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

#176
R-T-B
USA has always been like this.
As a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.
Posted on Reply
#177
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Liberal state. How do you think the conservative states have been doing the past 8 years? Protesting isn't big in conservative states but they do tend to speak with their money. They bought a lot of guns, ammo, and trucks (Peterbilt literally sells trucks without engines and they'll install an engine you bring to them that is pre-emissions compliance)--all of the variety Obama administration were talking about or successfully banned. I think there would have been a lot more symptoms of conservative upheaval had the House not turned Republican in 2010 and state legislatures being mostly in Republican control (some 30+ states repeatedly sued the administration over Obamacare).

The liberal brain is more prone to conflict (conservative would rather avoid it) so I don't think the reaction to the landslide election is particularly surprising. It'll die down over time.


Remember, USA went to war over liberal (North)/conservative (South) ideals during the Civil War. This feud has existed since George Washington said two terms was enough. It's based in human psychology and sociology. These same conflicts exist in all governments to varying degrees. It is the most pronounced in the USA because the nation is massive, populated, and diverse. Trying to unify the political ambitions of wilderness Alaskans with a life-long New Yorker, there's going to be a lot of conflicts.
Posted on Reply
#178
Xzibit
R-T-B said:
As a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.
Its a Democratic state and the country has trended Republican with President, Congress and House lately.

Remember when Obama took office, Congress and House were Democratic but it didn't seem worse for Democratic states did it?

I live in a Democratic State (California) as well but I don't see it worse i just see it as it didn't go the states way and news, entertainment and such reflect that as it does when it goes the states way. I wouldn't put my own state sentiment and apply it to the nation either.
Posted on Reply
#179
dalekdukesboy
FordGT90Concept said:
Liberal state. How do you think the conservative states have been doing the past 8 years? Protesting isn't big in conservative states but they do tend to speak with their money. They bought a lot of guns, ammo, and trucks (Peterbilt literally sells trucks without engines and they'll install an engine you bring to them that is pre-emissions compliance)--all of the variety Obama administration were talking about or successfully banned. I think there would have been a lot more symptoms of conservative upheaval had the House not turned Republican in 2010 and state legislatures being mostly in Republican control (some 30+ states repeatedly sued the administration over Obamacare).

The liberal brain is more prone to conflict (conservative would rather avoid it) so I don't think the reaction to the landslide election is particularly surprising. It'll die down over time.


Remember, USA went to war over liberal (North)/conservative (South) ideals during the Civil War. This feud has existed since George Washington said two terms was enough. It's based in human psychology and sociology. These same conflicts exist in all governments to varying degrees. It is the most pronounced in the USA because the nation is massive, populated, and diverse. Trying to unify the political ambitions of wilderness Alaskans with a life-long New Yorker, there's going to be a lot of conflicts.
This is all true, except I'd disagree that the North was liberal and South conservative. Everything else is basically spot on. Hard to call the party of Lincoln liberal then or now really, unless you redefine the terms to mean differently from today vs. then.
Posted on Reply
#180
dalekdukesboy
R-T-B said:
As a native of Washington state, it seems far worse as of late in at least my neck of the woods.
It has, just look at protests and things like Berkeley and other crazy protests and violence, and as Gt90 said liberals are the one doing all the protesting and pretty much always have they are community organizers by nature it seems. That is why it's ironic to us conservatives that "free speech" is so heralded by liberals when it applies to what they say, but you apply it to a conservative, gay Jewish guy named Milo Yiannopoulis who simply wants to do a speech at a liberal campus in California (Berkeley) and the liberal protesters literally shut him down and proceeded to set the campus on fire...huh? Yeah, in 3 weeks of Trump you have more protesting/rioting/chaos by the left than we had in 8 years caused by conservatives under Obama. True for much of the time Republicans were winning at lower levels but for several years Obama had both congresses and many state governments as well as many liberal judges on the court to back up whatever he did...still during those 2-3 years of him and his side marching his agenda with little challenge by the relatively few Republicans in power you didn't hear much about any protests by conservatives, and it's not like the media wasn't looking for any example of violence/riot/protests my side might have done because they wanted to hold them up as examples of racists, bigots, and violent ones at that. However despite their bias to WANT to find conservative unrest etc there was very little of it, as I think GT90 correctly points out it's just not how conservatives operate generally they find other more productive and less destructive ways to fight for their values and agenda etc.
Posted on Reply
#181
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
dalekdukesboy said:
This is all true, except I'd disagree that the North was liberal and South conservative. Everything else is basically spot on. Hard to call the party of Lincoln liberal then or now really, unless you redefine the terms to mean differently from today vs. then.
Actually, it is. The first modern (conservative) Republican was Calvin Coolidge. Lincoln fought for liberal ideals (equality for black men) where the south just wanted the status quo to remain (very conservative position). When push come to shove, the south didn't protest, they grabbed their guns and claimed what was theirs (a very modern Republican reaction).

