Most active commenters
  • (6)
  • JackYoustra(4)
  • torginus(3)

←back to thread

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

(www.cnbc.com)
607 points givemeethekeys | 56 comments | 22 Aug 25 21:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.646s | source | bottom
1. sobiolite ◴[22 Aug 25 22:04 UTC] No.44990406[source]▶
Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.
replies(17): >>44990466 #>>44990520 #>>44990577 #>>44990583 #>>44990607 #>>44990635 #>>44990691 #>>44990693 #>>44990751 #>>44990790 #>>44990824 #>>44990858 #>>44990887 #>>44990957 #>>44990968 #>>44991017 #>>44991421 #
2. slashnode ◴[22 Aug 25 22:09 UTC] No.44990466[source]▶
Ha! Too perfect
3. glimshe ◴[22 Aug 25 22:15 UTC] No.44990520[source]▶
The promiscuous relation between government and tech is as old as Silicon Valley. I'm fact, it created Silicon Valley. It started when people in China were still building backyard furnaces.
replies(1): >>44990608 #
4. yieldcrv ◴[22 Aug 25 22:20 UTC] No.44990577[source]▶
We even have no assurance of keeping private property via civil asset forfeiture!

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.

replies(2): >>44990738 #>>44990840 #
5. Buttons840 ◴[22 Aug 25 22:21 UTC] No.44990583[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(1): >>44990941 #
6. robotnikman ◴[22 Aug 25 22:23 UTC] No.44990607[source]▶
It somewhat makes sense in terms of industries which are deemed strategically important. Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits.
replies(6): >>44990708 #>>44990718 #>>44990726 #>>44990730 #>>44990961 #>>44991340 #
7. bigyabai ◴[22 Aug 25 22:23 UTC] No.44990608[source]▶
Who ordered the Chinese people to build furnaces in their backyard?
replies(1): >>44990749 #
8. cyanydeez ◴[22 Aug 25 22:25 UTC] No.44990635[source]▶
No, I think you're missing the wag-the-dog portion of this event.
9. DarkNova6 ◴[22 Aug 25 22:30 UTC] No.44990691[source]▶
Kinda. But I think the current Chinese model is actually much closer to how the USA used to work when there was competition with the USSR. Closer than the US of today compared to the 70s and 80s.
replies(2): >>44990927 #>>44990955 #
10. Tagbert ◴[22 Aug 25 22:30 UTC] No.44990693[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(1): >>44991050 #
11. astrange ◴[22 Aug 25 22:32 UTC] No.44990708[source]▶
The CHIPS act founded the National Semiconductor Technology Center for this purpose. As for Intel, they aren't even achieving short term profits…
12. christina97 ◴[22 Aug 25 22:33 UTC] No.44990718[source]▶
OP didn’t make a value judgement about which model is better or makes more sense!
13. petemill ◴[22 Aug 25 22:34 UTC] No.44990726[source]▶
> Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits

Which is what the last CEO was in the middle of doing and he got fired just recently because they couldn't stomach it

14. bobthepanda ◴[22 Aug 25 22:34 UTC] No.44990730[source]▶
Intel has had a couple years of saying they were going into a more long term vision and failing, and it’s unclear how direct government ownership will make them get better at execution
15. ◴[22 Aug 25 22:35 UTC] No.44990738[source]▶
16. actionfromafar ◴[22 Aug 25 22:36 UTC] No.44990749{3}[source]▶
Some guys who wanted to make China Great Again.
17. FrustratedMonky ◴[22 Aug 25 22:36 UTC] No.44990751[source]▶
We're living in the time of irony. Up is Down, Left is Right, Right is Left. Republicans have become Socialist. Free Speech absolutist now against Free Speech.
replies(1): >>44990775 #
18. ◴[22 Aug 25 22:39 UTC] No.44990775[source]▶
19. andsoitis ◴[22 Aug 25 22:40 UTC] No.44990790[source]▶
Western governments have taken a stake in, nationalised, or owned / operated corporations for a very long time!

