5 ms·

Agree. One perspective that I'm amazed hasn't become obvious to mainstream yet is that there are a growing number of private companies where are functionally e

Agree. One perspective that I'm amazed hasn't become obvious to mainstream yet is that there are a growing number of private companies where are functionally extensions of the US government. Everyone knows about the US military-industrial complex, but they haven't clued in that the complex has grown and companies like Intel fall under that umbrella now. The CHIPS Act should have been a huge clue to anyone paying attention. As long as the US government stands, regardless of who is in office and what letter is next to their name, Intel will not ever fail.

reducesuffering 4y ago
Intel may not ever fail, but that sure doesn't mean shareholders will reap any rewards. Boeing won't fail either, but has been losing huge chunks of money every quarter for 2 years now.
user_named 4y ago
Won't fail but their stock can and likely will continue to fall for quite some time.
ethbr0 4y ago
When its self-professed peer state adversaries are Russia and China, is it surprising the US is bending more towards national champions?
- LarsDu88 4y ago
  It's the logical move from the national security perspective but I hope this doesn't turn into another Boeing aerospace monopoly fiasco where we saw the space program effectively stagnate for 30 years due to lack of competition. Disruptors in the chip manufacturing space are bascially gonna have to grow these things in petri dishes if we get locked into a government owned monopoly
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    I look at it as internal / external competition. Even the heavyweight, plodding military-industrial companies were innovative when they were being driven by external, nation-state competitors.
totalZero 4y ago
The CHIPS and Science Act is nowhere near a qualitative shift away from the investor-centric mentality of managing a public company. Many investors are short-term greedy and don't learn much about the real goings-on of the company. It makes a few things cheaper, but if you compare to TSMC and Samsung it's quite clear that Intel doesn't get anywhere near the amount of government money or political power that its competitors at the leading edge happen to have in their respective localities.

reducesuffering 4y ago

Intel may not ever fail, but that sure doesn't mean shareholders will reap any rewards. Boeing won't fail either, but has been losing huge chunks of money every quarter for 2 years now.

user_named 4y ago

Won't fail but their stock can and likely will continue to fall for quite some time.

ethbr0 4y ago

When its self-professed peer state adversaries are Russia and China, is it surprising the US is bending more towards national champions?

LarsDu88 4y ago
It's the logical move from the national security perspective but I hope this doesn't turn into another Boeing aerospace monopoly fiasco where we saw the space program effectively stagnate for 30 years due to lack of competition. Disruptors in the chip manufacturing space are bascially gonna have to grow these things in petri dishes if we get locked into a government owned monopoly
- ethbr0 4y ago
  I look at it as internal / external competition. Even the heavyweight, plodding military-industrial companies were innovative when they were being driven by external, nation-state competitors.

totalZero 4y ago

The CHIPS and Science Act is nowhere near a qualitative shift away from the investor-centric mentality of managing a public company. Many investors are short-term greedy and don't learn much about the real goings-on of the company. It makes a few things cheaper, but if you compare to TSMC and Samsung it's quite clear that Intel doesn't get anywhere near the amount of government money or political power that its competitors at the leading edge happen to have in their respective localities.