U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
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 investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.
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.
Our lifespan is lower because we’re fat.
And people wonder why populism came back. Huge transfers of wealth aren't about 'fairness', its about preventing greater economic problems that the people who received the bailout say will happen if they don't get bailed out.
At the end of the day, this line of thought is going to fuck over the country far more than any depression would.
Imagine if the DMV and passport services had even the possibility of competition like a private company has. You bet all of a sudden the service would get much faster and better and with fewer mistakes and red tape with the same or fewer number of employees. Or someone would set up a competitor and imagine how many people would even pay extra just to not waste several hours of their time.
It's tax payer money so there is a lot more waste than even at big private companies. For example, the costs to just administer and operate the social security administration(not including any money paid out to recipients) is $15 billion dollars with a big B. There is no incentive for anyone to save the tax payer any money and there would be a huge pushback from govt contractors, unions and employeees. See how much hate DOGE gets for even proposing cuts or higher efficiencies.
Any large IT project in the government in almost any country and at any goverment costs huge amounts while not returning much value if any. Look at the state and costs of local metro stations and trains in almost any city.
For example, a quick Google search shows administrative overhead as around 0.5% of benefits: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...
https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci...
> The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns
For the main system they're still using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.
I have a feeling you might enjoy that book as it goes into a LOT of detail about government dysfunction with respect to software.
I found the book eye opening and personally it provided me with some new perspective.
I don't think many people believed DOGE was ever intended to improve government efficiency in any real sense.
But part of that is lack of competition. I can't really switch to a different insurance company, because the one I am with is heavily subsidized by my employer.
USPS has also been great overall.
> USPS has also been great overall
USPS is an independent agency which is funded by its own fees charged to users, not taxpayer money. It's not like the other agencies.
From Wiki:
> The USPS is often mistaken for a state-owned enterprise or government-owned corporation (e.g., Amtrak) because it operates much like a business
It's also far from a monopoly unlike most other govt agencies and has competition in the form of UPS, Fedex, DHL, Amazon etc.
So it's not surprising that it runs better, if it loses user fees, it directly affects the bottomline and thus would have to downsize, no blank check from the taxpayer like other agencies have.
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.
I have zero leverage on AT&T.
Some services can be government-operated or private. Trash collection is one of them, for example. I lived in many cities, and municipal trash collection companies were always better and not any more expensive.
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 from companies, it happens all the time, companies lose and gain customers all the time. Bad or mediocre service has killed many companies, the effect is far greater than on governments because they get to fund themselves from you even if you don't like or want them. Govt is the ultimate monopoly.
It's not acceptable at all to make private companies look bad.
> The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns
https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci...
And that's just one instance.
Can you imagine raising $288 million from VCs for a software application while delivering so little?
But taxpayer money? Free and easy money to keep wasting coz no one cares. Tragedy of the commons.
For the main system they're also using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.
Yes, absolutely. I think you might be overestimating VC’s a little bit.
What? You're imagining VCs caring about pizza money? Should I mention, perhaps, the AOL-TimeWarner merger? Or maybe AT&T buying DirecTV for $50B and essentially giving it away for $8B?
Heck, I was a part of an utterly failed project with a $150m budget (in 2005), in a large European company.
> For the main system they're also using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.
And? They haven't missed a single payment day in all their existence, moving data between multiple types of media. While working with staff levels that won't even qualify as "skeleton" in plenty of companies.
Was it a just a somewhat complex CRUD app like the SSA example or most govt IT projects? Or were you guys trying for something more complicated and innovative and failed?
The hardware to deploy it was alone a couple of million. At least, I got to play with some rather cool gear (for that time).
Also Theranos was aiming for something very innovative that still does not exist, whereas the govt IT systems are essentially glorified CRUD apps(no doubt complicated and with tricky integrations and need for reliability and security). It's an example where VCs could've exerted more scrutiny but chose not to and wasted their own money, hopefully a lesson learnt. As taxpayers, we have far fewer options, we cannot just pass on paying out hard earned money if we don't want to "invest".
Another example, the Queensland payroll system cost $1.2 billion over 8 years to develop, repair and maintain, to pay just 87K people. The initial estimated budget? $6.9 million.
I worked both in the area of molecular biology and bioinformatics with some pretty nifty technology (which was later acquired by a large company). And in the area of giant ERP applications that are nothing but tons of boring forms.
I can confidently say that the complexity of ERP apps dwarfs anything that is needed for molecular biology.
I think you should be aware that “proposing cuts” is not why people why DOGE got hate. I find it disappointing that serious people believe that.
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.
No company is going to come out of someone’s garage and build a chip fab.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/semiconductors/ta...
are you worried that china will invade taiwan, and then somehow taiwan will still be around to prevent the US fabs from making the best chips?
its a bit far fetched
the threat Taiwan faces is existential, and one of the only things that the US has at stake are these chips
The very subsidies Intel now has to pay with shares for? How is that a subsidy? Companies now and in the future would be very concerned before taking any US subsidies because the terms can always change after the fact.
If it were that easy, Apple, Amazon, Google AMD, Nvidia, etc who all design their own chips would have done it.
Companies are run to make a profit… they don’t care about sovereignty as long as the money is coming in.
BUT - all you then need to do is create a Delaware LLC that buys the strategic stock, which is owned by $SCARY_FOREIGNERS
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.
There is no amount of scrappy cleverness that gets you from zero to manufacturing cutting-edge chips without shitloads of capital investment, years/decades of R&D, a huge manufacturing workforce, and big contracts.
There's no such thing as starting small and scaling in that business.
That wasn't the question. The question, at least for me, is can you build non-zero chip production, enough to start building out a sustainable business. Obviously you're not going to compete with TSMC on day one, but there's a wide spectrum between that and "garage".
https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/how-to-build-a-20-billion...
He kind of had everything going: extremely clever and motivated, cooperation with his parents (who also worked in the industry), access to equipment. Kind of hard to improve on that.
He was able to replicate most of Intel's SOTA process... from 50 years ago. That's more than almost everyone else has managed in their garage but that's about the best you can expect without insane capex and ramp up (and again, it's not like he didn't have access to capital, it just wasn't monetary.) Even still it took five or so years to work everything out.
The SOTA today is really kind of insane. It's right at the frontier of what all of humanity is capable of. Of course as time goes on we'll push that out and today's SOTA is tomorrow's commodity but that won't change everyone's concern with being unable to replicate the contemporary best process.
The reality is all our "defense" needs (and arguably most other needs too) are far more than adequately met with processes a decade old now. It's really not the big deal everyone makes it out to be.
Right, this is why I think in-sourcing chip manufacture is totally viable (that is, if we were actually interested in that and not just using it as an excuse for corruption). The interesting exceptions I've heard about are things like, IIRC, high-power local AI for autonomous drones. But for SAMs and such, old tech will probably do it.
