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.
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.
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.
199 Comments on On Intel and Their $7B White House Affair
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."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.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.
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.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.
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.
The polarization is real and it saddens me deeply. The trick is to not take sides, the world isn't black & white you know.
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. :)
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*
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^This is political partisan sillyness because all presidents do it.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).
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!
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.
"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.
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.)"
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? :-)