Another example (also prior to Calvin Coolidge) is Theodore Roosevelt (a then-Republican) and the National Park system. It's Republicans today that to, for example, convert a lot of federal land (now a national park) in Alaska to private use. It's the Democrats that resist that notion.

The parties have reversed. That's why I think it's pretty disingenuous for Republicans to champion that they are the party Lincoln. Lincoln would be a moderate Democrat today. Hell, Lyndon B Johnson (Democrat) practically mirrors Lincoln in that regard. And let's not forget that Lincoln ordered Americans to kill former Americans. He shouldn't be trumpeted as a hero. He failed at diplomacy and his administration marked the end of states' rights (another anti-modern Republican thing) which is a travesty we're paying for today. For example, the federal government shouldn't have the power to force something like Obamacare on the states. The only reason why it is still around is because the Supreme Court has stretched the "commerce clause" beyond the breaking point.


Edit: Coolridge's election result (backwards, innit?):
Posted on Reply
#182
dalekdukesboy
Err....I see what you're saying dude but I think you still got your historical perspective a bit "off", even liberal democrats don't claim Lincoln as "theirs" all they say is the whole party switching over time thing you mention. But I also disagree that the modern liberal Democrats are FOR freeing the blacks not from slavery but inequality etc, that's fucking bull. That is what is said in public and what they have played off as, but in truth, true conservatives are for blacks and for everyone to succeed. So yeah, I like a lot of what you've said before, but I disagree with much of what you're saying, fancy charts and all. Also very few people of any stature I've ever seen would put down Lincoln in any way or claim he isn't a hero regardless of whatever flaws he had.
Posted on Reply
#183
dalekdukesboy
Also many of states Coolidge lost/won have flipped in many elections for Dems or Repubs in every election including this last one so yeah, north vs. south is mostly flipped but many many exceptions so if anything all that map proves is we were much more polarized exclusively in that election then now and inbetween I'd argue.
Posted on Reply
#184
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
dalekdukesboy said:
Err....I see what you're saying dude but I think you still got your historical perspective a bit "off", even liberal democrats don't claim Lincoln as "theirs" all they say is the whole party switching over time thing you mention. But I also disagree that the modern liberal Democrats are FOR freeing the blacks not from slavery but inequality etc, that's fucking bull. That is what is said in public and what they have played off as, but in truth, true conservatives are for blacks and for everyone to succeed. So yeah, I like a lot of what you've said before, but I disagree with much of what you're saying, fancy charts and all. Also very few people of any stature I've ever seen would put down Lincoln in any way or claim he isn't a hero regardless of whatever flaws he had.
Don't believe me? Believe Doris Kearns Goodwin. She's literally thee Lincoln history alive today (e.g. they consulted with her for making the Lincoln movie).
dalekdukesboy said:
Also many of states Coolidge lost/won have flipped in many elections for Dems or Repubs in every election including this last one so yeah, north vs. south is mostly flipped but many many exceptions so if anything all that map proves is we were much more polarized exclusively in that election then now and inbetween I'd argue.
Realize that USA was very different in the 1920s and 1930s (mostly rural). The modern political map came later as population centers grew. Coolidge was just the first POTUS you could associate with Republicans today. He believes much the same as they.

Paging through Wikipedia, it looks like Bill Clinton's 1992 election established the political landscape we mostly see today (the beginning of severe polarization--when the west coast turned Democrat):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
Posted on Reply
#185
dalekdukesboy
I think you're not free from being fallible. Also the "Lincoln movie" is hardly where I'd go to get truth to historical perspective. Sorry this isn't about disbelief as much as I think you've distorted history, including modern history claiming modern libs are for blacks and modern conservatives are not for blacks. Sorry not buying that. Next you'll tell me to watch the Kennedy movie made by Oliver Stone as the ultimate source for all historical things Kennedy...yeah, nuff said. Also "Don't believe me? " is hardly a way to defend your words, that is basically claiming no one can argue anything you say or the degree of it as if you are infallible whatever facts you base your opinions on and almost implying omnipotent ability. No disresepect to you and no worries here, but sorry friend stand down just agree to disagree.
Posted on Reply
#186
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
You clearly didn't read it. Lincoln loved government; modern Republicans don't; at most they tolerate it. Lincoln literally seized the south by force. That's something modern Democrats love doing (e.g. Obamacare) and Republicans hate. Modern Republicans are more closely aligned with Jefferson (anti-Federalist/state rights) than Lincoln.
Posted on Reply
#187
Xzibit
Lincoln freeing the slaves was a means to an end (keeping the union/territories together). He was willing to give up his views on slavery (not extending slavery to the territories and ultimately having to free them to help out) to win the war which he thought was the overall good for the people.
Posted on Reply
#188
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
The South wanted to extend the status quo west (South states have slavery and North states do not). Lincoln refused to extend slavery into new territories and his election effectively triggered the South secession (the South will be overruled in Congress because the new territories will vote against the South). He felt his presidential duty was to reunite the states so off to war the North went to bring the South back in. Because the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery and each side went into their respective corners, who won the war definitely would mean freedom or slavery going forward after reunification. There would be no line drawn in the sand anymore; the matter would be settled forever. As the North pushed South, they freed the slaves they came across. A marching army can't do anything for slaves except unchain them and it also had the effect of further crippling the South's economy (no labor to tend the fields).