TBF garage fabs -are- a thing but it’s in the hundreds of nanometers scale. Thin film technology is also promising for low tech tape outs, but neither of those is going to be practical for anything better than 1980/90s tech. A modern die would be in the square meters range on those process densities, and could never achieve ghz speeds.
That said, there are a ton of scrappy companies sending out designs to 30-100nm scale fabs, companies with 5-10 employees cranking out cool designs and custom silicon… but they are still sending their tape-outs to giant companies to fab, just on their old, obsolete machines.
Silicon foundries are incredibly capital intensive, and short SOTA process lifespans burn through that investment at a frantic pace.
It's not like you can just look at the plans for a chip fab and copy/paste it into a new location and hire people to fill in who will have any idea how to work it.
TSMC can’t do it either without xUV lithography machines made by ASML in the Netherlands.
Furthermore there isn’t anything magical about about the current generation of chips that couldn’t be replicated at at a scale of 12 or 15 or 20 nanometers - it’s just that scaling down to that small allows for a greater density of transistors per wafer and thus increased power efficiency. An AI supercomputer could be built with chips with bigger transistors than 3nm it would just run hotter.
And investing in intel aside, one of Nvidias great competitive moats is CUDA and that’s software not hardware.
You can buy one, if a suitable one exists, but there isn’t spare stock sitting around; the lead time is long, especially for high end nodes.
The only good news is that C-level suite can continue to do the same shit over and over again.
> In total, U.S. government economic bailouts related to the 2008 financial crisis had federal outflows (expenditures, loans, and investments) of $633.6 billion and inflows (funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases) of $754.8 billion, for a net profit of $121 billion
There are governments which can take a stake and be ok, and then there are governments which are setting up to set money on fire.
No, they did not. The government paid less than Softbank that also just purchased a stake. Unless forced, Intel could have likely gotten a better deal.
Government benefits through one, generating employment - direct and indirect employment, raising taxes through personal taxes (indirectly impacting tax collection) or second the country being at the forefront of the innovation etc. That is how average tax payer was supposed to benefit.
But I guess trying to nationalize companies and "benefiting" from company profits was something people were missing. How did no one see that? Ah yes, third world countries try this routinely for "national security" and it always leads to moral hazard pointed out by the person above you.
This isn't nationalizing it though, this is just an investment into it. Investments aren't bad.
The problem with government taking stakes in private companies is that it creates moral hazard. By taking ownership in Intel, the government has effectively "propped it up". This means that Intel competitors that made less risky decisions to remain solvent are now losing; their bet was Intel was operating poorly, and instead of capitalizing on Intel's downfall so they can fill the gap, the government has plugged the gap. This action distorts markets away from their competitive equilibrium. In the process it generates moral hazard and deadweight loss.
Investments by the government can make sense, but generally it makes the most sense when investments support public goods (arguably also when supporting goods/services that the private market would not). Cpus are neither.
Just like the SVB bailout, or Freddie/Fannie/Sallie establisments, this is bad.
Was.
And Apple needs their chips fabbed, so why not have Apple invest $50B into Intel? Nvidia could afford to chip in too. These companies that face a huge amount of geopolitical risk because they've put all of their eggs in the TSMC basket should have to pay for this not US taxpayers.
It is possible to nationalize a company, though. For example, Saudi Aramco is owned by the state.
How is that not common/collective control of the means of production?
You have proposed a “free market” system in which if you choose the wrong competitor you can be forced to bail out the chosen one. The economics of that don’t work at all.
You let them fail because that ensures that everyone else in the economy fixes their shit and stays competitive. America developed more world class successes, by getting out of the way and letting badly run firms fail.
Especially since NVIDIA is a competitor.
Unfortunately, this is in a country that China is threatening to takeover while building the largest bomb shelters and field hospitals right across the strait.
China is forcing us to invest kind of like they are forced to prop up Huawei to make GPUs for deepseek. Conflict makes irrational actions happen.
Not true. Intel failed because it failed to deliver its own products on its own timelines.
TSMC was behind until Intel failed on its own. No government’s involvement changed things.
Isn’t that exactly what the “too big to fail” bailouts were, in practice?
US needed functional railroads and they took over the rr companies.
I would rather have Intel go bankrupt, sell profitable pieces to private buyers, and if there are any pieces that are not profitable but crucial to national interests, create a company out of them and have the government buy them. This way you are not propping up a dysfunctional behemoth.
Things must die in order for new better things to take their place. This applies to companies as well.
The public sector is great at two things: (1) getting literally millions of people to show up to work and do well-defined jobs (i.e. nothing outside the lines) that do not change from year to year, and (2) dumping billions into research, with very little of (2) affecting (1). Critically, the public sector has extraordinary difficulty with the agility needed for iterative product development.
If companies get to a certain size and their day-to-day operations are more-or-less fundamentally the same year-after-year, yeah there's an argument for nationalizing them. You see this in arguments to nationalize segments from oil refineries, apartment construction, and airlines. There's something coarse about caretaker CEOs and private shareholders getting rich, instead of the public purse, off the economic rents thrown off from a mature machine that doesn't have much more, if any, room for growth. But the key question is whether the potential for growth has been fully exploited or not; if it hasn't been, then the government certainly won't succeed at exploiting additional growth, and it's better for the company to stay in private hands, which will be motivated to privatize the wealth from achieving that growth, and the government will be paid more in taxes if they succeed.
That's why I'm not convinced chip manufacturing is there when there is still yearly research into reducing process sizes. Maybe there's a case for nationalizing the foundry lines producing older, larger processes that are used in current weapons designs, but that's not the case for nationalizing the whole company.
Nobody is entering the chip making business and growing to a size and scale to compete with Intel in 2025. If they collapse tomorrow there aren’t going to be startups filling in the gaps, there’s just going to be massive shortages of chips and chaos.
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 build the requisite organization and talent.
The government investment to prevent the catastrophe that would result in them declaring bankruptcy and the subsequent breakup of their assets has no bearing on whether or not a startup could replace them.
The natural resources of the country should belong to all of us. Not just a select few.
One example that comes to mind is the current Fannie Freddie Mac.
I can't wait for the "I don't think social credit scores are a bad idea. Cancel culture is good actually".
It’s fine for the consumer in the short term but a flawed long term strategy.
$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.
$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.
It’ll take them 7 years to make it back and keep generating for even longer. Whether or not self driving cars kills Uber will depend on how well or poorly they’ve diversified their business model.
But headwinds and risks are true of any business. You’re missing the larger point I’m making that investors and business people frequently do loss leading as a tactic to kill off competitors and once the competitors are gone they can milk the market. Whether or not it’s an effective strategy doesn’t matter - can companies are not coming back no matter what happens to Uber. Similarly, local industries that China kills won’t come back no matter what happens with China.
Also as a final nit - the data I’ve looked up suggests they only lost 16B since founding. This halves the payback time to a few years and then every year after that is many billions in profit.
