Friday, February 10th 2017

On Intel and Their $7B White House Affair

By now, we've all seen, or at least heard, about Intel CEO's Brian Kraznich Fab 42 announcement (done from the Oval Office, no less). It was to be a joint press conference to announce a highly impactful investment on U.S. soil, which also turned into some welcome PR for Intel, and got the CEO some face time with the President.

It has to be said though, that hailing this as a Trump administration win is simply politics doing its best: spinning the truth for its own benefit. I say this because the original announcement for the construction of this Arizona fab was done way back in 2011, with then Intel CEO Paul Otellini breaking the news that they would spend $5 billion on the plant during the Obama Administration. Construction started that year, with overall expectation for its completion being somewhere around 2013. Cue the usual delays, and enter 2013's 10% decline of the PC market, and Intel did what any sensible company would do in the wake of lower expected volume of shipments (and respectively lower production needs) - they postponed the opening of the factory, indefinitely, instead choosing to improve manufacturing capability of its then already-operational fabs. So, the factory wasn't announced because of President Trump's policies and overall government acumen, nor is it probably going to be finished by the time his first term ends.
Krzanich didn't make this announcement because the "tax and regulatory policies" of the Trump administration are "advantageous". Kraznich did it in a show of force and open support for President Trump (as Kraznich has a past of doing), and if there's one thing we know of Intel (and every other major corporation focused on profit) is that everything happens for the bottom-line. The question of "why now" isn't answered with "because of President Trump's policies". It's answered by Krzanich's internal memo to Intel employees: because growing demand means Intel must increase production capacity. A sign of the times is the fact that the Arizona fab was originally projected to push Intel's 14 nm manufacturing capability, but has now been re-purposed as an accelerator towards Intel's 7 nm aspirations.

Although it has to be said, as President Trump himself would, that Arizona workers will be very happy: 10,000 jobs is a whole big number - full of zeroes. Arizona is second only to Nevada in overall population growth rate, and job creation is one of the most important economic growth factors. Though that's not the real number of workers: that's the best-case scenario. The real number of direct jobs to be created by this investment is around 3,000, with up to 10,000 jobs being created "in support" of the factory, as Kraznich himself put it (such as new businesses opening to support the infrastructure and the increased number of employed workers).

In fact, President Trump's administration hasn't even made a concrete, thought-out move towards tax breaks on American companies, though he did promise a 15% reduction in taxes while campaigning. So far, the only thing they've done on that camp is freezing new and outstanding regulations to fall into place, as well as adopting a purely "less is better" approach to tax regulation: for every new tax regulation, cut two previously existing ones".

Now personally, I find it to be extremely disconcerting that President Trump's administration has the most clearly-defined trend of donations having bought top spots in the Trump administration, in what can be called influence peddling, even avoiding such boresome proceedings as ethic reviews for conflicts of interest.

All in all, I just think these are way too many coincidences to be just that. It seems simply as just yet another pivot, another case of one hand washes the other in the cutthroat world of corporate interests and political favor, of chess played (and paid) with billions. Let's face the proverbial elephant in the oval office: Intel's announcement is a complete farce, being indicative of an unhealthy balance of powers between those that be at the White House and corporate interests.

I understand how negative all of this sounds. But every case must be considered as-is, and this one simply isn't. There are healthy, transparent, strengthening bonds that a government can have with the corporations that are the lifeblood of its economic development, which positively impact the every-man's life. Tax cuts may be one of them, by increasing the amount of leeway a company can have on its own internal investment, R&D, increased employment and better conditions for its workforce. Government subsidies, which propel promising startups which then grow on to provide new, competitive businesses and thus reinforce the economy - of which Intel has received at least $5.9 billion dollars itself, from tax rebates to federal grants, including almost $100 million in property tax immunities (while AMD itself has received only about $11 million). Another good example is how governments supported what were, at their infancy, extremely low-margin business (like the solar panel and renewable energies companies), eventually ushering us all into developments that will only improve the quality of life for us and our children.

There are ways of doing things; both President Trump and Kraznich may even know how to do them, and have certainly done some of them before.

