4 ms·

How about you spend some of that cash hoard and do it yourself? I would rather the government start dealing with cyber attacks because that's going to affect t

How about you spend some of that cash hoard and do it yourself? I would rather the government start dealing with cyber attacks because that's going to affect the east coast something fierce if this crap keeps going. If the government gives money then it better talk to these companies about where their items are produced.

kovacs 5y ago
My exact reaction as well. Or how about all that money used for stock buy backs over the last decade? Intel especially. It's been mismanaged and now it's putting its hand out for government money while having spent billions on stock buy backs. No more but of course it'll happen because the politics of it. Socialism for the rich and corporations, capitalism for the rest of us.
- quercusa 5y ago
  I can't imagine Andy Grove would have supported that.
- toast0 5y ago
  Stock buy backs are just more tax efficient dividends for investors. If the company is suffering from mismanagement, dividends are good, because it returns capital to investors rather than letting managment destroy it. Intel has been building fab capacity pretty much always, it's just that their 10nm process doesn't work as intended, and they haven't really been able to fix it, so their development is stalled and their production numbers aren't great and they haven't been able to stop making processors at 14nm to do other things with those fabs. So far, I think we've been hearing of delays on their 7nm node as well, so no good news there. That said, if there's a market for a 14nm or more fab in the US, Intel has shown they can build that, but they'd probably prefer to spend their money getting 7nm to work than building an old tech fab; spending other people's money on a new 14nm (or whatever) fab in the US is still good for Intel though, so it's no wonder they'd put their hand out to do that.
  - kovacs 5y ago
    Stock buybacks end up being nothing other than a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders because anytime something happens the government steps in bails them out because they're too big. Now everyone knows that so there's no incentive for companies to act responsibly. The fact that it's now accepted and normalized is incredibly disheartening to say the least. No government subsidies. Let the capitalists figure it out. Otherwise let's just nationalize everything instead of privatizing profits and socializing losses.
base698 5y ago
The money printers are going full bore. Why not get it for free?
RobRivera 5y ago
never spend your own money when you can convince the government its in national interest and thus worthwhile for tax dollars! ~Montgomery Burns...probably
riku_iki 5y ago
> How about you spend some of that cash hoard and do it yourself? Because they are for-profit entities with shareholders interest as top priority, and it is much more profitable to use TSMC/Samsung for them. With subsidies, the situation may change.
zepto 5y ago
The reason these items are not produced at home is because of government policies. I agree that they should be the ones to invest in these fabs, but it also makes sense for the government to make sure that is an internationally competitive move for them to make, rather than forcing them to pour water uphill.
- cryptofistMonk 5y ago
  > The reason these items are not produced at home is because of government policies. Which policies? I believe you, genuinely curious
  - zepto 5y ago
    Trade deals, plus subsidies by other governments are the general categories.
    - cryptofistMonk 5y ago
      Right. Other governments are always going to subsidize though (unless you work that into the trade deals I suppose). Obviously any barriers to the success of US fabs should be removed, but it's not clear if there's a market for more expensive US chips - if there were, you'd think someone would build it without the need for a subsidy
      - zepto 5y ago
        > Other governments are always going to subsidize though (unless you work that into the trade deals I suppose). Often trade deals do include agreements about subsidies. > it's not clear if there's a market for more expensive US chips - if there were, you'd think someone would build it without the need for a subsidy They wouldn’t be more expensive with the subsidy.
        cryptofistMonk 5y ago
        > Often trade deals do include agreements about subsidies. Yes but it's complicated when you're dealing with China where the govt is heavily involved in many "private" cos
pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
I've said it before: there's lots of low-hanging fruit in semiconductor manufacturing. Even ignoring the present shortage, it's been the case for a while that there are gains to be had for a competent tech giant with deep enough pockets to take on manufacturing themselves. Too many outsiders tend to err on giving the benefit of the doubt, thinking that there's some sort of Chesterton's fence (you can see this in the comments here), but it's just not true. So much of what causes delays that I've seen firsthand comes down to unbelievably inefficient business processes plus the less-than-stellar pool of candidates that the industry overwhelmingly prefers to hire from.

