The US government isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) profit-motivated anyway, so it isn’t obvious what their incentives are WRT Intel’s stock.
Right now if the US wants to go to war with China, or anyone China really really likes, they can expect with high probability to very quickly encounter major problems getting the best chips. AIUI the world has other fab capacity that isn't in Taiwan, and some of it is even in the US, but they're all on much older processes. Some things it's not a problem that maybe you end up with an older 500MHz processor, but some things it's just a non-starter, like high-end AI.
Sibling commenters discussing profits are on the wrong track. Intel's 2024 revenue, not profits, was $53.1 billion. The Federal Government in 2024 spent $6,800 billion. No entity doing $1.8 trillion in 2024 in deficit spending gives a rat's ass about "profits". The US Federal government just spends what it wants to spend, it doesn't have any need to generate any sort of "profits" first. Thinking the Federal government cares about profits is being nowhere near cynical enough.
The US government always ought to have the interest of US companies in mind, their job is to work in the interest of the voters and a lot of us work for US companies.
The US is desperate to not have that war, because they spent so long in denial about how sophisticated China has become that it would be a total humiliation. What you see as the US wanting war is them simply playing catch up.
Destroy the other country?
Take it over?
Be in a 1984 style „fake“ war forever?
The countries wouldn't fire nukes against each other's mainlands but maybe against each other's fleets. Pretty likely
I don’t think geographically restricting a war is even possible, really. The US’s typical game plan involves hitting the enemy’s decision-making capabilities faster than they can react. That goes out the window if we can’t hit each other’s mainlands. A war where we don’t get to use our strongest trick and China keeps their massive industrial base is an absurd losing one that the US would be totally nuts to sign up for.
Anyway, we and China can be perfectly good peaceful competitors.
Don't mistake talking about a thing as advocating for that thing. It leaves you completely unable to process international politics, and frankly, a lot of other news and discussion as well. If you can only think about things you approve of, your model of the world is worse than useless.
A shocking surprise needs to be a surprise for it to work. Call it strategic naivety if you want.
Donald anounces tariffs and the markets react. He postpones tariffs and the markets react again. Only Donald and his friends know what he will announce next.
This feels like a misreading of what I wrote. The discovery that he is using tariffs to make a personal profit should be surprising.
> Donald anounces tariffs and the markets react. He postpones tariffs and the markets react again. Only Donald and his friends know what he will announce next.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all, I just don’t think a hypothesis about how he could abuse his power will be very compelling to anybody who doesn’t already think he’s prone to corruption. If anything, I think it starts inoculating people to the idea.