←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 1 comments | 26 Aug 25 10:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.222s | source
Show context
rickdeckard ◴[26 Aug 25 11:31 UTC] No.45025088[source]▶
> "The single most important reason for the U.S. to own part of Intel, however, is the implicit promise that Intel Foundry is not going anywhere."

If the last 8 Months of this year has shown something, it's that every decision the US takes could be considerate, but as likely also completely random and reversed and bent at any moment in the future.

Accepting those risks in order to sell in the US-market (assuming it would be required) requires that the US-market also provides the commercial rewards.

For now I don't see that this is secured in sufficient volume to justify such an investment, considering that it will take YEARS for Intel to actually become a viable foundry and have a customer product ready to be produced there. And I'm not even talking about the potential cost-increase vs. an established high-volume foundry...

replies(2): >>45026700 #>>45028304 #
klooney ◴[26 Aug 25 15:56 UTC] No.45028304[source]▶
Best case, we get President Vance before 2028 and things settle down.
replies(2): >>45028467 #>>45028556 #
lantry ◴[26 Aug 25 16:13 UTC] No.45028556[source]▶
I'm not so sure that things would settle down if trump was out of the picture. Trump is obviously an active force, but even if he is gone, the forces that led to his rise will still exist. In other words, even without trump there is a strong anti-elite, anti-expert, nationalist/isolationist movement in the US. Waiting for trump to die or go away is foolish.
replies(1): >>45030926 #
1. xp84 ◴[26 Aug 25 19:15 UTC] No.45030926[source]▶
Sure, but the thing is, from appearances Trump seems to lack the ability to think strategically, to plan, and importantly, to find and listen to people who know things.

Even setting aside most of the culture-war stuff, which is so white-hot right now that it clouds matters, I think almost any other politician other than Trump, AOC, MTG, and probably a couple more I'm forgetting, would be more likely to do that last thing.

Trump's main issue is that he gets all excited and makes rash decisions based on the last person he talked to, compounded by the fact that he chooses who to talk to overwhelmingly based on chump change "campaign contributions" (bribes), family nepotism, or just his existing network of sycophants.

I'm saying all this neutrally toward ideology and left/right. Frankly I think life was fine domestically under both G. W. Bush and Obama, because both of them weren't impulsive and easily swayed to erratic decisions.