Intel came to believe their tick tock engineering cycle was the key to their perennial dominance, whereas in fact the cornerstone had always been their illegal monopoly.
Intel traveled merrily down the road to ruin, steadfastly clinging to the fanciful idea that proprietary process technology would ensure the longevity of their empire. It didn't. Intel had to learn the hard way that Wintel PC monopoly alone could not sustain the technological pace necessary to hold back even AMD, let alone the entire mobile phone market.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah Intel is dead. Again. I'm sure you wrote an epitaph for them in 2006 as well. The entire industry has been one of a game of leapfrog. Today AMD is champion. Give them a few more year to rest on their laurels and we'll write and epitaph for them while Intel dominates the market. Then in 2040 we can recycle this comment you just made and post it again for Intel.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a bit of zombie yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Uah tell me about it. 3 coffees in today and I want to go back to bed.
Re: (Score:1)
Today AMD is champion. Give them a few more year to rest on their laurels and we'll write and epitaph for them while Intel dominates the market.
AMD doesn't have the luxury of resting on anything because there is always the threat of something ARM-based eating their lunch if they do that.
There's no obvious path to success for Intel, so pre-celebrating their victorious return to the top is insensible. They failed at 18A (yields are shit) and they are in the midst of failing at 14A (yields are reputably shit) so they certainly aren't going to do it in the primary way they used to do it, superior process technology. And now that everyone knows the seco
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean they won't. ARM has currently a tiny rounding error of market share in AMD's operating markets. They very much can miss the boat on this. To be clear I hope they won't, but history does not look favourably on these companies. Look how AMD basically ceded the GPU market to NVIDIA.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful about drinking your own koolaid. AMD's data center market share has risen from roughly zero to 5-10% with revenue growing 57% yoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Providing chips to the government is at least a path forward for Intel.
So Intel had a history of selling moderate performance chips for moderate prices. It also introduced them after the premium chips but before the cheap ones arrived. But 64-Bit is the ceiling, since general purpose 128-Bit chips lose performance due to cache misses.
Intel [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Providing chips to the government is at least a path forward for Intel.
I would view it more as a dead end, and a legal minefield.
Reasonable rate of return (Score:2)
....the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment,"
Really? Then how about investing Social Security Trust Funds in private equity, instead of giving the federal govt a sweetheart deal and requiring the funds to be "loaned" to the Federal Government, via the required purchase of non-negotiatable government bonds which earn an absolutely miserable rate of return?
Re: (Score:2)
Congress wants to rip off Social Security. Or rather they did decades ago. There's nothing left now but low yield debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not limited to Social Security. Congress wants to rip off anyone it thinks it can get away with ripping off.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But when it came to Social Security, it was engineered from the ground up to rip people off. Who sets up a retirement program that only kicks in after you reach the average age of mortality? Someone that doesn't plan to pay out that's who. Then penicillin etc. happened and the rest is history.
At least taxation or excess borrowing of capital has the chance of being beneficial (as mitigation against the obvious downsides). Social Security was designed to only pay out to a few lucky souls that outli
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'll die son, age 55 or 56 for sure. Getting screwed.
isn't the involvement of Chinese gov in the chip m (Score:3)
isn't the involvement of Chinese gov in the chip manufacturing what makes them a national security risk to source chips from those manufacturers... if the US government has financial ties like this, not sure about the message being sent to the world about the security of the stuff coming out of Intel. They could have done this in many other ways... low interest loans and assistance in developing manufacturing in the US... guarantee of amount of purchases to ensure the manufacturing hits the scales needed to be financially viable.
Instead, the idea is to invest billions in the company to maybe build facilities, employ a few hundred workers, and hopefully operate plants for decades... while now also buying stock to help prop it up.... Intel has lost money and is dropping in value... why are they now putting more bad money after bad money...
lots of other manufacturers exist... fund domestic start ups... create an environment for them to develop and grow...
this just seems like flushing a huge pile of cash down the drain with minimal chance of any benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
Please mod the parent comment up. I don't have any mod points right now, or I would have done so.
Thank you, Jayhawk0123, for a cogent and clear summation of the approaches the US government ought to take to help a struggling company deemed important to the nation, whether for national security, financial, technological, or social benefit reasons.
I also want to note that (as magzteel noted previously), contrary to the assertion by the White House Press Secretary, the concept of the US government buying stock
I would normally be in favor of this (Score:1)
Like how we have to give in till tens of billions of dollars because we need domestic chip making facilities in the event of a war or the inevitable second pandemic.
But I wouldn't trust this administration any further and I can chunk the head of its fat ass. And I'm an old guy with a bad back.
There is no way this doesn't just turn in
Either way it's a bailout (Score:2)
Either the Feds give away money to Intel or they get some shares in the company. Not much difference. If it works, it'll be like the GM bailout.
creative idea that has never been done before (Score:2)
FTA: "While Lutnick gave Trump credit for coming up with what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described as a "creative idea that has never been done before" to protect US national and economic security, it appears that Lutnick is driving the initiative."
Leavitt is wrong, it has been done before. Via the CIP program of 2008 the US Treasury bought billions of dollars in dividend-paying perpetual preferred shares of Wall Street banks, and received stock warrants as well. The US taxpayers profited
Neckbeard summary (Score:2)
State interference in IT? (Score:1)