The United States government takes a stake in Intel. It is rare – and it has some risks: NPR

In the American capitalist economy, the markets choose winners, and the federal government usually remains far by working. But during times of crisis or war, the government sometimes felt the need to intervene.

During the First and Second World War, it seized railways and telegraph networks, and the sustainable industries, such as coal mining, when the strikes threatened the war effort.

Since then, the federal deposit insurance company, which was established in the wake of the Great Depression, has taken over American banks that have failed to protect depositors and maintain the stability of the economy.

And when the companies are considered “greater than failing”, including the insurance company AIG Carisler and Gunral Motors, which was distinguished by the brink of collapse during the great financial crisis in 2007-2009, the government took its shares to help support them.

In late August, the Trump administration took a page of this book – but with a development.

The government was almost taken 10 % share in the chips maker IntelTo become the largest shareholder for her. The company designs and produces fine chips that enter everything from self -driving cars to laptops.

However, the United States does not face any severe economic crisis or war. Instead, the government’s motive is competition with China and the artificial intelligence race, which has fueled the desire to enhance American companies’ ability to make advanced small chips at home.

Last year, President Biden He won billions of dollars Grants to Intel via the Law of Chips and Science. Now, the Trump administration converts these and other grants into royal rights.

Intel long history

Michael Malon, author of the book ” The Intel Trinity: How Robert Nuis, Gordon Moore and Andy Group built the most important company in the worldIntel invented modern fine chips. The company was Founded in 1968 In Mountain View, California-alongside junior computer makers who relied on their chips, they helped build what is known today as the Silicon Valley.

“I really governed the world of chips. Everyone, as you know, was planets next to the sun,” he said.

But the company failed to reach early in the smartphone boom, and later missed the boat on artificial intelligence database chips. Now, Malon said, Taiwan TSMC It leads the package, followed by Samsung in South Korea.

“They are always behind the other players,” he said.

“Intel is trying to keep up with it. But, as you know, in this work, everything exceeds every two years,” he continued. “So if you fail a generation, which is just a small part of the contract, you can not catch almost with the knees. This is where you find Intel itself.”

Nevertheless, analysts say Intel is still the best option for the United States to try to restore the lead in the manufacture of high -end chips.

“The companies that can actually manufacture these advanced chips are very important strategically because there are many of them only,” said Jennifer Lind, a government professor at Dartmouth College. “Intel is the only one in the United States.”

Most other main players, including Nvidia and AMDWhich makes the most popular slides to develop artificial intelligence, do not make anything. They charge designs to Taiwan where TSMC manufacturing.

Patch to the chips beach

Jacob Field, an analyst at the Georgetown University Center for Emerging Security and Technology, said the idea behind Intel’s support and reformulation of leading chips in the United States is to reduce the risk of “foreign show shocks”, such as the potential closure of manufacturing stations abroad.

“This is a general way to say that the government is concerned about China’s invasion of Taiwan and TSMC, which was beaten in a non -communication mode,” he said.

Beijing Taiwan is part of China and eventually pledged to unify the autonomous island with the mainland, by force if necessary. Experts say forced acquisition is likely to knock on Taiwan makers into a non -communication mode, if not long in the long run.

The other reason for the US government’s support in Intel was to reduce the risks posed by foreign chips in critical national security systems-although Taiwan is a long friend of the United States and South Korea as an treaty of a treaty. For example, he said, one of the concerns could be that the manufactured missiles with foreign chips designed can have security weaknesses.

“Something can be included in it, which leads to the missile failure,” he said.

The CEO of Intel said in statement The company was grateful for Trump’s confidence and management in Intel.

Lindle, from Dartmouth, said that government support – often in the form of subsidies – may make a big difference at times. “The exhibition is the semiconductor industry in Taiwan,” she said. “The government mainly said:” We will have a semiconductor industry, “and between God, they succeeded.”

John Dalesas, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Illinois University in Urbana – Champin. He said: “The fact that there are other governments that support the manufacture of chips in their countries will argue that in order to face a level, some investment in the government dollars are necessary.”

He added: “If we have zero capacity in semiconductors, it will be a big problem for the United States, it will be a problem in our industry. Our defense will be the problem of our defense.”

The United States government agreement will not grant the rights to voting or governance in Washington in the company. Some analysts say that the share of property rights shows a level of commitment that was granted, or saving, no.

However, experts say that strong government participation carries risks, including the possibility of this Political repercussionsand As happened after Obama era company and Bank rescue operations.

Dalesassi said that a large government share share is likely to create political pressure.

“How can this not be played on the company’s actions, council decisions, and CEO decisions?” He asked. “What is the impact of the government that puts its finger on the company’s operations on the decisions taken by the company, and whether these decisions are good work decisions or not?”

Lindle said that government intervention in business can lead to inefficiency, politicization and favoritism, which can suffocate innovation – this is exactly what the government wants from Intel.