4 ms·
I like the proposed approach of purchase guarantees here. Directly injecting cash into Intel just creates a moral hazard where they spend the money dealing with
by zelias 2y ago
I like the proposed approach of purchase guarantees here. Directly injecting cash into Intel just creates a moral hazard where they spend the money dealing with organizational inertia than innovating in the space. Plus, the government could even turn a profit reselling its purchased semiconductors to various US companies!
The US ecosystem badly needs a serious Intel competitor -- because they just ain't it.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago> Plus, the government could even turn a profit reselling its purchased semiconductors to various US companies! No freaking way. How do you think that’s feasible, considering how fast depreciation goes in semiconductors?
- wmf 2y agoPork bellies also go bad but you can make money trading them. You don't even take delivery.
- jjtheblunt 2y agoare you suggesting the parent comment should be considering derivatives like agricultural product futures?
- wmf 2y agoYeah. The government could pre-pay for chips to guarantee demand then auction the futures right before the chips are manufactured.
- jjtheblunt 2y agowhat if no one buys the futures, which is entirely possible?
- wmf 2y agoThen it's a bailout.
- jjtheblunt 2y agogood point
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe payments are tied to real milestones like building fabs. Intel cannot spend the money on organizational inertia because that wouldn't get them the money.
- Invictus0 2y agoIt doesn't matter how badly they want to sell the chips if they don't have the money to build the fabs in the first place. That's where Intel is at right now. Building fabs is incredibly expensive and they need the money upfront.
- NortySpock 2y agoYou can get a loan against the value of a purchase contract if you have a firm purchase contract (i.e. from the government) and a convincing plan on how to manufacture to that price point...