3 ms·

This kind of protectionism will only worsen Intels efficiency and will drain taxpayers pockets. Why can’t people learn from all the instances where a government

This kind of protectionism will only worsen Intels efficiency and will drain taxpayers pockets. Why can’t people learn from all the instances where a government tried to micromanage and horribly failed in the mid/long run?

tw04 6y ago
Who said anything about micromanaging? I simply said the government both won't let Intel fail, and won't let their assets be sold off to foreign companies. It's easy to say "that's dumb" - but what's your alternative? If it includes "just buy CPUs from insert foreign entity" - that's a nonstarter for myriad reasons.
- Shared404 6y ago
  I don't know whether or not I agree/think it's a good idea, but I think you are correct. There is no way the USG will let Intel fail.
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  > Who said anything about micromanaging? I simply said the government both won't let Intel fail, and won't let their assets be sold off to foreign companies. Internal information on stuff we don't know about, especially apropos of ring -1 (or even lower if that's even possible), will never leave US soil.
ahepp 6y ago
I don't see micromanagement, I see them getting giant R&D grants and contracts to fulfil US army strategic objectives. A fab owned by US nationals, on US soil, with processes that aren't obsolete. I think that's an important objective. I'm not sure what other way there is to fulfil it, other than spend even more taxpayer money funding greenfield US chip industry
imtringued 6y ago
If you maintain that infrastructure for the sake of national security you are willing to pay a premium. The problem isn't government intervention because that can be done properly. The bigger problem is that Intel is a company that both designs CPUs and manufactures them. The government isn't actually interested in Intel's CPUs specifically, only the domestic manufacturing capability. Intel has to be split up before the government can get what it wants. >Why can’t people learn from all the instances where a government tried to micromanage and horribly failed in the mid/long run? Counter example: Central banks are making lots of money available but the governments are not using it to employ people (either directly or indirectly) so it just fuels a long term asset bubble without achieving the desired economic growth.

tw04 6y ago

Who said anything about micromanaging? I simply said the government both won't let Intel fail, and won't let their assets be sold off to foreign companies. It's easy to say "that's dumb" - but what's your alternative? If it includes "just buy CPUs from insert foreign entity" - that's a nonstarter for myriad reasons.

Shared404 6y ago
I don't know whether or not I agree/think it's a good idea, but I think you are correct. There is no way the USG will let Intel fail.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
> Who said anything about micromanaging? I simply said the government both won't let Intel fail, and won't let their assets be sold off to foreign companies. Internal information on stuff we don't know about, especially apropos of ring -1 (or even lower if that's even possible), will never leave US soil.

ahepp 6y ago

I don't see micromanagement, I see them getting giant R&D grants and contracts to fulfil US army strategic objectives. A fab owned by US nationals, on US soil, with processes that aren't obsolete. I think that's an important objective. I'm not sure what other way there is to fulfil it, other than spend even more taxpayer money funding greenfield US chip industry

imtringued 6y ago

If you maintain that infrastructure for the sake of national security you are willing to pay a premium. The problem isn't government intervention because that can be done properly. The bigger problem is that Intel is a company that both designs CPUs and manufactures them. The government isn't actually interested in Intel's CPUs specifically, only the domestic manufacturing capability. Intel has to be split up before the government can get what it wants. >Why can’t people learn from all the instances where a government tried to micromanage and horribly failed in the mid/long run? Counter example: Central banks are making lots of money available but the governments are not using it to employ people (either directly or indirectly) so it just fuels a long term asset bubble without achieving the desired economic growth.