Intel Awarded Up To $8.5 Billion in CHIPS Act Grants, With Billions More in Loans Available 29
The White House said Wednesday Intel has been awarded up to $8.5 billion in CHIPS Act funding, as the Biden administration ramps up its effort to bring semiconductor manufacturing to U.S. soil. From a report: Intel could receive an additional $11 billion in loans from the CHIPS and Science Act, which was passed in 2022. The awards will be announced by President Joe Biden in Arizona on Wednesday. The money will help "leading-edge semiconductors made in the United States" keep "America in the driver's seat of innovation," U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said on a call with reporters. Intel and the White House said their agreement is nonbinding and preliminary and could change.
Intel has long been a stalwart of the U.S. semiconductor industry, developing chips that power many of the world's PCs and data center servers. However, the company has been eclipsed in revenue by Nvidia, which leads in artificial intelligence chips, and has been surpassed in market cap by rival AMD and mobile phone chipmaker Qualcomm.
Intel has long been a stalwart of the U.S. semiconductor industry, developing chips that power many of the world's PCs and data center servers. However, the company has been eclipsed in revenue by Nvidia, which leads in artificial intelligence chips, and has been surpassed in market cap by rival AMD and mobile phone chipmaker Qualcomm.
Leading edge (Score:4, Insightful)
If they wanted to fund leading edge semiconductor manufacturing, they wouldn't be giving money to Intel.
Re: (Score:3)
Good thing they are also granting money to TSMC [reuters.com] to build an Arizona fab. Having a diverse domestic chip supply is a good thing for our national security and our economy in general.
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC is dragging their feet.
As if they need it (Score:3)
Funding is #2, EPA hall Pass #1. (Score:2)
Making chips in TX and AZ is 100x less
Re: As if they need it (Score:2)
They didn't need it, because they have the money already.
Just put tariffs on the imports and they will spend their own money to serve this lucrative market.
Free money for private enterprise! YAY! (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume for all that money there's some form of guaranteed return? Like, even if the return is couched in language about job creation, or overall employment, or tax revenue of a certain amount over a period of time, there should be SOMETHING. My preference would be stock owned by the government, with any form of dividend payout then being dispersed to taxpayers in the form of relief on their own taxes. I know, totally unrealistic, but in a perfect world this would be what would happen when the US government hands massive wads of money over to already profitable businesses.
Does Intel have any obligation to follow through after that fat stack of cash? Or is this like the telcos have always been? Accept the money to build out infrastructure, hand it to the execs as bonuses, then come back with the hands out a few years down the line? Because as a US citizen that's constantly told monetary troubles are an individual's responsibility to deal with, watching billions upon billions be handed over to big business year after year gets a tiny bit galling.
I'd like to see some consequences when we inevitably see zero new facilities actually built and operational in the US within a certain timeframe. Then again, I'd like to live in a country where the citizens are cared for before the big money interests, and we all know that's not going to happen.
Re:Free money for private enterprise! YAY! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A 4 Billion dollar factory has 12 billion dollars in OPEX in HR and power spend over the next 20 years. Since the main input on that is domestic natural gas from TX and AZ the value will come back to the federal and state partners. I am not concerned about chances of the value for the taxpayer, I am concerned about big empty holes in the ground like the SSC, where the money is spent all inside the beltway on a half a decade of conflict, before the real players get started. https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
So you just assume that Intel will follow through? That's an amazing amount of hope to maintain in the face on unrelentingly pessimistic past outcomes from tossing money at corporations. It's not like telcos were the only ones to take huge amounts of money and do nothing with it. Airframe manufacturers and their stock buybacks are another example. We have a habit of handing free money over with no real strings attached, and then wondering why nothing ever happens with it. I expect this to end up the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because suburban last mile was also bad and it was more profitable to make that even better than to do anything for rural areas. And since their service levels in suburban areas are still below par, it is likely technically eligible to be spent that way. Urban areas are a little more expensive than suburban but cheaper than rural because literally everything that needs upgraded is under concrete.
Re: (Score:1)
IBM (+Red Hat) and Microsoft are already openly racist. Intel joins the fold?
It is. I read a number of articles this week (don't have links handy) documenting how it's very difficult for companies to use the CHIPS subsidies because the DEI requirements are so onerous.
My conclusion is CHIPS isn't and never was about improving semiconductor manufacturing. It was entirely intended as a carrot and stick to enforce DEI policies without having to admit that's the goal.
Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does the federal government get the constitutional authority to give "grants" and "loans" to corporations? I've studied the document quite thoroughly and I must have missed it.
Perhaps if the federal government reserved itself to its constitutional role (e.g. obeyed the law), we wouldn't be $30 trillion in debt.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
This is referred to as spending money. I don't believe many laws separately distinguish a grant or loan from "spending" in the general sense. Congress has the authority to spend taxpayer money.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I see. So Congress has unlimited power. If that's the case, then why did we have 248 years of debate over federalism?
Re: (Score:2)
Not unlimited. The spending clause says Cogress can "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." Broadly speaking, the scope of the matter was decided by the Supreme Court in 1936. So not 248 years, but 160.
Not everything would fall under the broad umbrella of general welfare, but assuming the possibility that a foreign government halting trade of chips could cause a lot of general un-welfare, this wou
Re: (Score:2)
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power to do the following things."
Followed by
"Congress may wield limitless power."
Does that sound reasonable?
Encouraging More Corruption (Score:1, Troll)
Change "stalwart" to "arogant, bully and extortionist".
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/6pppdz/intels_antitrust_practices_since_the_1980s/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/nov/04/intel-bribed-for-bribery-coercion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel
SSA $15.5 billion (Score:1)
Market manipulation? (Score:2)
In other jurisdictions, this would be called market manipulation?
This money will benefit (1) Intel senior management and maybe a bit (2) INTC shareholders. Can't see any (3).
Wondering how much say did (1) have in the decision of the government.
Why the fuck did we just give them money? (Score:2, Insightful)
No more free handouts to corporations if they want my tax dollars which are the most valuable dollars on the planet they're going to give us something in return and that's something is ownership in the company. Hell of all you Ubi guys want to fund it what better way than having the government own billions and billions of dollars in stock and then handing out dividends.
Queue State of Oregon (Score:2)
Not capitalism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)