芯片法案：英特尔、汉密尔顿、杰斐逊、杰克逊、拜登、特朗普

By G. Dan Hutcheson作者：G. Dan Hutchesonlibrary.techinsights.com/hg-content/d4f4042b-c17d-4b75-87a7-1d07cdd93ce0 Summary:摘要： ChipActs: Intel, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Biden, Trump芯片法案：英特尔、汉密尔顿、杰斐逊、杰克逊、拜登、特朗普 Last Friday I explained the rationale behind President Trump's flip on Lip-Bu Tan and the larger strategygoverning the move… Since then, SoftBank announced it would invest $2B of equity in Intel, whichopened the door for the Trump administration to proceed with plans to invest $10B of CHIPSAct moneyin Intel. This has, since spurred an uproar … Zoom out and one could have made the same argumentfor President Biden’s CHIPSAct.Akey difference is …Atrue irony of this difference is that the far righthas come full circle to intersect with the far left: in the formative years of the CHIPSAct, SenatorsBernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren had floated the funding-for-equity idea... Hamilton comingled withJefferson and Jackson: The difference between the Biden and Trump approach to the CHIPSAct is anargument that starts back at the founding of the United States... Under Biden, the CHIPSAct morphedinto a massive program of subsidies and federal control over the companies that would receivefunding... It had taken four years to get the CHIPSAct signed into law. Six months later, the industrywaited with bated breath as to when the funding would be released. What they got was 5-pagedisappointment of the “CHIPS forAmerica Fact Sheet” with the subtitle: “Funding Opportunity –Commercial Fabrication Facilities FACT SHEET: Building a Skilled and Diverse Workforce.” No funding.No semiconductors. Just an opportunity for workforce development. The industry experience was likemany examples from the book “Why Nothing Works” on how progressivism went from success to failurein the last half of the 20th century. No wonder that the CHIPS Program Office became a lightning rod forTrump…上周五，我解释了特朗普总统在Lip-Bu Tan问题上的转变背后的理由以及这一举动所遵循的更大战 略……从那时起，软银宣布将向英特尔投资20亿美元的股权，这为特朗普政府继续计划用《芯片法案》资金投资英特尔100亿美元打开了大门。这引发了一场轩然大波……放眼更广泛的角度，人们本可以对拜登总统的《芯片法案》提出同样的观点。一个关键的区别是……这一差异的真正讽刺在于，极右翼已完全与极左派交汇：在《芯片法案》的形成初期，参议员伯尼·桑德斯和伊丽莎白·沃伦曾提出用资金换股 的想法……汉密尔顿与杰斐逊和杰克逊交织在一起：拜登和特朗普在《芯片法案》上的做法差异，实际上是可以追溯到美国建国之初的争论……在拜登执政下，《芯片法案》演变成一项庞大的补贴计划和对受资助企业的联邦控制……花了四年时间才将《芯片法案》签署成为法律。六个月后，行业内屏息以待，期待资金何时释放。他们得到的只是一份五页的“CHIPS forAmerica事实表”，副标题是：“资金机会——商业制造设施事实表：打造一支技术熟练且多元化的劳动力”。没有资金，没有半导体，只有一个劳动力发展的机会。行业的经历就像《为什么一切都不行》一书中的许多例子，讲述了20世纪下半叶进步主义如何从成功走向失败。难怪CHIPS项目办公室成为了特朗普的靶子…… So the question is, will Trump’s funding-for-equity plan to replace the CHIPSAct turn intocorporatestatism?Given Trump’s history of being more hands-off, I would argue that this will not be the case forhis funding-for-equity deal… Here’s what Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had to say …” It’s notgovernance, non-voting, NON-voting...” 那么问题是，特朗普的以资金换股权的计划是否会变成企业国家主义？考虑到特朗普一贯的偏向放手的风格，我认为这不会是他以资金换股权交易的结果……以下是商务部长霍华德·卢特尼克的说法：“这不是治理，不是投票权，非投票权……” As for Intel, their problems are mostly financial, not technical… So, 1) do you believe Trump’sadministration believes they know how to run a semiconductor company, like Intel? Or 2) do you believethey are more interested in investing in Intel and letting Lip-Bu run it… more like a Berkshire-Hathaway? Given that Trump flipped on Lip-Bu so quickly, I would argue the second… 至于英特尔，他们的问题主要是财务方面的，而非技术方面……那么，1）你相信特朗普政府认为他们知道如何经营一家半导体公司，比如英特尔吗？还是2）你相信他们更有兴趣投资英特尔，让Lip-Bu来管理……更像是伯克希尔哈撒韦那样？鉴于特朗普如此迅速地反转对Lip-Bu的态度，我倾向于第二种说法…… Maxims: It’s always about bad or good leadership and management格言：一切总是关于糟糕或优秀的领导和管理 “Forecasting is difficult… Especially when it's about the future” –Yogi Berra“预测是困难的……尤其是当它关乎未来时”——约吉·贝拉 ChipActs: Intel, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Biden, Trump芯片法案：英特尔、汉密尔顿、杰斐逊、杰克逊、拜登、特朗普 Last Friday I explained the rationale behind PresidentTrump's flip on Lip-BuTan and the larger strategygoverning the move (August 15, 2025: Sleepwalking towards conflict: China and the United States).Since then, SoftBank announced it would invest $2B of equity in Intel, which opened the door for theTrump administration to proceed with plans to invest $10B of CHIPSAct money in Intel.This has, since,spurred uproar on both the left and the right.This was best summarized in the WSJ editorialTheNationalization of Intel?as “This is corporate statism, and it rarely does it end well. Political controlhamstrings innovation and investment as managers look to their government overlords for approval.”上周五，我解释了特朗普总统在对谭立布的立场转变背后的理由以及这一举动所遵循的更大战略（2025年8月15日：梦游走向冲突：中美关系）。从那时起，软银宣布将向英特尔投资20亿美元的股权，这为特朗普政府继续用芯片法案资金10亿美元投资英特尔打开了大门。此事随后在左派和右派都引发了轩然大波。华尔街日报社论《英特尔的国有化？》对此的总结是：“这就是企业国家主义，而这种做法很少有好结果。政治控制束缚了创新和投资，因为管理者们在寻求政府上级的批准。” Zoom out and one could have made the same argument for President Biden’s CHIPSAct.Akeydifference is that instead of being called “corporate statism,” it was lambasted as “corporate welfare” forcompanies which, at the time, were very profitable.Take the emotion out and the difference becomestaxpayers buying equity versus giving grants. 放远一点视角，也可以对拜登总统的芯片法案提出同样的观点。一个关键的区别是，这被称