But then, then there are ways of how not to do things.
Add your own comment

199 Comments on On Intel and Their $7B White House Affair

#126
R-T-B
dalekdukesboy, post: 3600729, member: 36860"
Saying "glorious leader"...yeah no sarcasm or "knocking" anyone there.
It was. I think his point is more that you and others here need to deal with it and take a serious chill pill. This is politics, are you new to them or something?

I mean, for all trump supporters seem to think liberals get "TRIGGERED" they seem to be the most triggerable of anyone I've seen yet, frankly.

Let me break it down for you:

Rule 1.) Opposite ends don't always show each other complete respect. This is just how it works. Both sides are guilty. It isn't a "liberal disease."

InVasMani, post: 3600756, member: 163695"
Liberals always taking credit for anything positive they've done and never owning up to anything negative they've and when in doubt just say the parties switched or make a false remark about prejudice and of course blame Bush about EVERYTHING.
Please don't confuse liberals with political assholes.

I'm a liberal, and I'd be happy to make a list for you of 10 things I think a conservative leader did right, followed by 10 things I disagree with the liberals on and think they screwed up big time.

It won't take long, but I'm not just going to do it for kicks. I want to build a bridge here, so let's try something: If I do it, you have to do the same, only for your parties.

PowerPC, post: 3600600, member: 159951"
Then you must not know what slander is, or bad and unethical journalism. Even if "fake news" is accepted nowadays doesn't mean it's acceptable. A turd won't smell any better after simply calling it by another name.
I've worked in a newspaper and was a runner up to Raevenlord's position (@W1zzard can corroborate this if you really need it). I have no doubts I know a lot more about journalism ethics than you. There was nothing wrong or inherently "fake" (love how Trumps twitter memes are bleeding into here) about this clearly marked editorial piece, which changes the rules quite a bit with regards to what's fair to say. If it's an editorial, you can literally call a Trump a turd, and as long as you admit that's your opinion, sorry dude, slander it is not.
Posted on Reply
#127
Xzibit
R-T-B, post: 3600761, member: 41983"
I've worked in a newspaper and was a runner up to Raevenlord's position (@W1zzard can corroborate this if you really need it). I have no doubts I know a lot more about journalism ethics than you. There was nothing wrong or inherently "fake" (love how Trumps twitter memes are bleeding into here) about this clearly marked editorial piece, which changes the rules quite a bit with regards to what's fair to say. If it's an editorial, you can literally call a Trump a turd, and as long as you admit that's your opinion, sorry dude, slander it is not.
Editorials and Opinion pieces are not excluded from facts. They also include a decent an opposing view, which we got none of these.



Center for Journalism Ethics
The most important form of opinion journalism is a journalism that creates deliberative spaces in news media. These spaces, online and offline, allow citizens of different views to speak respectfully but frankly to each other.

The basic norms of deliberative journalism can be expressed as a set of commitments:

1. Commitment to evidence-based inquiry: Opinion should be rigorously based on a wide range of evidence, solid studies, and perspectives on the data. I am ready to follow the facts where they lead.

2. Commitment to the overall public good: Opinion should be guided by what is best for the public as a whole, not what is expedient for my cause or my political group. I should not be so attached to my “truth” that I am ready to use almost any means to persuade others and to promote my aims.

3. Commitment to telling the whole truth: Opinion should not hide inconvenient facts. I am not willing to distort the truth to suit my aims. I do not misrepresent the views others or demonize them.
Posted on Reply
#128
R-T-B
Xzibit, post: 3600783, member: 105152"
Editorials and Opinion pieces are not excluded from facts.
No, editorials are not, but since when are personal opinions based on facts? Please reread how I phrased my response. It was intentional. If you say something is your opinion, it instantly becomes yours alone and is pretty immune to slander claims, which is what I was responding to.

Calling "Trump a turd" was a bit of a exageration to show how far you can go when stating an opinion without it being slander. I was not defending that as good journalism, mind you.
They also include a decent an opposing view, which we got none of these.
Editorials do not necessarily, and everything I've been taught indicates that editorials are precisely for expression of opinions within the bounds that it's not misleading or outright lying, which did not occur here. No violation here occurred as nowhere did I see a genuine desire to mislead, or intentional distortion of the facts.

