←back to thread

Uncle Sam shouldn't own Intel stock

(www.wsj.com)
335 points aspenmayer | 7 comments | 24 Aug 25 21:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.444s | source | bottom
Show context
srvo ◴[24 Aug 25 23:47 UTC] No.45008850[source]▶
The problem here isn't that the government gets involved in businesses. That has always been something they do.

The problem is that these days they do it capriciously, without any sort of plan or intention.

The government played a foundational role in supporting the early stage research that enabled companies like Intel to emerge. Underwriting that sort of long-term investment that wouldn't easily attract commercial capital is a great place for them to be.

Meanwhile, is it even the case that the American chip industry is declining? Apple, Nvidia, and Google all have significant chip manufacturing operations. And this isn't an industry I even follow particularly closesly.

replies(4): >>45009433 #>>45009577 #>>45010141 #>>45015032 #
1. petralithic ◴[25 Aug 25 04:15 UTC] No.45010141[source]▶
Which American companies manufacture chips on the latest node? Certainly not Texas Instruments, Global Foundries and one might even argue Intel, compared to Samsung and TSMC. It is a matter of national security that Intel not fail.
replies(2): >>45011482 #>>45014423 #
2. freeopinion ◴[25 Aug 25 08:11 UTC] No.45011482[source]▶
It is a matter of national security that state-of-the-art fabs exist within the nation and that the expertise to operate them also exists within the nation.

As you point out, it is questionable whether Intel has either of these.

It might be argued that it is critical to national security that Intel be replaced by HP. Or Nvidia. Or Sun, or Motorola, or Micron, or TI, or...

What's that you say? Most of those companies had their chance and failed? None of those companies are really in the game?

Why among all the list of failed or current fab owners is it so important that Intel be declared sacred?

Why not recognize that Intel is getting its clock cleaned by a company that doesn't design chips? Why not look outside of the chip design industry to save the chip fab industry?

replies(3): >>45012158 #>>45012713 #>>45013068 #
3. qwopmaster ◴[25 Aug 25 09:59 UTC] No.45012158[source]▶
The bet seems obvious - Intel has been failing for a while, but they're still much better positioned to produce what the US government wants than some random companies like HP or TI. Their fabs aren't quite on the bleeding edge and the yields aren't quite what they'd like to have but it's still much more advanced than TI's 45-250nm fabs.

If HP, or Nvidia, or Sun, or Motorola wanted the bag maybe they should've tried building their own modern fabs.

4. tomp ◴[25 Aug 25 11:32 UTC] No.45012713[source]▶
> Why among all the list of failed or current fab owners is it so important that Intel be declared sacred?

Has TI ever made anything nearly as complex as CPUs? Has NVIDIA? (Hint: the answer is "no"). Intel is pretty much the only option, though ChatGPT suggests GlobalFoundries as a potential other option (spun out of AMD).

5. petralithic ◴[25 Aug 25 12:23 UTC] No.45013068[source]▶
Because Intel is the only player left. What do you mean look outside the chip design industry to save the chip fab industry? It takes a very long time and lots of money to spin up a new state of the art fab, while Intel already has it mostly set up.
6. SirMaster ◴[25 Aug 25 14:44 UTC] No.45014423[source]▶
What government or military things use anywhere near the latest node chips though? I thought all that stuff usually uses really old chips, because that stuff only changes like once every couple decades.
replies(1): >>45015521 #
7. petralithic ◴[25 Aug 25 16:18 UTC] No.45015521[source]▶
The government wants to build AI data centers and I'd assume they're not using decades old nodes to do so. There is always a use case and therefore national security interest for the latest nodes.