←back to thread

335 points aspenmayer | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.402s | source
Show context
GeekyBear ◴[] No.45008439[source]
Didn't we already cross this particular Rubicon during the auto bailout a decade ago?

Other examples:

> Since the 1950s, the federal government has stepped in as a backstop for railroads, farm credit, airlines (twice), automotive companies, savings and loan companies, banks, and farmers.

Every situation has its own idiosyncrasies, but in each, the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry, avoiding systemic collapse that surely would have left the average taxpayer much worse off. In some instances, the treasury guaranteed loans, meaning that creditors would not suffer if the relevant industry could not generate sufficient revenue to pay back the loans, leading to less onerous interest rates.

A second option was that the government would provide loans at relatively low interest rates to ensure that industries remained solvent.

In a third option, the United States Treasury would take an ownership stake in some of these companies in what amounts to an “at-the-market” offering, in which the companies involved issue more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

replies(16): >>45008458 #>>45008466 #>>45008546 #>>45008710 #>>45008838 #>>45009730 #>>45009928 #>>45010439 #>>45010649 #>>45011116 #>>45011228 #>>45011332 #>>45012047 #>>45012973 #>>45014055 #>>45018837 #
AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.45008466[source]
Yes, but no. The bailout was companies that were headed for bankruptcy. Is Intel? My impression is that they're a lot further from it than GM and Chrysler were.
replies(3): >>45008735 #>>45009370 #>>45010771 #
Panzer04 ◴[] No.45010771[source]
Intel, the CPU (and GPU) designer is doing fine.

Intel the advanced IC manufacturer is worth effectively nothing right now.

If they can prove a successful advanced manufacturing process and start making chips on it that will likely reverse fairly quickly, but it's been a decade since they held fab leadership.

replies(1): >>45011015 #
jabl ◴[] No.45011015[source]
Perhaps the government should have required Intel be split into a fab business and a chip design business (as Intel has planned to do itself but hasn't been able to, for reasons). The chip design part can survive on its own without subsidies. Then the government can pump money into the fab business for national security reasons without affecting the chip design market too much.
replies(1): >>45013757 #
1. Panzer04 ◴[] No.45013757[source]
The problem with Intel splitting is precisely that the fab is worth nothing.

No one will give Intel real money for the advanced fabs, as they are worthless right now. I suspect that's probably the main thing holding Intel back from doing that - they can't get a decent price on the fabs, and just spinning them out directly would probably lead to a fairly immediate failure without Intel's CPU design division funding development without immediate expectation of returns.

If one was a gambling man (with a good helping of pride), you keep the fabs with Intel (where the CPU design division is printing money) and subsidise the fabs and hope they finally stick the landing and start making half-decent chips again.

replies(1): >>45014999 #
2. jabl ◴[] No.45014999[source]
Intel should have split 15 years ago, ideally, but I'm not sure that splitting now isn't better than not doing it. If they fail to catch up to TSMC, it's possible that the manufacturing branch will drag the design branch down with it.

If they split, it's likely the fab side of the business will need a large infusion of cash in order to catch up (be it in the form of a government bailout or something else), or then they have to accept becoming a second-rate player. For which there is still a large market, so they might actually do decent-ish there. But that pretty much leaves TSMC in a monopoly position.