Try again.
Posted on Reply
#129
Nuckles56
Thank you for adding some semblance of sanity back to this thread R-T-B, it seems to be very much lacking currently.

I personally think that no matter what side of politics you are from, it shall be an interesting time to be in the US and it will look very different to the way it was at the start of Donald's term in office. Whether this is a good thing remains to be seen and the outcomes will be debated in the history books.
Posted on Reply
#130
urza26
I cannot help but notice how easily labels are tossed around and then simply everything someone says becomes "invalid" purely based on aforementioned label.
The polarization is real and it saddens me deeply. The trick is to not take sides, the world isn't black & white you know.
Posted on Reply
#131
erixx
From an European point of view, your (yankees) partisanism and generalisation is big (there is good and bad on both sides, as strange as it might be! LOL) and the differences between both parties are SMALL... Here we have much more offers ;-) .
Posted on Reply
#132
TheMailMan78
Big Member
This thread is a shining example for why we shouldn't have political discourse on TPU. Keep it pure unbiased tech. I hope Raven learned a valuable lesson on this one. I think hes well written so, I would like to see him countiue being an editor on TPU. With that being said I don't come to TPU's front page to read his opinion on things. No offence to him but, I could care less what his political view is. Qubit did this for a while and look where he is. Stick to tech. Want politics? Post up on GN.
Posted on Reply
#133
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
TheMailMan78, post: 3600902, member: 39776"
Qubit did this for a while and look where he is.
No that's not why I left, mm. pm me if you wanna discuss this further.

I get why you want politics out of TPU and I generally agree. All I can say is that I think there are exceptions as I mentioned in a previous post here and that this was one of them. Just my opinion though on this one and it's certainly not hard and fast. :)
Posted on Reply
#134
siluro818
OK, so you want the figures INCLUDING the people not currently on unemployment benefits, is that it?
You claim these are much higher, is that it?
Well sure they are, but can you guess what?



IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME GODDAMN CURVE OVERALL!

Holy %^$&! Who would have thought of that?!

*resists an urge to facepalm with the keyboard*
Posted on Reply
#135
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
rtwjunkie, post: 3600509, member: 56774"
Well see now, for that to be a starting premise, you need some facts to make it so.

All leaders, even U.S. Presidents have far less impact on the economy than most common people realize.
I'm just basing this on the feeling I get from his various policies and attitude. I'm certainly no expert in this lol, but he doesn't give me a good feeling.
Posted on Reply
#136
erixx
Mailman? Or Hairman? :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#137
wiyosaya
Xzibit, post: 3600165, member: 105152"
Then we look at some quotes from Krzanich



You cant help it wonder what this Editorial is aiming at.
Interesting, IMO, that you point this out simply because nothing has been done yet with regards to tax policy.
Posted on Reply
#138
InVasMani
siluro818, post: 3600938, member: 142649"
OK, so you want the figures INCLUDING the people not currently on unemployment benefits, is that it?
You claim these are much higher, is that it?
Well sure they are, but can you guess what?



IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME GODDAMN CURVE OVERALL!

Holy %^$&! Who would have thought of that?!

*resists an urge to facepalm with the keyboard*
If someone showed you this game graph twice, but one with twice the national deficit and the other cutting it in half which would people pick that highlights just how broken this narrow sighted graph analysis is because you need to take into account the full picture which includes people on unemployment that are cast aside and forgotten.
Posted on Reply
#139
Xzibit
wiyosaya, post: 3601139, member: 169245"
Interesting, IMO, that you point this out simply because nothing has been done yet with regards to tax policy.
I pointed it out because its a quote that contradicts his assertion before he expresses his opinion on the piece. He also doesn't point out that Intel is one of the companies that took part in contributing ideas to business, tax & trade.



Afraid to think what Editorials we will see if any of the others announce something. Isn't the new iPhone coming out ? Oh, oh...

He is try'n to link the two together in a suitable way that fits his partisan thought and that's the issues. Would have been fine if he stuck to Intel and got some things wrong while leaving the politics out.

