3 ms·

We absolutely do need to keep the secrets for how this stuff is made local.

tehjoker 6y ago
Why do we need to keep secrets? If chips are distributed evenly, there will be no advantage given to anyone but lots of people can reap the benefits. I don't like nationalist arguments, but I do think it is a bad idea for critical tech to be concentrated in a single place. It would be good for there to be advanced manufacturing sites on all six populated continents owned by different countries.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  that would be good, but it would be even better to be the people that have the advantage.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    I don't understand this thinking. Why would we want to impoverish others? After all, it's not like these power brokers give a shit about the American public, it's about great power competition.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      first of all, I don't think "impoverish" is quite the right word. if you have a 9700k and I buy a 10900k, my cpu is faster, but your cpu is no slower than it was yesterday. past that, I don't really understand what there is to explain. if it would be good for everyone to have $1000, it would be even better (as an individual) to have $10000. assuming you care about money/chips/whatever. if you don't it obviously doesn't matter. edit: ah, I see what you are really asking is "why should we care who wins a power struggle among the world's elite?". I guess maybe we shouldn't, but personally I'd rather be on the winning team, even if I think the "teams" are silly.
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        I don't see how depriving others of technological advancement comports with any kind of justifiable theory of social governance, it's just a method of dominating others. I am not convinced we even benefit much from these kinds of antics. We have a few more consumer goods, but fundamental goods (education, housing, medicine, food) are sky-high in price, there are few worker protections, and huge portions of the budget are dedicated to illegal military adventures. I think cooperating and sharing technology widely leads to a richer world.
        coding123 6y ago
        When I drive around the city I see a Sprouts store and signs all over the place that say "Locally Grown" or "Buy Local". There's a reason for this. Every time you pay money that goes into the community there's a higher chance for local prosperity. If we start eating beets from China some beet farmer may be rich and his family will definitely be happy. But why not buy local beets that enriches our communities. So at some point Sprouts made the decision to instead of buying beets from a Chinese farmer, they will buy them from a local one. However Sprouts, as a national chain of grocery stores, could have decided one day to just make an extra $1 Billion by selling MOSTLY out of country food. They don't do this for 2 reasons - fear of backlash that all the food is from China and 2 these people do actually understand the local connection. For some reason this logic does not translate to silicon valley companies. Those companies have made the choice that because of the price difference, it's best to buy it from far away. When you look at everything that's going on in the USA - the deep divides between rich and poor, between left and right - most of that is BECAUSE of economic inequity. If we fix the economic inequity, a lot of political shit will just go away. We have a reason to fight because things AREN'T going so well. Everyone has a different fix. I personally think the fix is to come up with policy that Sprouts has: BUY LOCALLY GROWN. The main reason we hear about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is because those rich execs at Walmart and tech companies are paying people in China, India and wherever else they can pay the lowest possible price and resell it to Americans. It makes perfect sense why the 1% is becoming richer and richer. And raising taxes on them isn't the answer - it's to stop the exporting of American dollars to sell shit to Americans. Duh?!
    - dylan604 6y ago
      Is it better to be beholden to another party, or be the one the other party is beholden to? Which also means you are more self-reliant. If trade relations soured to the point no more chips exported to your country, how would your country handle that? How long would it be before other fabs could even come close to competing?
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        I agree. I think realistically, the US will always have its own fab capability for the foreseeable future. I think if the capability were spread around the world though as I described above, it would be pretty difficult to cut off any one country. If you wanted to get really out there, I wonder if it would be possible to place certain capabilities under international control. I think this is already the case with the ITER fusion project, we don't usually do this with commodities.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  > Why do we need to keep secrets? Because every geopolitical competitor is keeping their own secrets. Makes no sense to disadvantage yourself when your peer and near-peer competitors aren't.
jbverschoor 6y ago
Who is we?

Why do we need to keep secrets? If chips are distributed evenly, there will be no advantage given to anyone but lots of people can reap the benefits. I don't like nationalist arguments, but I do think it is a bad idea for critical tech to be concentrated in a single place. It would be good for there to be advanced manufacturing sites on all six populated continents owned by different countries.

leetcrew 6y ago
that would be good, but it would be even better to be the people that have the advantage.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  I don't understand this thinking. Why would we want to impoverish others? After all, it's not like these power brokers give a shit about the American public, it's about great power competition.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    first of all, I don't think "impoverish" is quite the right word. if you have a 9700k and I buy a 10900k, my cpu is faster, but your cpu is no slower than it was yesterday. past that, I don't really understand what there is to explain. if it would be good for everyone to have $1000, it would be even better (as an individual) to have $10000. assuming you care about money/chips/whatever. if you don't it obviously doesn't matter. edit: ah, I see what you are really asking is "why should we care who wins a power struggle among the world's elite?". I guess maybe we shouldn't, but personally I'd rather be on the winning team, even if I think the "teams" are silly.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      I don't see how depriving others of technological advancement comports with any kind of justifiable theory of social governance, it's just a method of dominating others. I am not convinced we even benefit much from these kinds of antics. We have a few more consumer goods, but fundamental goods (education, housing, medicine, food) are sky-high in price, there are few worker protections, and huge portions of the budget are dedicated to illegal military adventures. I think cooperating and sharing technology widely leads to a richer world.
      - coding123 6y ago
        When I drive around the city I see a Sprouts store and signs all over the place that say "Locally Grown" or "Buy Local". There's a reason for this. Every time you pay money that goes into the community there's a higher chance for local prosperity. If we start eating beets from China some beet farmer may be rich and his family will definitely be happy. But why not buy local beets that enriches our communities. So at some point Sprouts made the decision to instead of buying beets from a Chinese farmer, they will buy them from a local one. However Sprouts, as a national chain of grocery stores, could have decided one day to just make an extra $1 Billion by selling MOSTLY out of country food. They don't do this for 2 reasons - fear of backlash that all the food is from China and 2 these people do actually understand the local connection. For some reason this logic does not translate to silicon valley companies. Those companies have made the choice that because of the price difference, it's best to buy it from far away. When you look at everything that's going on in the USA - the deep divides between rich and poor, between left and right - most of that is BECAUSE of economic inequity. If we fix the economic inequity, a lot of political shit will just go away. We have a reason to fight because things AREN'T going so well. Everyone has a different fix. I personally think the fix is to come up with policy that Sprouts has: BUY LOCALLY GROWN. The main reason we hear about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is because those rich execs at Walmart and tech companies are paying people in China, India and wherever else they can pay the lowest possible price and resell it to Americans. It makes perfect sense why the 1% is becoming richer and richer. And raising taxes on them isn't the answer - it's to stop the exporting of American dollars to sell shit to Americans. Duh?!
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Is it better to be beholden to another party, or be the one the other party is beholden to? Which also means you are more self-reliant. If trade relations soured to the point no more chips exported to your country, how would your country handle that? How long would it be before other fabs could even come close to competing?
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      I agree. I think realistically, the US will always have its own fab capability for the foreseeable future. I think if the capability were spread around the world though as I described above, it would be pretty difficult to cut off any one country. If you wanted to get really out there, I wonder if it would be possible to place certain capabilities under international control. I think this is already the case with the ITER fusion project, we don't usually do this with commodities.
jeffreyrogers 6y ago
> Why do we need to keep secrets? Because every geopolitical competitor is keeping their own secrets. Makes no sense to disadvantage yourself when your peer and near-peer competitors aren't.

jbverschoor 6y ago

Who is we?