Yet it was the black guy who they called a socialist....
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
91 points (96.0% liked)
News
31908 readers
2778 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd generally rather not have the government involved in an ownership position in the market, but my guess is that:
-
The US considers having a domestic (and second global) fab operator to be a national security priority. This would not be terribly surprising and would be in line with US statements and actions regarding chip availability for some years now.
-
Intel might not be dead without support, but they aren't doing so well. I suspect that they're going to get support from the federal government.
-
One way that the government can get some kind of direct return is to get some ownership in return for support. As I recall, this was done with some of the US auto companies the second time they were bailed out. The US sold its ownership share later to recoup some of its money.
kagis
Yeah:
https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/u-s-exits-gm-stake-taxpayers-lose-10-5-billion-2D11716261
DETROIT — The U.S. government ended up losing $10.5 billion on the General Motors bailout, but it says the alternative would have been far worse.
The Treasury Department sold its final shares of the Detroit auto giant Monday, recovering $39 billion of the $49.5 billion it spent to save the dying automaker at the height of the financial crisis five years ago.
I don't know how this works, whether existing shareholders get diluted or what, but I suspect that it may be kinda the convention for this kind of situation.
My guess is that if the US gets some ownership, it will probably sell it off later when and if Intel is on more solid ground.
If I make a bad investment, I'm hosed. If these fucks make a bad investment, they use my money to prop up the market so they can sell high and then let it tank.
I do not trust this administration to do anything more than cover their own and their donors, asses. Propping up a failing silicon fab company is a good way to set large sums of money on fire.
If these fucks make a bad investment, they use my money to prop up the market
But if the industry is critical for basic functions of the economy - say, education or medicine or transit - then maybe keeping the lights on is more important than maximizing rental profits.
If an industry is so critical to the functioning of the economy or the state then maybe it should be owned by the state? Maybe critical components of our society should not be at the whims of shareholders.
Okay, but you can't do that because if the state runs an enterprise then Joseph Stalin happens
I mean, yeah, that's where this would go.
Um what? Rental profits?
As far as its importance, Im a silicon design engineer. I care a lot about that. There are US fabs that aren't too far behind for now, and TSMC is building its next fab in Arizona, notTaiwan.
Like I said this is all about investors. Don't be fooled.
Um what? Rental profits?
Economic "Rents". Surplus income earned by a resource owner.
In Intel's case, they thought they could avoid investing in new major capital projects and just milk the existing IP/facilities to draw out the return on the original investment.
There are US fabs that aren’t too far behind for now, and TSMC is building its next fab in Arizona, notTaiwan.
I guess we'll see what comes of that. But I'm not sure sending Intel into receivership is going to improve the American tech sector landscape
Intel is not going to fab leading edge chips anymore. They dont have the ability. From an economic standpoint, it appears they just tried to wring everything they could out of their old tech, but the technical reason is they didn't have another option. There are no new technologies that they could have moved to. TSMC and Samsung are the only people making valuable advancements. They are only able to do so with the cooperation of all of their fab customers' input. Intel doesn't manufacture customers' chips, only their own. They will have to spin off their failing fab and hopefully recover with their design side.
I didn't say they're going bankrupt. But their stock price is suffering. Go look at it over the last 5 yrs. Cronies want their money, so they're gonna pump and dump.
I get the "haha funny" aspect of your comment, however, what is remotely socialist about this?
Government do things, country get socialister.
Government no do things, county get libertyer
Government do many thing? COMMUNISM.
A democratic* government part-owning the means of production.
Its not complex.
*for now. Kinda.
Me, a socialist: nationalize critical industries
Also me: wait not like that
lol they want to bankrupt it even faster don't they
Exit Liquidity
"FrEE mArKEt caPitLIsm"
YSK, The Nazis allowed private business although the worthwhile parts were mostly nationalized. Also, Nazis limited trade significantly under an autarky policy. Nazi Nationalization was directed at both labor goals, such as the German labor front Volkswagen, and strategic goals such as iron and steel.
Long f*cking live AMD.
Their fabs are useful to someone at some price point. The microcontroller that runs your dishwasher doesn't need TSMC N3. Now, the investments Intel has made into their fabs probably can't turn a profit by selling to other customers, and nobody wants their CPUs.
Note that Intel Core Ultra processors aren't on Intel's own nodes, but rather on TSMC N3B. The AMD 9000 series are on TSMC 4nm. Intel is technically on a better node, but you wouldn't know it from any benchmarks on speed or power usage. AMD has a fundamental engineering advantage in CPU design at this point, and they're able to overcome a transistor density disadvantage.
Nor does anyone care about getting an x86 license. The companies that want to build top end CPUs on their own are looking at ARM and RISC-V. Someone could have bought Via if they wanted an x86 license. Nvidia could buy it with loose change Jensen found in his couch. Nobody cares.
So that leaves the manufacturing nodes as the major asset anyone would want, but it has to come at a discounted price for the expected discounted revenue. Intel does some other stuff, too, of course, but nothing that can prop the whole company up. Current Intel shareholders will never see a return on investment, but fabs are still useful.
And this is how we became known as the country with the best Georgia Peach!