2/3rds in he starts noting his personal opinion

TPU
Now personally, I find it to be extremely disconcerting that President Trump's administration has the most clearly-defined trend of donations having bought top spots in the Trump administration, in what can be called influence peddling, even avoiding such boresome proceedings as ethic reviews for conflicts of interest.
^This is political partisan sillyness because all presidents do it.

Politico
Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took “key administration posts,” as defined by the White House. More than half the 24 ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised $500,000.

The big bundlers had broad access to the White House for meetings with top administration officials and glitzy social events. In all, campaign bundlers and their family members account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits. Half of them raised $200,000 or more.

Some Obama bundlers have ties to companies that stand to gain financially from the president’s policy agenda, particularly in clean energy and telecommunications, and some already have done so. Level 3 Communications, for instance, snared $13.8 million in stimulus money.

The Obama administration has tightened restrictions on hiring lobbyists, but the deference shown major donors contradicts its claims to have changed business as usual in Washington.
Going on a partisan political write up is odd for a techsite which doesn't do in-depth news coverage to begin with (a side from hardware reviews).
Posted on Reply
#140
siluro818
InVasMani, post: 3601170, member: 163695"
If someone showed you this game graph twice, but one with twice the national deficit and the other cutting it in half which would people pick that highlights just how broken this narrow sighted graph analysis is because you need to take into account the full picture which includes people on unemployment that are cast aside and forgotten.
I really hope you ain't actually American, cause you don't seem able to handle your own language very well.

Anyway, recap:

Someone said that the Obama administration ruined the job market.
When countered with the fact that unemployment was steadily declining throughout Obama's term, they said it isn't the full picture, because it doesn't include those who are no longer on benefits after their first six months.
When countered with the fact that these figures have declined in basically the same rate, you now try to say... what? That the unemployment rate doesn't take the national deficit in the picture?

Dude, your country's deficit has been steadily increasing ever since the 80s (it might help you to try and understand why), but that bears NO DIRECT RELATION to the unemployment rate, or the job market.
Do you know why there are no numbers about the "cast aside and forgotten" people? Because they don't exist in anywhere, but the speeches of populist dickheads!
It's 2017, not 1917. There is explicit data about every single American citizen, legal or illegal. Enough of this nonsense!
Posted on Reply
#141
3dguy
Why even make a political themed article. Lets see. in 2011, Obama visited intel. Intel announces new 5b $ fab 42 site. 2014, cancles building due to pc down turn and other economic reasons. So Obama's economics halted work on building the site. Original disclosure used the former us president to announce the FAB42 project. No president mentioned at halt; just the bad economy Obama's term created. Thenrolls in Trump, Intel again uses the president's free press to announce the restart of the project. what we get here is Intel is so smart but getting free airtime to announce new product fab for future chips. The nut shell: wining economy. The future awaits. Wonder what Trump tax would be imposed on chips made outside the US? now that is a good question.
Posted on Reply
#142
Ahhzz
Xzibit, post: 3601182, member: 105152"
2/3rds in he starts noting his personal opinion



^This is political partisan sillyness because all presidents do it.
There seems to be a lot of this from Trump .... supporters. "So-and-so did it! It's just the same thing!" Bur for some reason, they all seem to be forgetting his promises to "drain the swamp". It is just more of the same thing from him, from someone who promised not to be the "same thing". And as for it being the same thing, whil;e many of the things he's doing I disagree with, it wouldn't be such a big deal to me if there weren't so many companies obviously currying profits.
Posted on Reply
#143
Ahhzz
3dguy, post: 3601333, member: 99598"
Why even make a political themed article. Lets see. in 2011, Obama visited intel. Intel announces new 5b $ fab 42 site. 2014, cancles building due to pc down turn and other economic reasons. So Obama's economics halted work on building the site. Original disclosure used the former us president to announce the FAB42 project. No president mentioned at halt; just the bad economy Obama's term created. Thenrolls in Trump, Intel again uses the president's free press to announce the restart of the project. what we get here is Intel is so smart but getting free airtime to announce new product fab for future chips. The nut shell: wining economy. The future awaits. Wonder what Trump tax would be imposed on chips made outside the US? now that is a good question.
Yes, and then in 2015 and 2016, Trump promised to "drain the swamp", and stop doing the "same old thing". And yet, here we are. Watching him fill the swamp with his flavor of swamp gas, and doing the same. old. thing. woohoo.
Posted on Reply
#144
TheMailMan78
Big Member
siluro818, post: 3601190, member: 142649"
I really hope you ain't actually American, cause you don't seem able to handle your own language very well.