kovacs 5y ago

My exact reaction as well. Or how about all that money used for stock buy backs over the last decade? Intel especially. It's been mismanaged and now it's putting its hand out for government money while having spent billions on stock buy backs. No more but of course it'll happen because the politics of it. Socialism for the rich and corporations, capitalism for the rest of us.

quercusa 5y ago
I can't imagine Andy Grove would have supported that.
toast0 5y ago
Stock buy backs are just more tax efficient dividends for investors. If the company is suffering from mismanagement, dividends are good, because it returns capital to investors rather than letting managment destroy it. Intel has been building fab capacity pretty much always, it's just that their 10nm process doesn't work as intended, and they haven't really been able to fix it, so their development is stalled and their production numbers aren't great and they haven't been able to stop making processors at 14nm to do other things with those fabs. So far, I think we've been hearing of delays on their 7nm node as well, so no good news there. That said, if there's a market for a 14nm or more fab in the US, Intel has shown they can build that, but they'd probably prefer to spend their money getting 7nm to work than building an old tech fab; spending other people's money on a new 14nm (or whatever) fab in the US is still good for Intel though, so it's no wonder they'd put their hand out to do that.
- kovacs 5y ago
  Stock buybacks end up being nothing other than a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to shareholders because anytime something happens the government steps in bails them out because they're too big. Now everyone knows that so there's no incentive for companies to act responsibly. The fact that it's now accepted and normalized is incredibly disheartening to say the least. No government subsidies. Let the capitalists figure it out. Otherwise let's just nationalize everything instead of privatizing profits and socializing losses.

base698 5y ago

The money printers are going full bore. Why not get it for free?

RobRivera 5y ago

never spend your own money when you can convince the government its in national interest and thus worthwhile for tax dollars! ~Montgomery Burns...probably

riku_iki 5y ago

> How about you spend some of that cash hoard and do it yourself? Because they are for-profit entities with shareholders interest as top priority, and it is much more profitable to use TSMC/Samsung for them. With subsidies, the situation may change.

zepto 5y ago

The reason these items are not produced at home is because of government policies. I agree that they should be the ones to invest in these fabs, but it also makes sense for the government to make sure that is an internationally competitive move for them to make, rather than forcing them to pour water uphill.

cryptofistMonk 5y ago
> The reason these items are not produced at home is because of government policies. Which policies? I believe you, genuinely curious
- zepto 5y ago
  Trade deals, plus subsidies by other governments are the general categories.
  - cryptofistMonk 5y ago
    Right. Other governments are always going to subsidize though (unless you work that into the trade deals I suppose). Obviously any barriers to the success of US fabs should be removed, but it's not clear if there's a market for more expensive US chips - if there were, you'd think someone would build it without the need for a subsidy
    - zepto 5y ago
      > Other governments are always going to subsidize though (unless you work that into the trade deals I suppose). Often trade deals do include agreements about subsidies. > it's not clear if there's a market for more expensive US chips - if there were, you'd think someone would build it without the need for a subsidy They wouldn’t be more expensive with the subsidy.
      - cryptofistMonk 5y ago
        > Often trade deals do include agreements about subsidies. Yes but it's complicated when you're dealing with China where the govt is heavily involved in many "private" cos

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago

I've said it before: there's lots of low-hanging fruit in semiconductor manufacturing. Even ignoring the present shortage, it's been the case for a while that there are gains to be had for a competent tech giant with deep enough pockets to take on manufacturing themselves. Too many outsiders tend to err on giving the benefit of the doubt, thinking that there's some sort of Chesterton's fence (you can see this in the comments here), but it's just not true. So much of what causes delays that I've seen firsthand comes down to unbelievably inefficient business processes plus the less-than-stellar pool of candidates that the industry overwhelmingly prefers to hire from.