[lesuorac]

The way that worked is that part of the CHIPs act after Intel reached a milestone the USG handed them a bag of cash.

Intel failed at finishing a bunch of milestones so there was a large pot of money Intel did not get. Trump gave them that pot of money in return for 10% stock.

You can make up your own mind about whether investing money into a company that couldn't achieve milestones is a good idea.

[noir_lord]

I guess they could make the argument that holding 10% of the only company with an x86 license that manufacturers them at scale in the US was worth it.

If you consider it a hedge against missiles flying in the indo-pacific.

I don't know that I would but the US gov could - it's similar in terms of strategic goals as the Jones Act.

[lesuorac]

I mean the Jones act was pretty practical for it's time. When you could obtain a ship via a cheap lease from the US Navy then the lack of capital spend building the ship is fine to spend employing US sailors.

However, now that the navy is out of the business of buying overpriced ships to rent out (with the idea that they'd be repurposed if a war broke out) now the Jones act isn't very effective.

However, unlike the Jones Act there's no criteria that Intel be able to supply chips. At least with the Jones Act we're going to have US citizens practiced sailing ships. With the stock purchase Intel doesn't need to have capacity to build chips for missiles/drones/etc; especially with the government treating them as non-voting shares!

If the USG wanted a hedge they should've just forked some money over for an option to buy X chips for $Y. Or some more complex option about fab time / output. You hedge production concerns with futures not equity!

It's also not great to hedge by using a vendor that wasn't able to meet previous goals you gave them. Counterparty risk is a real thing.

[noir_lord]

Yeah hence the “I don’t know that I would” it was more an attempt to see it from their point of view and assume a rationale, there may not have been one or not a sensible one we can infer with what is publicly known, as an outsider I can’t say the US is a rational actor at this point.