Anyway, recap:

Someone said that the Obama administration ruined the job market.
When countered with the fact that unemployment was steadily declining throughout Obama's term, they said it isn't the full picture, because it doesn't include those who are no longer on benefits after their first six months.
When countered with the fact that these figures have declined in basically the same rate, you now try to say... what? That the unemployment rate doesn't take the national deficit in the picture?

Dude, your country's deficit has been steadily increasing ever since the 80s (it might help you to try and understand why), but that bears NO DIRECT RELATION to the unemployment rate, or the job market.
Do you know why there are no numbers about the "cast aside and forgotten" people? Because they don't exist in anywhere, but the speeches of populist dickheads!
It's 2017, not 1917. There is explicit data about every single American citizen, legal or illegal. Enough of this nonsense!
Just so you know the unemployment rate isn't that important. Its the Labor Force Participation Rate. This is the estimate of how many people are actually working.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

Since 2005 its been in a constant decline. If Trump can get this to up tick in 4 years I would say that's a win. If not well........

Also I would like to note that Regan had the most people working in the past 40 years. Not Clinton, Obama or Bush. But, that's to assume the President directs the economy. What I find sad is so many people are not working. In 1948 you had about 60 million people working. That's 60 million out of 146 million. Today you have 62.9 million people working out of 326 million. That means a HUGE percentage of the US doesn't have a full time job. This isn't 1948 either. Both Parents are working in todays society. 1948 it was mostly male. This means most people are out of work and are living off of the small percentage of people working 40+ hours.

You wonder why "Make America Great Again" rings in so many peoples ears? This is why.
Posted on Reply
#145
Ahhzz
TheMailMan78, post: 3601410, member: 39776"
....
Also I would like to note that Regan had the most people working in the past 40 years. Not Clinton, Obama or Bush. But, that's to assume the President directs the economy. What I find sad is so many people are not working. In 1948 you had about 60 million people working. That's 60 million out of 146 million. Today you have 62.9 million people working out of 326 million. That means a HUGE percentage of the US doesn't have a full time job. This isn't 1948 either. Both Parents are working in todays society. 1948 it was mostly male. This means most people are out of work and are living off of the small percentage of people working 40+ hours.
,,,,,,.
A better indication of what's happening with participation rate.

"According to the November jobs report, the labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7% from 62.8% in October.
"

So while the total number may be dramatically smaller, the actual best percentage of workers was around the '98-'02 era. While absolutely painful, especially during the recession, it's been stabilizing the last 3-ish years...Reagan may have have the most bodies, but for the percent of useful bodies actually working, he's not quite up there.





https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

A really good article (slightly aged: Nov 2014), with tons of pretty graphs for the less vocabulary proficient. Basically, while that chart does show a dramatic decrease in overall participation, it completely discounts both the large number of students 16-24 not working while in school, and the dramatic increase of baby-boomers booming out of the workforce at 55 and over (more than 50 million 2 years ago, with more than 37 mill at over 65).
Also, "Now, even if the US economy continues improving—as most expect—it doesn’t mean that labor-force participation will rebound. Rather, it’s likely to keep declining for at least the next 10 years, as the baby-boomers continue to age out of the workforce. (CBO estimates that labor force participation will be at 60.8% in 2024.)"
Posted on Reply
#146
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Ahhzz, post: 3601538, member: 49663"
A better indication of what's happening with participation rate.

