4 ms·

Publicly traded US companies are beholden to investor returns. This is going to make them less able to respond to international competition. Think about the Fa

Publicly traded US companies are beholden to investor returns. This is going to make them less able to respond to international competition. Think about the Fair Trade laws that aim to prevent large companies from dropping their prices to below cost to drive small plantations out of business. There's no reason china needs to make 1,000% profit on their latest CPU when they can sell at a very low price, and put US manufacturers out of business. And FTA: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-10/u-s-lawmakers-propose-25-billion-to-aid-semiconductor-industry https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-10/u-s-lawma... I just barfed a little in my mouth. This is what is so eff'd up about the US. Semicon stock prices drove the creation of millions of millionaires over the last 2 decades, and now they need a handout.

justicezyx 6y ago
> Publicly traded US companies are beholden to investor returns Long- or short-term investor return? Given the situation and prospect, anyone who still sticks to this principle of short-term investor return is at good the capitalism in the worst form, or at worst plain irrationality.
gpanders 6y ago
It doesn't strike me so much as a handout as an investment in domestic infrastructure and chip manufacturing. It's pretty clear from the present situation that international supply chain risk is huge and this is an attempt to incentivize domestic production.
bedhead 6y ago
Tell that to Amazon. It's all just company/leadership culture.
jariel 6y ago
? US strategic investment in semiconductors is probably the only way to fight Large State Actors dumping on world markets, by your very own logic. $25B is about the right number as well, the challenge will be related to how efficiently it is spent.
- staycoolboy 6y ago
  I know, my comments sure do sound like a contradiction if viewed this way. There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong here. Semicon companies have been massive wealth generators for almost 4 decades, and how all of that wealth was genreated by clearly dubious means (Intel's lawsuits are legendary, as is there attempts at shuffling money out of the US buy building fabs in other countries to avoid tarrifs). But now they need taxpayer dollars to be competitive? Sure, the state of the US economy might be at risk, but that doesn't square with the industry leaders' malign actions in the past 20 years. It's like if you were getting beat up by a bully every day on your way to school, and he took your lunch money. Then one day a bigger bully from another town shows up, and the school starts paying your bully your lunch money, plus additional money from your allowance, to beat up the other one to protect the school (a bigger risk), when they didn't care about protecting you as an individual (a non-important risk).
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    It's more like if a big bully were taking your money, so to make sure he got less, you built off-shore fabs.

justicezyx 6y ago

> Publicly traded US companies are beholden to investor returns Long- or short-term investor return? Given the situation and prospect, anyone who still sticks to this principle of short-term investor return is at good the capitalism in the worst form, or at worst plain irrationality.

gpanders 6y ago

It doesn't strike me so much as a handout as an investment in domestic infrastructure and chip manufacturing. It's pretty clear from the present situation that international supply chain risk is huge and this is an attempt to incentivize domestic production.

bedhead 6y ago

Tell that to Amazon. It's all just company/leadership culture.

jariel 6y ago

? US strategic investment in semiconductors is probably the only way to fight Large State Actors dumping on world markets, by your very own logic. $25B is about the right number as well, the challenge will be related to how efficiently it is spent.

staycoolboy 6y ago
I know, my comments sure do sound like a contradiction if viewed this way. There just seems to be something fundamentally wrong here. Semicon companies have been massive wealth generators for almost 4 decades, and how all of that wealth was genreated by clearly dubious means (Intel's lawsuits are legendary, as is there attempts at shuffling money out of the US buy building fabs in other countries to avoid tarrifs). But now they need taxpayer dollars to be competitive? Sure, the state of the US economy might be at risk, but that doesn't square with the industry leaders' malign actions in the past 20 years. It's like if you were getting beat up by a bully every day on your way to school, and he took your lunch money. Then one day a bigger bully from another town shows up, and the school starts paying your bully your lunch money, plus additional money from your allowance, to beat up the other one to protect the school (a bigger risk), when they didn't care about protecting you as an individual (a non-important risk).
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  It's more like if a big bully were taking your money, so to make sure he got less, you built off-shore fabs.