There was a pretty easy path to preventing the Civil War: pass a Constitutional amendment that says the federal government shall make no law in regards to slavery.
Posted on Reply
#189
Xzibit
It wasn't out of the kindness of his heart for slaves nor African Americans. That's why he refers to Emancipation Proclamation as a War Measure.

He never saw them as equals nor worthy of regular stature or politics as his speeches note.

Lincoln
“I will say then that I am not said:
Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia”
History
Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.
Posted on Reply
#190
TheMailMan78
Big Member
FordGT90Concept said:
The South wanted to extend the status quo west (South states have slavery and North states do not). Lincoln refused to extend slavery into new territories and his election effectively triggered the South secession (the South will be overruled in Congress because the new territories will vote against the South). He felt his presidential duty was to reunite the states so off to war the North went to bring the South back in. Because the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery and each side went into their respective corners, who won the war definitely would mean freedom or slavery going forward after reunification. There would be no line drawn in the sand anymore; the matter would be settled forever. As the North pushed South, they freed the slaves they came across. A marching army can't do anything for slaves except unchain them and it also had the effect of further crippling the South's economy (no labor to tend the fields).

There was a pretty easy path to preventing the Civil War: pass a Constitutional amendment that says the federal government shall make no law in regards to slavery.
Your history is a touch off there Ford.
Posted on Reply
#191
Xzibit
TheMailMan78 said:
Your history is a touch off there Ford.
The North had Slave-States (Border-States) Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky. The EP only applied to rebelling states.

Lincoln didn't want to touch slavery because it would have fracture the Union. He didn't have an issue with the Corwin Amendment. Which would have made slavery legal an untouchable by the Government (irony, was to be the 13th amendment)
Posted on Reply
#192
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
The Corwin Amendment was too little, too late. Congress would have had to propose it at the beginning of the Buchannan administration, not the end.

Speaking of which, Maryland actually just rescinded from the Corwin Amendment in 2014. Kentucky and Rhode Island are the only two states that still have it ratified.
Posted on Reply
#193
Serpent of Darkness
The evolution of the conversation is fascinating... First it was about news relating to the current president and Intel. That lead to the politic which shouldn't be on here, but the TPU gods haven't condemn the progression of the conversation. It followed with the Trump fanboys and the online Trump Protection Unit (TPU) with their comment. Towards the end it evolved into a history lesson. Are you member going to toss religion into the mix? Can we just let this conversation die and disappear like a bad rash someone got after sleeping with some chick who looked pretty at first because a lot of beers were consumed but they came to realize that she is super super ugly; I intentionally did a run-on with no commas with the intent of sounding funny. Ha ha! /sarcasm disabled.
Posted on Reply
#194
lexluthermiester
Raevenlord said:
Thanks a lot, VSG. There was definitely a hard, thin line to try and thread here
You failed on that point.

This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and your narrow-minded viewpoints out of it. Ok? Thanks!
Posted on Reply
#195
Ahhzz
lexluthermiester said:
You failed on that point.

.... and your narrow-minded viewpoints out of it. Ok? Thanks!
and yours is better?
Posted on Reply
#196
lexluthermiester
Ahhzz said:
and yours is better?
Notice how you skipped right over the "This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and" part of my statement. Hmm..
Posted on Reply
#197
Ahhzz
lexluthermiester said:
Notice how you skipped right over the "This is a TECHNOLOGY site. Keep the fraking politics and" part of my statement. Hmm..
Yep. Intentional. I was just pointing out rudeness in either only insulting other's points of views, or the slightly more rude assumption that your points of view aren't just as narrow-minded.
Posted on Reply
#198
lexluthermiester
Ahhzz said:
Yep. Intentional. I was just pointing out rudeness in either only insulting other's points of views, or the slightly more rude assumption that your points of view aren't just as narrow-minded.
Thank you Mr Obvious. What seems to have escaped YOU is that my rudeness was ALSO intentional. The views expressed in this so-called "news article" come off as little more than trash journalism and have no place on TPU. Why it was approved for publishing in the first place is somewhat dubious and troublesome as TPU has a hard earned and well deserved reputation for objective, unbiased tech news reporting. It needs to stay that way. Leave the political, agenda based crap-flinging to the trash "news" sites.

On a personal note, I couldn't care less about your pathetic, pedantic, pithy comments. However, they are good for a laugh. So please do continue.
Posted on Reply
#199
The Jedi
Thanks Raevenlord for what I felt was a challenging and informative, even-handed editorial. Thanks for not being hyper-liberal like every other tech writer out there. I read and hear so much anti-Trump stuff which is so misinformed or deliberately distorted, that I'd think I'm living outside the U.S.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment