I would agree with Grove's anslysis of the problem and that loss of manufacturing technology leadership will give lead to eventual loss of technology leadership

I would agree with Grove's anslysis of the problem and that loss of manufacturing technology leadership will give lead to eventual loss of technology leadership itself, because manufacturing technology is a critical component of high end technology. Its like giving off potential competitors some of your chips, not realizing that those chips might enable your competitors to get more chips in the future, enough to give you more serious competition. But at the same time, the solution he suggests could backfire very badly. If it were a case where the US was the only technology leader, then protectionism could have been possibly used to re-establish local manufacturing. But thats not the case, there are competitiors there too, japan, Korea, Taiwan, not to mention China. If the US does resort to protectionism, it would put at stake the massive revenues that american companies are getting from foreign markets. For many of the top American companies, the foreign markets are the fastest growing markets and in many, they have started being more than 50% of revenues. The moment American companies start being 'idealistic' or the government starts protectionistic, that would set american companies at a massive disadvantage in foreigh markets. Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese companies would be more than willing to take advantage of those disadvantages that American companies would face. The evntual losers would be the investors in American companeis, that includes the multitudes of Americans who invest in them through pension funds, mutual funds, 401s, etc. Of course, they will lose in other wasy if they keep losing the manufacturing jobs too. This is like a highly complex Game theory scenario with multiple players, multiple possible strategic moves, with gains and losses for each move. A simplistic or idealistic answer would not solve it I think what the Gates foundation is doing, spending on education to increase the supply of more highly qualified people within the US, in the future, is definitely a move in the right direction. As for Grove, I think he is just doing his best to serve his masters the best. Earlier his masters were the investors in Intel, so he was making sure that it was profitable and keeps surviving. Now, that he no longer has to serve those previous masters, he has decided to serve his primary master, the USA of which he is a citizen (Please note, my use of the words 'masters' and 'serving' is not meant to be derogatory, he is just doing his patriotic duty now that there is no conflict with his corporate duties. I am not going to judge him based on that, life is not black and white, and he still remains very high in my list of idols.)