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...

replies(3): >>44990915 #>>44990960 #>>44990967 #
20. concinds ◴[22 Aug 25 22:44 UTC] No.44990824[source]▶
It’s not “adopting” the Chinese model yet, so much as incoherently copying bits and pieces. If you want to run effective industrial policy you need sufficient state capacity and an army of technocrats who are experts on industrial policy. Trump’s second term performance gives no hope on both fronts.
21. nine_k ◴[22 Aug 25 22:47 UTC] No.44990840[source]▶
Civil forfeiture existed since 1660s, and was used initially to confiscate smugglers' vessels. Then it was dug out during Prohibition, and turned toxic in 1980s when the agencies doing the forfeiture (e.g. police) were allowed to keep the confiscated property. Ideally it should be used for restitution (e.g. to victims of fraud), but...

I suspect you were growing up when this was in full swing already.

replies(1): >>44991520 #
22. ◴[22 Aug 25 22:48 UTC] No.44990858[source]▶
23. torginus ◴[22 Aug 25 22:51 UTC] No.44990887[source]▶
Yeah, this so weird coming from the US. The US government has a history of writing no-strings-attached blank cheques to people/companies just so avoid the stigma of government control in public companies.

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?

replies(1): >>44990947 #
24. legitster ◴[22 Aug 25 22:54 UTC] No.44990915[source]▶
Most of these were done under duress or specifically for public goods (BBC, for example).

Taking an ownership stake in broad daylight for political favors is very much unprecedented in the modern economy.

replies(2): >>44991002 #>>44991309 #
25. torginus ◴[22 Aug 25 22:55 UTC] No.44990927[source]▶
The current Chinese model's basically you have fully publicly traded companies, companies who are either minority or majority owned by a certain provincial government and ones who are either minority or majority owned by the central government (although this is surprisingly rare outside of key areas like telco/banking)
replies(1): >>44991466 #
26. JackYoustra ◴[22 Aug 25 22:57 UTC] No.44990947[source]▶
Name one literal no-strings-attached blank cheque to a large company in the last 20 years
replies(6): >>44990951 #>>44990971 #>>44990978 #>>44991003 #>>44991074 #>>44991222 #
27. ◴[22 Aug 25 22:58 UTC] No.44990951{3}[source]▶
28. JackYoustra ◴[22 Aug 25 22:58 UTC] No.44990955[source]▶
The US never owned a brewer, an airline, the major defense giants, etc.
replies(1): >>44991400 #
29. pryce ◴[22 Aug 25 22:59 UTC] No.44990957[source]▶
That's very cute quip but I notice that it places the blame on 'trade with China' for an alarming problem that is in fact entirely the doing of US voters expressing their values (or the lack of them) in fair elections.

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.

30. JackYoustra ◴[22 Aug 25 22:59 UTC] No.44990961[source]▶
if someone believes this, they should buy intel and just do it outright! But no one does because it's not as easy as "just think long term" - if it were, berkshire has the liquid money to buy intel several times over.
replies(1): >>44991202 #
31. JackYoustra ◴[22 Aug 25 23:00 UTC] No.44990967[source]▶
Calling VOC an offshoot of a western government with any modern relevance is a HUMONGOUS stretch
32. jibal ◴[22 Aug 25 23:00 UTC] No.44990968[source]▶
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

(Also, pet peeve: "it's lead" should be "it's led".)

33. spacebanana7 ◴[22 Aug 25 23:01 UTC] No.44990971{3}[source]▶
Perhaps not strictly “no-strings-attached” but many of the 2008 bailouts were functionally mechanisms to avoid nationalisation.
34. meetingthrower ◴[22 Aug 25 23:01 UTC] No.44990978{3}[source]▶
Lol the jail free bailouts of the banks in 2008? Goldman got billions from the bailout of AIG, management got millions and millions in bonuses....
replies(1): >>44992776 #
35. delfinom ◴[22 Aug 25 23:04 UTC] No.44991002{3}[source]▶
It's not if you now live in a (if not soon) dictatorship.
36. WalterBright ◴[22 Aug 25 23:04 UTC] No.44991003{3}[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act

37. signatoremo ◴[22 Aug 25 23:06 UTC] No.44991017[source]▶
You need to study history. US government is no stranger in getting stakes in businesses. Did you already forget the Great Depression?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/governmen...

