US support is ‘essential,’ but equity stake raises concerns
00:00 Speaker A
When we look at the view of the companies receiving the Cips law financing, who should now be reset because it has some kind of partnership with the government?
00:15 Speaker B
Obviously, I think you will probably look at the US -based ones, because I think it would be difficult to convince TSMC and other country companies for some of these agreements from outside the United States. UM, but I mean, there will be micron, there are global documents, the UH is much less, even though it is much to a degree. I mean, I guess it’s probably over here. But look, the bigger issue we need to talk about is this really right? I mean, the government has given subsidies to farmers and any other industry, where there is never any reimbursement and investment debates from a perspective of earnings. And I think we should think about very serious questions because there are long -term potential results that I don’t think are very good here.
01:50 Speaker A
On this front, I was shot in a column of UH Greg IP, even before this last conversation about Intel about 10 days before the UH Greg IP in Wall Street Journal. And a generation before the traditional wisdom, as China’s liberalization became the similarity of the economy of America. Instead, capitalism in America begins to look like China. And Gotham, I want to bring you to this. UM companies don’t seem to raise a big ruckus here because you know, those who practice sanctions in various ways, aren’t they? So, how do you think that this will work between the government and the Intel?
03:12 Gotham
Yes, companies object because they are afraid. It is as if the CEOs of such simple and large companies think themselves as some of the most powerful people in the world and some of them in many ways. However, if you compare even the most powerful CEO, the world’s largest company with the US President, you are looking for a pygm with a elephant. Not even a competition. And this is a president who will be willing to exercise the powers of the federal government, to punish people who do not even like the powers of the federal government, or that he is willing to use even people who do not agree with an enthusiasm. And all CEOs say individually, look, I can’t play that game. They can stand collectively, but strikingly, collective action organisms, Chamber of Commerce, you know, the conference board like this, to act to act as organizers to come together and take CEOs to collect their powers and use their forces to act to act to act to act.
04:56 Speaker A
It seems like Gotham, because maybe they get some benefits, right? In the case of Intel, yes, he received a $ 2 billion infusion from Softbank, but you know, if he hit this agreement with the government, is it more advantage than a disadvantage?
05:35 Gotham
I mean, Intel has had a problem in the last few years, but I don’t think they’re so desperate for cash, what you do, I don’t think they need 10 billion dollars from the government when it allows Howard Letnik and Donald Trump to enter your board of directors and let them dictate the future strategy process for your company. They make claims that they don’t go, they will have stocks that do not vote, but as no one believed it, right? As if it is completely unreasonable. And therefore, even except for the problems at the national level that the federal government cannot implement it or has these abilities, none of this makes sense. From an individual level, the temporarily encouraged boss of the Trump administration may be good for a week or two, but I think lip buta knows better than anyone else, right? He said he wanted Trump to be fired a few weeks ago. Now that favorite boy. There may be something else next week, and no company can be employed like this.
07:14 Speaker A
UM Bob, what do you think here? Because you said Intel was also necessary for American security. Therefore, there is such an argument that it has national interests to build this powerful home industry.
07:53 Bob
I am absolutely absolutely and completely agree with the newly discussed, because these changes cannot always be defended for long -term success. And when we think about the critical importance that semiconductors play in the entire economy, we don’t always talk about technology, but remember that semiconductors are in cars, that they are in washing machines, that they are in almost everything. And all this is directed by technology developments. And now, the most advanced technology in the US has been made by Intel. And they make these investments to make other companies benefit from them, because you know, there are no geopolitical problems, but there is also the main practical problem of TSMC, a company with almost 100% of the most advanced chip construction. This does not make sense from a supply chain perspective. You need diversity, you need production in the United States because semiconductors will be critical forward. You can’t just buy and say, oh, you can be the next intel. It was made to reach where they were located for decades. These do not change overnight. Therefore, it is important that the government provides some subsidies. Maybe they encourage other US companies to work with Intel. Intel’s piece that really needs to progress for the nail of the documentary works, you know, NVIDIA, AMD, an apple, a Qualcomm, such companies to do some business with Intel in Foundry business. This can really reverse things and then begin to see more diversification in the supply chain, which is really important. Again, not only for the US, but for the global semiconductor industry.
