[transcriptase]

They would be paying far more if chips suddenly stopped coming out of Taiwan in the future and the U.S. had no onshore capacity to make their own.

It’s more of an insurance policy than a subsidy. Intel needs a reason to build in the U.S., and grants tip the ROI scale on their side to make it happen.

[HEmanZ]

IMO this is a big enough national security threat that what intel is doing is similar to if Lockheed said “we’re going to start selling to Russia instead of the US unless the US gives us nice grants”.

It shouldn’t even be an option for Intel to continue manufacturing in other countries. It should be “move manufacturing back to the US or the Fed will take ownership of the whole company and do it for you.”

(And maybe it’s sort of an unspoken assumption that if they don’t take this carrot, then the US really would use the stick to force their manufacturing back into the US).

[aylmao]

An expropriation of this kind and magnitude by the US government would be historic. Has it happened before? I'm curious.

I know there's talk about TikTok either selling to a USA owner or leaving, which seems pretty monumental too. Not quite an expropriation since the state wouldn't be taking control of it, but somewhat similar.

[aylmao]

> Intel needs a reason to build in the U.S.

I mean, if Intel is only motivated to build in the USA when it gets a fat check rather than out of conviction, I think that's a problem too, no? Does this mean that whenever maximizing (short-term) shareholder value is at odds with national sovereignty the USA will have to hand them out a check?

I don't know that this is what's going on here, perhaps Intel really is committed to the USA beyond the individual gain of its executives and shareholders. It's worth noting though, there's some prominent examples in US history where this hasn't been the case. Banks for example got really rich at the USA's expense in the years leading to 2008.