4 ms·
It's only picking winners in the sense that we need to empower players in our market to be able to build here. It's creating the opportunity/playing field for a
by whynotminot 6y ago
It's only picking winners in the sense that we need to empower players in our market to be able to build here. It's creating the opportunity/playing field for a winner ton exist.
Because "winners" in this sense right now just means "who can build it cheaper" -- and there's no intellectual bankruptcy there. The answer is pretty much always "K, build it cheaper? Build it somewhere else then."
- valuearb 6y agoThe market is saying the US is better doing other things. It would be as if in the late 70s deciding we had to subsidize supercomputer and mainframe computer development, to hire all these talented engineers who were wasting time building and programming kit computers and “pc”s that could never be as important to our economy, and our “technological leadership”. We can’t industrial plan the future.
- whynotminot 6y agoRight but the market doesn’t have any foresight to say “an adversary is going to take advantage of this dependence the market has created here and strangle us with it.” The “market” like water just flows toward “it’s cheaper to do it this way.” The market doesn’t care if US democracy triumphs over (or even survives) Chinese state managed capitalism. But I think a lot of us have skin in the game on this one. China has long recognized the strategic importance of this kind of thinking, see the massive subsidies they provide many of their industries to create the very dependencies you’re crediting as a natural market efficiency.
- valuearb 6y agoThey aren’t strangling us, they are enriching us. There are no dependencies, just subsidies to give us better deals.
- whynotminot 6y agoIt sure does feel like a good deal for now, comrade.