replies(1): >>44991150 #
38. notherhack ◴[22 Aug 25 23:12 UTC] No.44991074{3}[source]▶
Any cost-plus defense or aerospace contract.
39. bink ◴[22 Aug 25 23:19 UTC] No.44991150[source]▶
We aren't anywhere close to being in a depression though. What extraordinary situation requires the government to take a stake in a public company and under what conditions will this position be liquidated?
replies(2): >>44992870 #>>44999654 #
40. Nevermark ◴[22 Aug 25 23:27 UTC] No.44991202{3}[source]▶
A large new powerful shareholder come in supporting long term thinking does make a difference.

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.

replies(1): >>45002738 #
41. sigwinch ◴[22 Aug 25 23:29 UTC] No.44991222{3}[source]▶
Any Federal corporate tax relief at all. They put the pedal down on accelerated depreciation after 2008, though it existed over 20 years ago.

Any swapping of Federal Reserve bonds for corporate bonds, say during the pandemic.

42. andsoitis ◴[22 Aug 25 23:41 UTC] No.44991309{3}[source]▶
> Most of these were done under duress

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?

43. ◴[22 Aug 25 23:45 UTC] No.44991340[source]▶
44. tomstockmail ◴[22 Aug 25 23:51 UTC] No.44991400{3}[source]▶
"Air America was an American passenger and cargo airline established in 1946 and covertly owned and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 1950 to 1976."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America_(airline)

45. Barrin92 ◴[22 Aug 25 23:52 UTC] No.44991421[source]▶
The Chinese have been surprisingly willing to let companies and sectors die even at the expense of growth (see real estate), I think it's honestly too charitable to compare the US to China, which has at least some degree of technocratic governance, the US went straight for something out of the Tropico franchise
46. s1artibartfast ◴[22 Aug 25 23:56 UTC] No.44991466{3}[source]▶
Something like 60% of the top of 100 companies in China are entirely state-owned. Most of the rest are government stake
replies(2): >>44994426 #>>44994844 #
47. yieldcrv ◴[23 Aug 25 00:03 UTC] No.44991520{3}[source]▶
We also have criminal forfeiture, which was leveraged a lot more then. Civil forfeiture use expanded dramatically in recent decades due to profit sharing with DOJ alongside court challenges failing, suggesting the need for constitutional amendment if awareness of the practice improves.

Both should have more reforms.

replies(1): >>45021929 #
48. ChadNauseam ◴[23 Aug 25 03:13 UTC] No.44992776{4}[source]▶
Those bailouts were generally loans that were paid back. Pretty far from a "no strings attached blank cheque".
49. rpmisms ◴[23 Aug 25 03:28 UTC] No.44992870{3}[source]▶
We are very close to being in a depression. Most of our money has nothing to do with actually feeding or housing people. If the wrong thing shifts, we're toast.
replies(1): >>44997674 #
50. est ◴[23 Aug 25 08:45 UTC] No.44994426{4}[source]▶
key industries are all controlled by the govn't
51. torginus ◴[23 Aug 25 10:17 UTC] No.44994844{4}[source]▶
https://msadvisory.com/china-biggest-companies/

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.

replies(1): >>44996423 #
52. ◴[23 Aug 25 14:52 UTC] No.44996423{5}[source]▶
53. bink ◴[23 Aug 25 17:42 UTC] No.44997674{4}[source]▶
The unemployment rate is still near historic lows and while new job numbers are getting worse they're still positive overall. We aren't anywhere close to being in a depression currently.
replies(1): >>45006327 #
54. meowky ◴[23 Aug 25 22:32 UTC] No.44999654{3}[source]▶
> We aren't anywhere close to being in a depression though.

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.

55. Paradigma11 ◴[24 Aug 25 09:22 UTC] No.45002738{4}[source]▶
I wouldn't call those two years till the next elections long term.
56. rpmisms ◴[24 Aug 25 18:08 UTC] No.45006327{5}[source]▶
The unemployment rate does not count people who stopped trying. We are far closer than you think.