←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.741s | source
Show context
jmyeet ◴[] No.45026950[source]
The short version is: this can work but it won't.

Let me just say, for those of us who remember the 1990s and 2000s, Intel's drop off has been something nobody would've predicted. It's hard to overstate just how dominant they were (other than the fairly brief but significant Athlon64 era). And even when they were behind on consumer CPUs, which they were until the Core Duo/Centrino platform (which was really the Pentium 3) saved them from the Pentium 4 disaster, their fab ability was second to none.

So what happened? Capitalism happened. More specifically, financialization happened. Everything US companies does comes down to simply cutting costs and increasing profits for short-term financial performance. There is (now) absolutely no long term thinking. CEOs get parachuted in and stay just long enough to collect a huge golden parachute before the merry-go-round continues. And who are approving these massive CEO pay packets? Other CEOs who sit on the board.

We've seen this exact same thing happen with Boeing. The only things holding Boeing together are the inertia from earlier successes, the 737 type rating monopoly for budget airlines and defense contracting. Just look at the Starliner project to see Boeing actually try to build anything.

An example of this financialization is the likes of Dell, Gateway, IBM, HP, Compaq, etc all started to cut costs by offshoring parts of their operations to Taiwan. At first it was just assembly and then it was certain parts (eg motherboards) and at some point they had completely funded the Taiwan PC industry and created Asus, Acer, MSI, etc. US computer manufacturers completely paid for the Taiwan PC industry by short-term profit seeking.

There are multiple ways to describe China's economy but the most accurate and relevant for this topic is that it's a command economy and the coming years will show just how much more devastatingly effective this will be. Really the only thing stopping Chinese companies from destroying Western competitors is trade barriers (eg BYD).

So I think the US government should take equity interests in companies they bail out rather than just giving them gifts or even loans. The government should (IMHO) also take equity stakes in any extraction companies (eg oil and gas). China shows this can work.

So why won't it work here? Because the administration is both corrupt and incompetent. Everything done by the administration is to line the pockets of politicians and the wealthy on a very short-term basis. You see it in Congressional stock trades (eg buying up Intel ahead of the announcement).

As for the author, I suspect he represents the American corporate view that any kind of government intervention (beyond bail outs) cannot work because they don't want that long term. It would reduce profits and/or make a few people slightly less wealthy. They spend a lot of money on propaganda to convince ordinary people that corporatism is good and collectivisim of any kind is bad, that governments aren't capable of anything, etc.

All Western companies and billionaires want is public-private partnerships because they're a massive wealth transfer from the government to the wealthy. They don't want the government taking away profits from private hands.

replies(5): >>45027026 #>>45027030 #>>45027036 #>>45027422 #>>45030444 #
righthand ◴[] No.45027030[source]
> So I think the US government should take equity interests in companies they bail out rather than just giving them gifts or even loans.

The US government never gave bailout and gifts to Intel. The original agreement was profit-sharing with Intel through the CHIPS act is standard with any business wanting the funds. All Trump did specifically for Intel was alter the deal to be an equity stake instead, which will still only be beneficial is Intel is profitable.

Your entire comment is faulting on this premise. Please stop spreading this lie.

replies(1): >>45027571 #
1. jmyeet ◴[] No.45027571[source]
This is a bailout to Intel. It's essentially the US government pfoviding guarantees to Intel and its customers. How would you describe that as anything but a bailout?

But really I was talking generally, such as the bank bailouts in 2008. When a bank normally fails the FDIC comes in and takes control of it including ownership. The shareholders are SOL. In my mind, this is exactly what should've happened to all the banks that were essentially insolvent.

As another example, the US government bailed out LTCM in the 1990s when there was a willing buyer (Warren Buffett).

replies(1): >>45027999 #
2. righthand ◴[] No.45027999[source]
Bailouts are different from the CHIPS act you’ll just have to accept that those other bailout agreements didn’t have a profit-sharing clause attached.

Emotionally you call it a bailout but it is not and by trying to enforce that fact you are ignoring the truth and pressing a lie.

Plain and simple the CHIPS Act is not a bailout. [0]

[0] “Biden to require chips companies winning subsidies to share excess profits” >> https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-require-companies-winn...

> Recipients who receive more than $150 million in direct funding "will be required to share with the U.S. government a portion of any cash flows or returns that exceed the applicant’s projections by an agreed-upon threshold," the department said.

> Companies winning funding are also prohibited from using chips funds for dividends or stock buybacks, and must provide details of any plans to buy back their own shares over five years. The department will consider an "applicant’s commitments to refrain from stock buybacks."

replies(1): >>45040899 #
3. snapcaster ◴[] No.45040899[source]
Do you think nitpicks like this are effective arguments? It's a bailout: they received privileged access to financing others didn't get