So....
- I thought we were just having a friendly speculative conversation; I even used the word spit-balling to make that evident.
- I have ZERO say on what happens to Intel, nor do I have any "stroke" in DC, nor have we even crossed the bridge where Intel needs to be folded or bailed out, so why are you getting spun up?
- That said, the government bail-out of GM and others in 2008 were not well-received; I think it's safe to say that both the Tea Party and birth of modern 21st Century populism were born in the aftermath, and there's no telling what political winds will be blowing if/when Intel totally shits the bed (they're about halfway there).
- I think you might be a little blind to what is happening at Intel; they're facing a truly existential crisis; YES, it is that bad; NO, this is not hyperbole. There's so much overwhelming evidence to how screwed Intel is right now, culturally, financially, and competitively, that it's hard to understand how anyone can see it differently--and I don't mean where they wind up; I mean where they are right now.
- You don't think the US Government could set up a new contractor staffed by ex-Intel vets, maybe a few folks from TSMC? But you also seem to think that Intel has tons of relevant experience in the modern fabbing world, which maybe they're accruing, but are hardly seasoned pros. That's a bit puzzling to me. I guess my stance is: Why would anyone trust Intel's fabs given their recent performance? It seems like their strategy is to really hope for China to invade Taiwan, which would be catastrophic on so many levels and introduce variables not easy to predict.
1. You know what, you are right, there was no need to put terms like stupid or throw insults. My apologies, I should not have done that.
2. Spit-balling triggered me, which it shouldn't have, but because I hear enough morons in politics "spit-balling", from Joe Rogan to RFK Jr., that the whole term annoys me by now. Again, shouldn't have gotten triggered.
3. Gov bailout of GM arguably saved a storied car maker and helped US automotive manufacturing industry. It saved tens of thousands of jobs, Gov got their money back and the company has been profitable since. It was absolutely the right move. The bigger issue during the Great Recessions were Wall Street bailouts. Some were necessary, but others were egregious. And yes, Tea Party and populism were spun up by opportunists during that era. However, bailing out GM wasn't really the cause of it and while it threw some additional fuel to the fire, it wasn't main culprit by far.
4. I am not blind to Intel's gross mismanagement over the last decade. And I think kicking out Intel's upper management and the governing board would be a good move with tight oversight. Yes, they are having issue, large issues and I am astounded of the string of mismanagement at Intel (can draw parallels with Boeing here). Its still not the end of the world, if they get their ass in gear though, which I know is a big "IF".
5. No, I do not think US Government is capable of setting up a new contractor. Firstly, US Gov doesn't do that, setup new contractors that is. Secondly, it would go to an existing "Beltway Bandit" or even worse to some Private Equity. Mind you, defense industry, for all its faults, isn't all bad, but they are absolutely not the right place for large scale chip manufacturing at the edge.
With all Intel's issues, they are still the most advanced chip manufacturer on US soil, owned by a US company. A lot of defense contractors work with Intel on gov related chip manufacturing. Intel has a lot of good engineers and manufacturing know how. Yes, there are major issues, but the simple fact is that there is nobody better, and breaking up Intel and giving pieces to an unknown is almost guaranteed to make things worse.
There are too many moving parts in chip manufacturing, packaging, production. Supply chains alone are crazy. IF it comes to a point Intel is going to be insolvent (I don't think it will happen personally), it would be much better to use Defense Act to swoop in, kick out upper management and save the company vs alternatives.