I’m not sure what “more transparency would look like to you, but publicly traded companies with audited financials are quite transparent. As for the part about siphoning money, history has shown that taxpayers do well. In 2008, the US government took roughly 80% of AIG, sold off their stock by 2012, made a roughly $15 billion profit and AIG is no longer considered too big to fail. It worked and did what it was intended to do. There are reasons to be positive about this.
To be fair, a lower court ruled it “illegal exaction” but awarded $0 in damages as the illegal exaction prevented bankruptcy which would have zeroed out the investment anyways. Then the Federal Court of Appeals tossed that ruling as the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue action.
There is no current ruling that the acquisition was illegal.
I do believe the government is in a better position to provide services to the poor, but they are in no way going to be cheaper in the long run.
That being said, I do live in Seattle, which has a particularly “bogged down” government. Look up the “Seattle process” for some horror stories
EDIT: Before downvoting, tell me where I'm wrong.
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/advanced-technology-vehicles-manu...
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?
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 to actually do such a thing.
Essentially, the government, elected by the public, voted to offer grants to intel, and then intel shareholders woke up today to find their equity had been diluted.
> The Department of Commerce is authorized to provide funding in various forms, including grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and loan guarantees, in exercising its Section 9902 authorities
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47523
AFAICT the relevant section of law says it is up to the Secretary of Commerce to determine the funding type to be used for the semiconductor financial assistance
https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ283/PLAW-116publ283.p...
See my other comment : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44995799
The only real benefit I can see is it looks more revenue neutral because the government getting something of value and Trump is unpopular for spending so much money on unfunded tax cuts.
Their finance team axed a meager $10B dollar investment to improve Siri thereby making Apple the laughing stock of the tech industry players who say they are working on AI.
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.
But it still took a share in companies that participated in TARP which is why some payed back the loan instead of letting it convert into ownership shares if I recall correctly.
It must at least involve Congress!
What's happening here is crazy: It's the same as if Congress authorized $X for a city bridge and Trump comes in and holds up the funds demanding a cut/kickback of the tolls.
The Constitution does not give the Executive the power to arbitrarily modify what Congress has authorized, converting between grants versus loans versus stock-purchases versus plain extortion.
That they were grants instead of any other instrument appears to be a Biden Commerce decision, not a congressional one.
I’m no lawyer and could certainly be missing something i the law that says it has to be grants but from what I see it looks like figuring out what to do the the money was pretty much delegated to dept of commerce with limited direction about eligibility and review criteria.
The moment 10% stake was announced this became political. While the stated reason might be national security etc, in reality something else might be at play.
One, this government and its supporters have been talking about government "wasteful" spending. So, a stake shows that they got something in return for that public money. The money is now "well spent".
Second, it helps boost the political "dealmaker" image of POTUS and we all know how much he cares about his image.
> It should enact preferential policies like grants, tax cuts, subsidies etc. for industries they want to promote.
And read the announcement again. Intel has not been given extra money. CHIPS Act money has been converted to stake. That means Intel wasn't going away, if that is your concern.
Government routinely provides grants or preferential treatments to certain sectors or industries. Like Tesla and the EV grant. That works fine. It doesn't mean government needs to acquire stake in Tesla and put their thumb on the market scale.
In case you miss it, let me repeat - industries needs to be supported. It is called CHIPS Act not Intel Act for a reason. Given the current POTUS propensity to hold aid/grant without a quid pro quo, we can guess what happened here. Intel doesn't gets the grant money unless they kiss the ring and polish POTUS' image.
I’d encourage you to “read again” the HN guidelines.
> Government shouldn't bail out anyone. Period. It should enact preferential policies like grants, tax cuts, subsidies etc. for industries they want to promote.
If Intel is at risk of going under, saving it is what’s understood to be “bailing out.” A grant that’s meant to save a major multi-billion dollar company isn’t quite what most people think of as a grant.
> No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions
In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.
I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.
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?
By ensuring that the US retains at least the ability to manufacture second tier CPUs vs complete reliance on Asia? This doesn't seem unreasonable.
But if all of our advanced weaponry used chips from Taiwan or Korea, for example, then the strategic implications for war in East Asia would be radically different. People are right to say that China could engage in war over Taiwan for chips, but for the wrong reasons. It's not that they want access to the fabs (they'd love it, but they're not stupid and they know the fabs and know-how would be destroyed in the war), but it would deny the US defense industry access to those fabs.
If US missiles or drones use chips from TSMC, and TSMC is in occupied territory or a war zone... the US can't make more missiles or drones. And no matter how powerful your starting position is, you can't wage war without the ability to replenish your stockpiles. It's the bitter lesson Germany learned in both world wars.
China wants hegemony in Asia, and to remove the influence of the US, Japan, and their allies within what they perceive as their exclusive sphere of influence. How to achieve that? Invade Taiwan, which eliminates western access to TSMC one way or another, effectively blockading western defense industry from the core things they need to resupply their militaries in a war. Like WW1 all over again, a "preemptive war" becomes the game-theoretic optimal outcome, and the world suffers.
How to counter that? The US and its allies need to make sure they have access to chip fabrication facilities that can produce near-state-of-the-art chips, even at inflated prices that are not commercially viable in peacetime, as well as the necessary strategic minerals like germanium and lithium. Only then does calculus swing the other way in favor of peace. Hence Biden's effort to get TSMC to build SOTA fabs in Arizona, and when that failed/stumbled, this investment in Intel.
You’re reading a lot into the US right now. US policy in 2025 is more about which member of the whack pack is the alpha gorilla than anything else.
Imagine a next-generation fire-and-forget weapons with radar and broad-spectrum camera arrays and an AI trained on a fused version of all this data. Typical defenses like chaff or flares would be rendered almost entirely useless.
This kind of visual approach also renders modern stealth almost completely useless. When an unexpected plane is found on L-band (or some other low-frequency radar), the AD would simply fire a couple of missiles into the area with instructions to visually identify the large objects moving at fast speeds using the fusion of these different sensors (and ground+air-based radars) while in flight.
We are getting pretty close to being able to do this in realtime with cellphone-level chips.
Future wars are likely going to be GPU driven, ML heavy entities where efficiency matters a lot more than brute force, blunt grenade throwing wars of the past.
A super power like US would likely want to be in the forefront of this if they happen to be in a tussle with a worthy adversary.
Hygon still seems to be making x86 CPUs: https://www.techpowerup.com/336529/hygon-prepares-128-core-5....
The thing about drones is that they actually don't require much computational power compared to modern consumer computing. It's just math - control systems, calculus, trig, waypoints, etc. All of these were solved problems in the days of the Apollo Guidance computer, and will run comfortably on chips from 2 decades ago. The STM32F722 microcontroller that is one of the most common hobbyist drone chips is built on the 90nm process node, runs at 216MHz, has 512K of SRAM, and costs about $5/chip. FWIW, it's made in France and Italy rather than China, and STMicroelectronics owns its own fabs rather than outsourcing to TSMC or Chinese companies.