"According to the November jobs report, the labor force participation rate ticked down to 62.7% from 62.8% in October.
"

So while the total number may be dramatically smaller, the actual best percentage of workers was around the '98-'02 era. While absolutely painful, especially during the recession, it's been stabilizing the last 3-ish years...Reagan may have have the most bodies, but for the percent of useful bodies actually working, he's not quite up there.





https://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

A really good article (slightly aged: Nov 2014), with tons of pretty graphs for the less vocabulary proficient. Basically, while that chart does show a dramatic decrease in overall participation, it completely discounts both the large number of students 16-24 not working while in school, and the dramatic increase of baby-boomers booming out of the workforce at 55 and over (more than 50 million 2 years ago, with more than 37 mill at over 65).
Also, "Now, even if the US economy continues improving—as most expect—it doesn’t mean that labor-force participation will rebound. Rather, it’s likely to keep declining for at least the next 10 years, as the baby-boomers continue to age out of the workforce. (CBO estimates that labor force participation will be at 60.8% in 2024.)"
That's assuming the retirement rate stays the same. Which it hasn't. Sorry but, its kinda hard to spin this in Obamas favor. I know a lot of people try but, Obama was no Regan. Less people are working now than they were 30 years ago. Even less since 8 years ago. If Trump starts to bring it up then we will see if Reganomics work. Clintons, Bushes and Obamas infulances (if any) sucked. All three were really, REALLY bad presidents.
Posted on Reply
#147
Rockarola
TheMailMan78, post: 3601574, member: 39776"
That's assuming the retirement rate stays the same. Which it hasn't. Sorry but, its kinda hard to spin this in Obamas favor. I know a lot of people try but, Obama was no Regan. Less people are working now than they were 30 years ago. Even less since 8 years ago. If Trump starts to bring it up then we will see if Reganomics work. Clintons, Bushes and Obamas infulances (if any) sucked. All three were really, REALLY bad presidents.
A lot of jobs have been reduced to part-time positions, resulting in a number of people working two or even three jobs.
What you need to look at is work hours divided by population, not full time jobs...and you'll have to include percentages of people under education, over 50 (tends to stay unemployed) and people on early retirement (government employees, self-employed or just blessed with a good pension)
The math suddenly became a little less obvious, didn't it? :-)
Posted on Reply
#148
dalekdukesboy
siluro818, post: 3601190, member: 142649"
I really hope you ain't actually American, cause you don't seem able to handle your own language very well.

Anyway, recap:

Someone said that the Obama administration ruined the job market.
When countered with the fact that unemployment was steadily declining throughout Obama's term, they said it isn't the full picture, because it doesn't include those who are no longer on benefits after their first six months.
When countered with the fact that these figures have declined in basically the same rate, you now try to say... what? That the unemployment rate doesn't take the national deficit in the picture?

Dude, your country's deficit has been steadily increasing ever since the 80s (it might help you to try and understand why), but that bears NO DIRECT RELATION to the unemployment rate, or the job market.
Do you know why there are no numbers about the "cast aside and forgotten" people? Because they don't exist in anywhere, but the speeches of populist dickheads!
It's 2017, not 1917. There is explicit data about every single American citizen, legal or illegal. Enough of this nonsense!
This speaks for itself, you don't live here AND your English skills are rudimentary and broken equally as much as your political arguments are; so with that said I will attempt to do you a favor and suggest you stick to your country and your language, because you don't know shit about ours and are making yourself out as a completely arrogant, know it all ass.
Posted on Reply
#149
dalekdukesboy
R-T-B, post: 3600761, member: 41983"
It was. I think his point is more that you and others here need to deal with it and take a serious chill pill. This is politics, are you new to them or something?
NO! That's exactly the point you putz, this is TPU NOT politics I was practically born political so your "new" snide comment is not only wrong but totally irrelevant...No chill needed, we are pointing out blatant hypocrisy and double standards and simply won't take this crap any longer. Nor will the country at large that's why we are here talking about President Trump....HOWEVER our point early on in this whole article is how TPU is going blatantly political in multiple stories including this one after 8 years of not a boo mentioned of now thankfully former President Barack Hussein Obama. If this is now a political site just say so, if not, we shouldn't have polls and stories specifically giving opinions on the current president.
Posted on Reply
#150
R-T-B
I don't see the two as inseperable when Intel starts talking from the whitehouse, and the whitehouse actively solicits tech industry input. You are aware Intel IS a tech company, no?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment