3 ms·

Just wait for the "Coke, Steak, and Strippers" addendum. The C-levels need that for when they go party with Boeing. Intel made ~55 billion last year. Maybe t

Just wait for the "Coke, Steak, and Strippers" addendum. The C-levels need that for when they go party with Boeing. Intel made ~55 billion last year. Maybe they don't really need corporate welfare.

IncreasePosts 3y ago
It's more of an inducement to get the company to do what they might not do on their own. Intel doesn't need the CHIPS act, America does, and America is paying Intel to make it happen.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  This just sounds like how we got into our current mess with Boeing.
  - x0x0 3y ago
    You're not wrong, but having an incredibly important dependence on an industry 100 miles off the coast of China (and the target of their increasingly erratic dictator) is worth paying billions to break.
    - jimbob45 3y ago
      This short-termism seems like it's been America's chief problem through the centuries. "We need slavery - our economy will fall apart without it!" "We need Standard Oil and US Steel - splitting them apart would be a catastrophe!" "We need universal healthcare - a public option would place undue burden on insurance companies!" "We need Boeing - our foreign competitors would eat us up otherwise!" At some point, it's time to admit that the long-term pain is not worth the short-term benefits we get from naive economic policies.
      - x0x0 3y ago
        1 - not short-termism 2 - comparing a minor economic investment ($8B on a $23T gdp) to slavery, and the economic system built on slavery, is the stupidest thing I've read this week, so, well, congrats. I guess? 3 - not a naive economic policy; US government investment built silicon valley and that's going ok.
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        Try being a green badge at Intel and then get back to me
    - macksd 3y ago
      Well it's a bit like how I see universal healthcare. Would it be worth paying billions for? Oh absolutely. Do I believe the current US Gov could actually take all the money in the world and make it happen in a way I'd be happy with? LOL.

Just wait for the "Coke, Steak, and Strippers" addendum. The C-levels need that for when they go party with Boeing. Intel made ~55 billion last year. Maybe they don't really need corporate welfare.

IncreasePosts 3y ago

It's more of an inducement to get the company to do what they might not do on their own. Intel doesn't need the CHIPS act, America does, and America is paying Intel to make it happen.

jimbob45 3y ago
This just sounds like how we got into our current mess with Boeing.
- x0x0 3y ago
  You're not wrong, but having an incredibly important dependence on an industry 100 miles off the coast of China (and the target of their increasingly erratic dictator) is worth paying billions to break.
  - jimbob45 3y ago
    This short-termism seems like it's been America's chief problem through the centuries. "We need slavery - our economy will fall apart without it!" "We need Standard Oil and US Steel - splitting them apart would be a catastrophe!" "We need universal healthcare - a public option would place undue burden on insurance companies!" "We need Boeing - our foreign competitors would eat us up otherwise!" At some point, it's time to admit that the long-term pain is not worth the short-term benefits we get from naive economic policies.
    - x0x0 3y ago
      1 - not short-termism 2 - comparing a minor economic investment ($8B on a $23T gdp) to slavery, and the economic system built on slavery, is the stupidest thing I've read this week, so, well, congrats. I guess? 3 - not a naive economic policy; US government investment built silicon valley and that's going ok.
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Try being a green badge at Intel and then get back to me
  - macksd 3y ago
    Well it's a bit like how I see universal healthcare. Would it be worth paying billions for? Oh absolutely. Do I believe the current US Gov could actually take all the money in the world and make it happen in a way I'd be happy with? LOL.