Intel stock soars almost 25% in one week after JD Vance' new comments on the chip maker's AI future, as the US and UK refuse to agree to EU request...

[Windows Central]

Intel has struggled to find its footing in a silicon landscape dominated by NVIDIA, but the Trump administration's "America first" approach might have thrown the chip maker a big lifeline.

Intel stock soars almost 25% in one week after JD Vance' new comments on the chip maker's AI future, as the US and UK refuse to agree to EU request... : Read more

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I'm torn on this. I'd like to see Intel and the U.S. more broadly do better with chips, both for the sake of the manufacturing jobs and also as a national security matter (safer to make them here), but generally these protective efforts make the companies weaker and less competitive. If Intel can't stand on its own, does this protection do anything beyond slowing its decline? I'm dubious.

To be clear, I'm 100% for removing our dependence on China in particular, because they fight dirty through currency manipulation and effective slave labor of their people. They may also incorporate backdoors into tech they build in anticipation of access or control in a future way they expect to enter against the U.S. But with other countries, like Taiwan, Japan, EU, etc., I think it's usually better (national security being the sole exception) to encourage U.S. companies to fight for their lives and die if they can't win on an open battlefield.

If those other countries have tariffs or other challenges against the U.S. then reciprocal tariffs just as incentive for them to drop theirs are fine and reasonable, but protectionist policies likely just make us weaker.

 

[Jez Corden]

I'm torn on this. I'd like to see Intel and the U.S. more broadly do better with chips, both for the sake of the manufacturing jobs and also as a national security matter (safer to make them here), but generally these protective efforts make the companies weaker and less competitive. If Intel can't stand on its own, does this protection do anything beyond slowing its decline? I'm dubious.

To be clear, I'm 100% for removing our dependence on China in particular, because they fight dirty through currency manipulation and effective slave labor of their people. They may also incorporate backdoors into tech they build in anticipation of access or control in a future way they expect to enter against the U.S. But with other countries, like Taiwan, Japan, EU, etc., I think it's usually better (national security being the sole exception) to encourage U.S. companies to fight for their lives and die if they can't win on an open battlefield.

If those other countries have tariffs or other challenges against the U.S. then reciprocal tariffs just as incentive for them to drop theirs are fine and reasonable, but protectionist policies likely just make us weaker.

I feel you, but I don't think it's necessarily about hurting Korea, Taiwan, etc, just diversifying the supply chain. God forbid, but if a small asteroid hit Taiwan and wiped it out tomorrow, it would upend the global economy. 90% of all adv. chips come from Taiwan, that feels like a huge risk in the tech-based economy we have nowadays.