If you want to do things like computer vision on the drone, the computational requirements are quite a bit higher, but you can still run something like YOLO at orders of magnitude less computational power than what you've got in a Pixel 9 or iPhone 16.
...which makes me wonder if a better strategy for the military would be to fund a wide variety of domestic chip manufacturers operating at decades-old process nodes (eg. the 65nm process node from 2005 seems to be at about the sweet spot), rather than try to prop up the one American company that can compete on cutting edge 7nm process nodes. Particularly since the experience of WW2 was that simple, robust designs that could be easily licensed to other suppliers and mass produced (eg. the Hawker Hurricane, Grumman F6F Hellcat, Grumman/GM TBF Avenger, Liberty ship, escort carrier) were much more effective at turning the tide of battle than designs that were on the cutting edge of technology (eg. the Vought F4U Corsair, Gloster Meteor, Japanese Shinano aircraft carrier). The latter were often better in absolute performance, but arrived late, in small numbers, and with teething troubles that made the former carry the bulk of the battle. The Liberty Ship, for example, used reciprocating steam engines that were 50-year-old technology in WW2, but they were "good enough" and dead simple to make.
It's a terrible idea
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 economically and militarily for the US.
Some caveats: Due to the chip act, TSMC does now have fabs Arizona, though I'm not sure what their capacity is. TI, and some others building lower end components also have fabs I believe. For x86, high end ARM, and GPU's, virtually all of that is manufactured by TSMC right now, mostly in Taiwan.
180,000 wafers a year. Globally they do 17 million. They announced first profit yesterday.
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.
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.
Global Foundries, Micron, and Texas Instruments all come to mind
As a software engineer, this isn't an entirely new concept.
The others would probably be GlobalFoundries, Micron, Microchip, and TI.
Um.
All that stuff is still semiconductors, just with different patterns printed on them.
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.
I mean, they might if Intel were allowed to fail.
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.
It will take decades for the US to get where Taiwan is now in semiconductor manufacturing, if ever. It's not just about building the most advanced chip factory. It's about re-aligning the entire nation's value system and culture to allow such development to happen in the first place.
We complain about the money we spend already. And now we're supposed to subsidize an entire industry to the point where we can build the most complex machines known to civilization at scale in a time-frame that matters to a global conflict that's potentially approaching soon? I don't see it.
It's taken about 8 years to realign the US from a democracy to a fascist regime, something that was nearly unthinkable. This isn't a hard problem with the right propaganda and manipulation.
TSMC aims to have N3 in Arizona by 2028 at the earliest which is 6 years after it first released. By that time, TSMC will have released N3X, N2, N2P, N2X, A16, and A14.
TSMC is heavily sponsored by the Taiwanese government and was created with the express purpose of making Taiwan so valuable that the West would be forced to defend them against China. Moving newer processes out of the country is against their national interests and they've made it clear that there's no plan to do that.
Edit: I think it's a misconception that China cares much about fabs in Taiwan. It wants unification.
Combine that with the US's ability to unilaterally destroy Taiwan's fabs, and it sways the calculation a bit
Can you point out which specific findings? Ideally ones that are substantiated and not just one off tweets.
Switzerland owns its energy companies and its public transport company. Hugely successful.
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMRYvl2Jefg
Hegseth on China
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/41... https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/asia/pete-hegseth-asia-to...
I don't think the views of all the "high level strategist" types align precisely. But there are very few true isolationists like Rand Paul in the executive branch
I find it doubtful that the current admin would just let China walk in to Taiwan. Trump doesn't want a war, but he's not going to want to get bent over and make the US look weak either.
And its not all that different from Democratic position, its a bit of "Washington Consensus" type of situation, like anti-Communism was during the Cold War. The approach between admins is slightly different however, and the Trump admin doesn't like Europe all that much.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/us-govt-pushes-nv...
With Intel maintained, if China invades Taiwan and takes TSMC the US will still be able to make usable processors. They won't be the latest and greatest like TSMC, but they will be good enough. Maybe not the most powerful or efficient, but still rather close.
My only worry is this will mean management will start resting on their laurels and things will just continue to deteriorate. Or maybe the government can convince them to get rid of the bad management and start thinking more long term and less about immediate profits.
"Giveaway?" This isn't some secret, everyone knows the military depends on x86 processors, and having a company that can produce them domestically is a national security concern.
I think if this was a domestic thing it would be all kinds of dumb and wrong. But as a US National Security thing, it makes sense if you’re of the mind that significant intervention is fine when it’s in your country’s best interest.
The next phase is watching the U.S. government keep Intel on a palliative drip of softball contracts and tax dollars. I guess there’s a fair argument that this form of bail out could help Intel thrive again… or at least secure a domestic supply of chips for natsec reasons?
wtf? what do you mean, they're like less than 1 year behind TSMC when it comes to leading node
Intel is in the midst of a dramatic turnaround and huge shift in strategy. It might fail. But if they succeed it puts Intel and the US in a much stronger position in terms of technology and military leadership.
The end result is more like all the rich people take their cash and jump off the top of the pyramid as it crumbles
Intel is:
* Critical to national security
* An advanced, industry that's extremely hard to spin up
* Essentially, one of two companies in it's industry.
Very few other companies meet all of those criteria.
(like the failed Clipper chip) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip
The thinking might be the government needs a local industry for security. Think submarine manufacturing. Not a huge private market for that, but best to keep local so the supply can’t be cut off.
Though usually the government isn’t the best stewards of companies. When I worked for a large government contractor someone joked “yesterday’s technology tomorrow”. Some of that is for reliability, but it wasn’t cutting edge in a lot of ways.
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?
> 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 accounting there. I guess the government was threatening to void the grants or something? Why would Intel donate shares for grants already approved?
I guess this nets out to a stock issuance with no downward price pressure, so still not a bad trade for Intel if they thought those grants were worth nothing.
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 control less than 51% of the Foundry.
Ergo, the reason for the deal is that the board wants to sell off the Foundry, and didn't want to pay back the CHiPS act money.
Seems the Foundry is the bit that USG really is trying to backstop.
Who else is next?
In terms of net effect, it’s atrocious regardless.
what about the part where a single person is dictating taxes on American companies? That does not seem to phase that many people in the tech space...
And what leverage did the administration illegally (without Congressional authorization) apply to get this deal?
At least when the Bush admin did the first part of the financial bailout in 2008, they had Congressional authorization (a bill was passed).
https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-and-trump-adminis...
It is equivalent to a 10% dilution (shares issued for no extra cash).
Sometimes, there are returns on investments beyond what an accountant would calculate, but the investment only costs the same. Making stock priced only for normal returns a buy for beneficiaries of said additional returns.
In this case, reducing the risk associated with the imported chip supply.
> The existing claw-back and profit-sharing provisions associated with the government’s previously dispersed $2.2 billion grant to Intel under the CHIPS Act will be eliminated to create permanency of capital as the company advances its U.S. investment plans.
In the long term though, at least in hands of the government like the current admin, they will ensure Intel slows down innovation. They will push for every company in US to use Intel chips in one way or the other - national security and what not. Without competition companies often get complacent - not many can match the might of a government and US govt at that. So, yay for national security and nay for Intel becoming innovation powerhouse.
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 will be other questionalbe demands placed on Intel in the future from this government, you are largely mistaken.
But y'all go ahead and can keep arguing over whether we should "get something back" from this deal. Because that's really going to maker ameraica graet agian.
Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?
One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done.
The money was already granted. Trump threatened the CEO personally and then they came to this agreement ex post facto.
You can? So some years later they can change it again? Where's the trust?
However in case of democrats president Supreme Court will be surprisingly fast on issuing emergency decisions and stopping executive actions…
Who has standing to sue here? The best I could see is a shareholder lawsuit, but that will take years. Meanwhile, this administration is getting slapped down by courts across the country, including a SCOTUS willing to overturn precedent to curry his favour.
> 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 102 of the TARP. It was also argued that providing TARP funds to automaker's financing operations, such as GMAC, runs counter to the intent of Congress for limiting TARP funds to true "financial institutions".[79] On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program he personally deems necessary to avert the financial crisis, and declared Section 102 to be nonbinding.
Also, “unitary executive” doesn’t mean overriding other branches. It just means that whatever powers the executive branch does or does not have are exercised by the President, just like the 535 members of Congress exercise all the powers of Congress, and the 9 Justices exercise all of the powers of the Supreme Court. It means that executive branch employees don’t have independent powers, just as House staffers and Supreme Court law clerks don’t have independent powers.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70 (“Federalist No. 70 emphasizes the unitary structure of the executive. The strong executive must be unitary, Hamilton says, because ‘unity is conducive to energy...[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number.’”).
The comparison to the GM bailout makes no sense. GM got something that it needed from the bailout. Here, all Intel is getting is the withdrawal of threats that Trump himself made. It's mob boss style government, and it's happening to many institutions in this country (law firms, universities, corporations, etc). Why you would want to try to normalize it is utterly beyond me. Maybe you just like being the "well actually" guy because you think it makes you sound smarter than everyone else.
Also, why should we give companies money without getting equity?
He's a lawyer at the Federal bar, so on the subject under discussion he is more knowledgeable than most of us.
I feel we're headed for a No True Scotsman fallacy. The Trump Regime and Roberts court endorse the unitary executive theory, and they are happily overriding Article 1 powers and violating laws like the Administrative Procedures Act based on this theory's farcical and ahistorical logic.
If the theory wasn't giving him more power (like firing non-political appointees without cause or withholding funds appropriated by Congress) he wouldn't be using it.
Nobody called it a "theory" until FDR appointees ginned up a fourth branch of government in the 20th century. Then, they needed a label for what actually existed in the constitution to distinguish it from the shit they just made up. But most of the people who use the phrase "unitary executive theory" also think "emanations from penumbras" is constitutional law...
Also, the APA doesn't apply to the President, and it wouldn't be constitutional for it to do so.
And then you find the executive is what chooses to enforce rulings against the executive. They were not trying to set up something like the UN security council with a defacto veto on all passed law.
Correct. But this is true in almost any conceivable system. The entity charged with enforcing the law will be charged with enforcing the law against itself. “Who watches the watchers?” The founders thought of that and their solution to that was elections and a relatively short 4-year term.
Conceiving of the executive as having subparts independent of the elected executive actually breaks the system. Because now, whatever subpart you assign the law enforcement function is unelected and insulated from political accountability. Now, nobody can watch the watchers!
It turns out the founders were smarter than the current facility of Harvard Law School.
Justices can be impeached by congress. The supreme court can also be diluted with new appointments by the elected branches acting together, even if justices serve for life.
They're paying the rest of the CHIPS Act money. Overall, they're putting in over $10B into Intel.
Intel hasn't gotten most of the money they were awarded. Even the Biden administration were hesitant in doling it out, because of concerns that Intel could deliver. That's why out of frustration, the previous CEO became vocal in saying "We still haven't gotten any money yet!" and was openly frustrated about it.
Lip-Bu Tan, in the last quarterly earnings signaled a decent likelihood of not developing 14A (and thus halting much of the semiconductor infrastructure they implied they would need the CHIPS money for). So it's perfectly fair for the government to say "We're not giving you the rest of the money."
What this deal does is release the rest of the money, but with strings attached.
There were always strings attached - even with the prior administration. The strings have merely changed, and Intel benefits by actually getting the money now vs a long drawn out process.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
What’s even more confusing is that the Republicans voter will rationalize this!
> Bernie has at least been consistent in his beliefs.
So same outcome. The question is whether the two “sides” see their common point of view.
What does that even give you? They can argue all they want. Doesn't mean the government will listen.
Why do you think that is?
Let? Like this 1? Where if you don't we threaten to fire the CEO and take over the company otherwise?
Are you sure it is let?
> local politicians
Is 1 or more individuals. In this instance it is "the government" as an entity. Not the same?
Once the money is in, government becomes invested in the success of the company. This leads to preferential policies and government demands for the invested company. I think it is safe to say that US is going full on third world strong man government at this point.
Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins.
Does it provide its citizens with benefits?
If it involves (a) identifying / filtering stuff they want to spy on (b) sending it back to one of the intelligence agencies, it seems like both would be hard to do well and secretly ... right?
Its an interesting idea, not a serious suggestion.
Private ownership was the adults main point of pride to distinguish from the Chinese when I was growing up.
And now the Chinese private property frameworks are closer to ours and ours are closer to theirs.
I suspect you were growing up when this was in full swing already.
Both should have more reforms.
Which is what the last CEO was in the middle of doing and he got fired just recently because they couldn't stomach it
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.
Look at this list - all the big ones here which are state owned are investment banks, petro companies and telcos.
Everyone else on the list (mainly internet companies, BYD, gaming, and B2C sales/distribution) is privately owned.
Some examples: VOC, BBC, national airlines, etc.
List across countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government-owned_compa...
US specific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-owned_enterprises_of_the...
Taking an ownership stake in broad daylight for political favors is very much unprecedented in the modern economy.
So the Intel case not done under duress?
> Taking an ownership stake in broad daylight for political favors
The article didn’t spell it out or maybe I missed it but what political favors?
I wonder how the markets will react, will stocks go up because people will assume Intel's going to be a government mandated champion or will they go down because of the negative connotations government control brings?
Any swapping of Federal Reserve bonds for corporate bonds, say during the pandemic.
A more interesting question is whether that voterbase's idea of what they were voting for does or doesn't line up with what they got.
(Also, pet peeve: "it's lead" should be "it's led".)
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/governmen...
This may be true in the economic sense. But “depression” is as much a political sensation as it is a technically defined economic term. We happen to live in an era where economics for the public is profoundly politicized.
They always getcha with the fine print.
And wouldn't it be better to oh, I don't know, enforce the standard corporate tax rate?
> The government’s equity stake will be funded by the remaining $5.7 billion in grants previously awarded, but not yet paid, to Intel under the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act and $3.2 billion awarded to the company as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel will continue to deliver on its Secure Enclave obligations and reaffirmed its commitment to delivering trusted and secure semiconductors to the U.S. Department of Defense. The $8.9 billion investment is in addition to the $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants Intel has received to date, making for a total investment of $11.1 billion.
So it kinda is something weird? It's not really a pure bail out, the Chips act already did that, and it's also not really a tax because they aren't going to get money out unless there's dividends. It's more like a power play which makes sense given that Trump is uncomfortable without anyone getting anything for nothing.
Grant money is counted as income. It is thus taxed.
If this were really an investment it wouldn't have been taxed.
Forget the grant. The grant has nothing to do with what happened.
Intel's board of directors voted to give 1/10 of the company away and thus devalued your shares.
The distorts incentives and destroys the free market.
What rights does this refer to? Normal shareholder voting rights or something else?
Speaking of things that wouldn’t surprise me, if Intel can’t manage an about-face in the next three to six years I fully expect them to become a Nationalized enterprise if only to preserve fabrication and chip design capabilities domestically. Same with Boeing given their less-than-stellar track record of late.
The current conflict is over domestic manufacturing capabilities. That’s where it will continue to rage until and unless full-fledged war breaks out. It doesn’t matter how many chips are designed domestically if all production capacity is in Asia within China’s sphere of influence. Intel is a major outlier for chips, as is Boeing for aerospace.
I'm not sure how this applies.
The US government just gained a 10% stake for nothing (that wasn't already given). Effectively going from the scenario you are painting to now taking a part of the profit as well.
I guess you were surprised after all!
Now explain how "Capitalism for profits" applies.
This is seductive logic but I think the opposite is true. The only time government should be giving money to a for-profit company is where a dividend in value is available that is not related to having a stake in the company.
Think about it this way: if the value transferred is fully realised as shares in the company then the government actually transferred nothing to the company. It was a pure commercial transaction and there is no obligation on the company to do anything different than it would have done commercially otherwise. Except the outcome is that the government is now entangled in private industry which is generally bad because it creates strong conflicts of interest in terms of policy and regulatory powers wielded by the government. All the dividend to taxpayers comes from the part that is not realised commercially.
Now it is just doing whatever it wants.
This is only good for a very small sub-set of people, everyone else is worse off.
> The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars
I don't understand. Can somebody explain to me how the government made an investement, bought shares, but paid nothing?
Worth noting that Intel is the only company that had these kinds of shenanigans pulled with their grant. Samsung, TSMC, Micron and others were granted similar funds without any kind of withholding or demands for equity from the federal government.
This stock can later be sold, to benefit the taxpayer.
When I buy stocks at market price, the company gets none of my money.
When the company issues new stocks and sells them, the company gets the money.
Win win for Trump.
Sure, but Intel's new CEO is making a lot of noise that indicates that Intel is maybe not going to be able/willing to build some-to-many of the things the CHIPS money paid for.
Giving FedGov a 10% stake in the company [0] is better than taking the money back for nonperformance, wouldn't you say?
[0] Which -as I understand it- was the sort of thing that was done for those finance companies that were Too Big To Fail when all that fraud^W novel financial engineering eventually caught up to them.
> Depends on who you ask. Trump himself seems to think the US is getting 10% for free.
So far...
And it makes sense that Intel is spinning it as a generous investment from the gov't, but the gov't is spinning it as a free gift from Intel. Neither account really paints the full picture, but each one paints themselves as coming out ahead.
Everyone saves face.
Not sure how anyone can believe anything that was agreed will hold in such an environment. :P
Intel got money via grants from the chip act and via other governments. Part of the reason they got that money was to help them build the chip fans in the USA and funding research and workforce in other nations. The fact Intel has claimed its slowing construction basically is a full 180° spin and will set them back in manufacturing ability.
Previous CEO strategy was focused on heavy investment in catching up on manufacturing ability. But once you get stuck on a node it becomes expensive to catch up.
New CEO is clearly trying to shed weight. They have let go of a significant % of workforce, stopped certain projects all together, and seem to be basically selling off parts of their technology and assets to keep cashflow positive.
Given the current CEO and his history and connections, plus the US government involvement it looks like a rocky situation.
The sparks will fly
There has been some changing of deals on Intel's part as well, with indefinite delays on US fab buildouts the US passed a bill to subsidize. Now the US is taking some equity for its debt.
Far more dramatic Government intervention took place in 2009 when the US bailed out domestic automakers, including equity. Don't recall as much angst about that among the laptop class. Because Obama.
haha, is this the first you hear of this Trump guy? He rutinely breaks deals, like all the fucking time. (I get that this was not his deal, he breaks those too)
A deal with Trump is worth nothing.
Extortion.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have permitted the government to unilaterally cancel disbursements, even in flagrant violation of the plain text of law, impervious to preliminary injunctions, and then put up procedural hurdles to significantly increase the cost of reaching a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., the most recent decisions issued this week in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Assn.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/24
So presumably the administration's deal was, give us what we ask for and you'll get the money Congress awarded, or don't and wait 1-2 years for any case to wind its way through the courts.
I'm just pointing out a limitation of the Mafia analogy.
>The government will purchase the 433.3 million shares with funding from the $5.7 billion in unpaid CHIPS Act grants and $3.2 billion awarded to Intel for the Secure Enclave program.
So the same playbook hes taken across the board: cast aspersions on leadership, withhold duly appropriated money in contravention to the law. Rinse repeat.
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/business/trump-says-intel-has-agreed...
This wasn't any sort of investment, it was blackmail. No corporation in the country would voluntarily give up 10% of the company to the federal government - for free - unless overtly threatened. The Trump administration is hoping that by exerting control over Intel, it can begin dictating conditions to Intel's customers, thus the tech community at large.
I also assume that one of Trump's cronies will take a spot on the board or some other oversight role, and in the near future, Intel will enrich Trump in one way or another, such as stock, investments, insider information, etc.
Nothing about this is good for the U.S. or Intel. It's not a bailout or a sign of support, but a way for Trump to have power over the tech sector.
But I will say, I find the concept that when we invest public dollars in a private company, the public retains a stake appealing. I think about the strategic oil reserve, and how the government actually can make money by buying and selling oil to the open market. The idea that if we inject money into a company to help our domestic industries, that the government can sell it's stake back out at a later time is appealing.
(And again, to be clear, not a Republican or a Trumper here, and I assume in Trump fashion he will find some way to screw everyone involved and get paid himself personally... but the concept of the government acquiring a stake rather than just giving them a grant is on it's face... maybe not terrible?)
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.
That's not a given - even under Biden: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44993388
This was my TDS-reaction as well. But, honestly, I feel like the "tech community" has moved on from Intel/x86 anyway. Or, at the very least, this move will accelerate that migration. ARM for the win!
It’s not a lot different than what car and financial companies got in 2009. They were about to go under because no one thought they’d be around long enough to get out from under and deliver goods or pay their debts. The government stake enabled them to keep operating and eventually recover and then the government returned the stake to the market (or will soon w/ Fannie & Freddie).
Who do you expect to design and make chips for national security-level programs in the future wars when Taiwan is a deep crater?
Every serious nation state has an arch design house and a fab. It need not be cutting edge (most militry stuff is a few gens old), but it needs to exist. Russia has Elbrus. China has Looonsoon and SMIC. Europe has ARM but is a bit behind here fab-wise. However, STMicro does have fabs in europe.
This is just securing access and control of national-security level resources.
The thing is, even though the US is trying to create an alternative for itself, once Taiwan is in danger, this would for the EU mean a total US microchip monopoly, so radical action becomes necessary.
If I were a political leader in the EU I would consider nuclear weapons sharing with Taiwan if that happened.
As far as I understand, all Trump did was alter Biden admin’s original plan. Trump swapped a 10% stake in Intel for Biden’s profit sharing for participating in the grants[0] (anyone who participates in the CHIPS Act gets this deal currently, I guess Intel is renegotiating). Not necessarily better or worse because Intel is a long ways away from any sort of gain that would make a difference.
If you feel conflicted to think this is a good or bad move, you’re right where Trump wants you. Sit down and do the napkin math, you may find the deal irrelevant or numbers similar. In the end we won’t know for a decade the result. The move is meaningless financially but generates headlines and doesn’t do anything to advance the actual foundries.
It’s almost distracting…
[0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits“ >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...
Second, from your article:
‘ Commerce expects "upside sharing will only be material in instances where the project significantly exceeds its projected cash flows or returns, and will not exceed 75% of the recipient’s direct funding award." 'NOT A FREE HANDOUT'
Democratic Senator Jack Reed praised the profit sharing plan, saying chips funding is "not a free handout for multi-billion dollar tech companies.... There is no downside for companies that participate because they only have to share a portion of future profits if they do exceedingly well."’
Clearly, there was a cap on repayments, but there is not one on giving away equity
Also > "Your CHIPs Act is a horrible, horrible thing...You should get rid of the CHIP act and whatever's left over Mr. Speaker" - Donald Trump
Fast forward to today: > "This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL." - Donald Trump
There was no guarantee Intel would get the rest of the CHIPS money they were granted - even the Biden administration kept holding it back (after officially awarding it to them) - as there were doubts Intel could deliver.
I also wonder if some deal was made around 14A. Tan said he would not develop it without commitments from customers, because sales from Intel CPUs wouldn't justify the cost. This may be a way to ease that pressure and give Intel another chance even without serious customer commitment.
Starting today, under the government’s guidance, Intel shall serve the needs of the needs of the nation - not the whims of oligarchs.
Liberated from wasteful and destructive capitalistic competition, Intel’s revolutionary “people’s processors” (soon to be developed) will ensure that the world’s most advanced AI chips are made in America. And priced within the reach of every US worker.
Viva la revolution! Viva Intel!
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...
But I think the real strings are a soft, private insistence that Intel won't be allowed to sell itself overseas.
The Defense Production Act and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States would be used to prevent the sale. The carrot is the whatever $18B in grants and investment, the stick is legislation that allows the government to prevent a sale.
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co...
Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have?
This stuff always confuses me.
in a sense, although buy is not quite the right word. there were grants promised to chip manufacturers under certian conditions. trump decided to wave those conditions just for intel in exchange for 10% of the company.
> Does that dilute the share other intel stock owners have?
no, the shares were already existing and owned by intel.
Besides politics and image, are there any benefits?
Why is it that a fab is so much more exorbitantly expensive to run in US than in Taiwan? Wasn't higher labour cost supposed to bring disproportionately higher productivity? Why did Intel not build ultra advanced fully robotic fabs? Where's the innovation? Why did no other competitor crop up in the US when it has been clear for a decade that Intel is lost?
Number 6934 on my list of "every accusation is just projection".
But now, crickets!!
What remains of the "old guard" is, in fact, loudly complaining about this move:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/the-government-should...
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/its-not-hypocrisy-youre-j...
I see some of the tariff stuff and the US protectionism sort of the same way, although I don't approve, since I think the US uniquely benefits from this kind of thing due to that the dollar is such a predominant reserve currency and since I think it's badly done and will backfire, tarring what in principle be sensible policies if carefully targeted with being Trumpist.
It's just requires the government to not be totally market dogmatist.
https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-musk-mohammad-halimi...
This is simply state ownership of what's seen as a strategic business. It's an abandonment of market dogmatism, but not a step towards any of the many ideologies or positions where markets have a smaller role.
Usually I suppose, when I think state capitalism I would think something like the Soviet Union, where this happens across many businesses with the state owning everything, but I suppose it is state capitalism, or a state capitalist element in a market system. One might even call it a mixed economy, or a sort of hacked-apart Swedish model without labour unions and state ownership of only certain strategic industries, rather than let's say, state ownership of hospitals.
Can we get some of that state owned health care :-p
Well, it's not. It's only socialism if the state decides to provide it for everybody.
A state-owned corporation isn't necessarily socialism.
(And yeah, you say it like if it's a bad word...)
We have really little socialism in modern society, instead we have market systems combined with elements of communism. The only socialist elements we have are copyright and patents (you get them for contribution, so it follows the Marxist maxim characterizing socialism 'to each according to his contribution').
It's really a strange thing that communism, this hypothetical post-socialist stage of development, is so easy for states to adapt and so uncontroversial that elements of it are implemented today on a large scale, everywhere from the US to Africa, when socialism which Marx imagined as the stage that would give rise to communism is a relatively small element of society. I suppose the software industry has eaten a lot of other businesses though, and that it in the end is dependent on copyright, so maybe we actually are in the socialist stage, only with large middlemen intermediating 'to each according to his contribution' part. Socialism but with capitalist middlemen.
And a free 747 that won't be useful or ready during this term, but hundreds of millions of taxpayer money will be poured into for the "library". The VC-25Bs were already under construction.
On getting a stake, I find it odd that the right wing (or at least Trump?) is all for getting stakes in businesses, as that seems so counter-intuitive to what they're about. Personally, I think that if the government is putting billions into strategic industries, taxpayers should get a financial return, not just vague promises of jobs or “competitiveness.”
There should be more privatization where national interests are involved.
Instead of the ACA for example,the government could have taken a 51% stake in health insurers (forget subsidizing them, own them!) and we the voters would elect politicians to oversee health insurance instead of hoping and trusting CEOs.
So many problems are caused by companies chasing short-term shareholder satisfaction. If the government is a significant shareholder, then guess who they'll try to make happy?
The sheer threat of the government buying a controlling interest and running your company might make some companies behave in the interests of the public more. Especially, if the government is also engaging in policy to harm the company's revenue before buying stakes in it.
I'm not saying the US should be a full-on communist or socialist economy, nothing like that. This is capitalism. We the people get to use or tax dollars to our benefit. Think about it, the US sells bonds right? what if it paid for them by investing in company stocks and derivatives? that's revenue right?
The whole pearl-clutching over ideological extremes doesn't serve the public or the economy's interest.
Some privatization is good, none is great if everyone was decent and honorable. but in this society, moderate privatization where there is potential benefit to the public and national security makes sense.
Companies with government investment should also be prohibited from making political donations, so any company that is trying to sway elections faces the threat of the next administration buying stakes in them to prevent that behavior.
This could be the missing 5th estate that can make democracy last.
If the government takes over those companies and they don't do well, it means lost jobs which means lost elections too. There's a risk calculus to be had.
The current policy of never intervening or taking ownership in companies.. unless they are "too big to fail and start failing" only benefits the companies.
At the least, without darpa the whole Bay Area machine would not exist today, so it’s at least necessary if not sufficient.
Not just darpa but nih, nsf, doe, onr, arl, nasa, and the national labs are definitively necessary causal dependencies on of every company and industry driving US national pride and all of the most valuable companies.
Even if the firm never takes a grant, their talent, supply chain, and component pipelines all depend on these grantor agencies thoughtfully allocating taxpayer capital at the national level.
Airbus being an example.
Is it because Trump did it? If Biden had done it, the comments from the right would sound like the sarcasm in this message thread.
Trump's temporary, he's not taking his stake home when his term expires.
If they go what does it leave the US with that's any different from any other country?
If Taiwan's NDF has ownership share in TSMC and UMC, China's CICIIF in SMIC, Japan's Master Trust in a majority of enterprises, and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala in GlobalFoundries, then we should as well.
The recent (50ish years) aversion to Industrial Policy in America has been pigheaded and ideological to a certain extent. If we wish to build capacity domestically, especially in high capex and low margins industry, some amount of government support is needed.
Funds that are overwhelmingly sourced via private capital cannot take the same risks to build an ecosystem that a Soverign Development Fund can. This is what the Master Trust (Japan), NDF (Taiwan), and Temasek (Singapore) did to build their own domestic industries in semiconductors and REE processing - industries with high capex, high IP barriers, and low margins.
This now sets the precedent to develop at sovereign development fund.
If we did this with GM and Solyndra a decade+ ago we would have been in a better position to protect our automotive and renewable industry, but ofc the GOP of that era along with a portion of the DNC was not ready to take such a risk.
The CHIPS and IRA acts were steps in the right direction, but couldn't really take full advantage of the stick.
Edit: Surprised that a forum that largely supports single payer healthcare opposes sovereign development funds, even though they themselves could help enforce pricing in a less complex manner than that which the CMS does today.
At some point this is just reflexive hatred.
Edit: cannot reply to you.
This deal literally comes with claw-back provisions.
Or is it just a transparent shakedown?
This plus the CHIPS+IRA has now set the precedent for states and the federal government to build an SDF. I don't trust this administration aside from a couple staffers, but this allows us in a post-Trump era to build SDFs and return to the industrial policy norms we had in the US before the 1980s with Reaganomics.
CHIPS and IRA themselves were able to be pushed by the Biden admin becuase Trump 1 set the precedent to ignore traditional norms.
Also this appears to be in exchange for CHIPS funds (per the article). HN has universally supported equity in return for bailouts over the years.
Yes.
I've been a proponent of a Temasek style model for the US since my undergrad days. This would make it easier to commercialize grant funded IP instead of the mess that SBIR/STTR is today.
It was difficult for the Biden admin to do something similar, but at least the traditional norms have been shattered.
As I said above, it's very much a "broken clock is right twice" type of situation.
> Also this appears to be in exchange for CHIPS funds (per the article). HN has universally supported equity in return for bailouts over the years.
Exactly!
And like I have said a couple of times on HN - I view the CHIPS and IRA as the carrot, and tariffs plus ownership stakes as the stick.
There is nothing wrong with with a public-private industrial policy. We ourselves used one until the 1980s with Reaganomics, as did our allies like Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Israel, Ireland, and others.
Pouring more money into a proven dumpster fire won't put out the fire. This is the protectionist just-desert of refusing to regulate the top-dog competitors into a position where they're afraid to rest on their laurels. If we want an American lithography powerhouse, buying Intel stock rewards exactly the wrong incentives.
This was how the internet was created, darpa stitched together dozens of performers to get the key ingredients (eg bbn gateways, academic subnets, experimental applications, protocol research.
They even led the last ditch marketing Hail Mary after years of no-one caring about the program besides the zillions of engineers from all around building it by organizing a press day in a hotel ballroom for a demo day.
As a taxpayer I’d strongly support 5B/.1% of the fed budget for a few years just to learn what happens in the attempt.
China has been trying and failing to build a competitive fab for years, has the rare earth minerals in its back yard, etc and can’t do it.
The second issue is, who exactly is going to use these fabs once they are built. One issue that Intel has is that its “customer service” sucks. TSMC will bend over backwards as a partner. No one wants to work with Intel.
Can you imagine Apple or Nvidia wanting to work with a government owned chip fab?
There's soft-power coercion left on the table, the only thing we buy with Intel stock is a C-suite's dinner bill.
What does that even mean?!?
It's already OSS and royalty free. I've participated Series A and B rounds on startups working on RISC-V design.
> threaten Intel with loss of IP if they can't profit on fabs
Investing in Capex is inherently going to put you in a loss for several quarters
> threaten to cut Softbank off of American companies if Masayoshi Son won't onshore RISC manufacturing
He doesn't own RISC-V IP.
-------
This is why I hate HN now. ICs with no domain expertise think they should have a voice.
Generally, a SDF is expected to take decisions that help develop an ecosystem or market, and help act as a check against primarily profit-driven motives.
Assuming a stake is part of a well managed SDF similar to Temasek, Mubadala, or the Master Trust, then I'd tend to trust the decision being made.
That said, I also recognize that this administration is severely disorganized and amateur, so I wouldn't trust their choices. But, I do feel this sets a precedent to allow both the federal and state governments to build SDFs, especially in a post-Trump world.
For example, the CHIPS and IRA were able to be pushed thru by the Biden admin because of the trade norms the Trump 1 admin created and upended.
I should probably do the math, but excuse is I'm a VC - it just doesn't make sense from a long term perspective as I pitch to LPs about my thesis.