4 ms·

> Some of the world’s biggest chip buyers, including Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp and Alphabet Inc’s Google, are joining top chip-makers such as Intel Corp > to c

> Some of the world’s biggest chip buyers, including Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp and Alphabet Inc’s Google, are joining top chip-makers such as Intel Corp > to create a new lobbying group to press for government chip manufacturing subsidies None of those companies need subsidies.

amelius 5y ago
I'm ok with subsidies if they open up their designs. Commoditize your complement. To some approximation and with few exceptions, hardware is everybody's complement.
- lumost 5y ago
  why? even if they open the designs the CapEx requirements for modern chip making leaves it in the realm of megacaps and governments.
- monkeydust 5y ago
  Subsidise chips based on RISC V architecture?
lkbm 5y ago
In terms of fairness to these companies, yeah. They're rich and it sucks to give them our tax dollars. But in terms of maintaining the competitiveness and security of the US, seems like they do. As a rule, I don't care if giving someone money is fair. I care about whether it causes a general increase in the welfare of our society. Even as a non-recipient of these subsidies, I might be better off if they existed if they reduce risk to the supply chain I'm downstream of as a consumer. If it's unfair to me but makes me better off, I'm not going to cry over the unfairness. (Maybe tariffs on imported chips are a better solution, but I suspect that's more politically fraught, and solutions that work are better than solutions that don't.)
- pixelatedindex 5y ago
  > As a rule, I don't care if giving someone money is fair. Sure > I care about whether it causes a general increase in the welfare of our society. But by what metric do you measure that? There has been a tech boom in the last couple of decades but the inequality divide has been growing day by day.
meowkit 5y ago
Obviously they don’t need subsidies. But economics works on incentives. Problem is these incentives are discontinuous and can change on a dime. You can accelerate a change by aligning incentives. Chip manufacturing is important for products, but its also a security risk. The government should put up support to incentivize these companies to redirect capital towards US manufacturing. Otherwise the incentives for these companies are not going to align on a timeframe that is acceptable to employees and shareholders. Now we can make all kinds of normative claims about how this should play out, but I honestly don’t have the energy to entertain that kind of conversation anymore.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
_zamorano_ 5y ago
If they thought the risk of building a fav and launching a business was reasonable, they'd already have. They acknowledge the importance of the issue, but are not willing to take risks in a difficult an foreign (to them) business. So, mostly worthless words.
zepto 5y ago
Their international competitors have subsidies. If the government doesn’t match that then you are asking these companies to pour water uphill.

amelius 5y ago

I'm ok with subsidies if they open up their designs. Commoditize your complement. To some approximation and with few exceptions, hardware is everybody's complement.

lumost 5y ago
why? even if they open the designs the CapEx requirements for modern chip making leaves it in the realm of megacaps and governments.
monkeydust 5y ago
Subsidise chips based on RISC V architecture?

lkbm 5y ago

In terms of fairness to these companies, yeah. They're rich and it sucks to give them our tax dollars. But in terms of maintaining the competitiveness and security of the US, seems like they do. As a rule, I don't care if giving someone money is fair. I care about whether it causes a general increase in the welfare of our society. Even as a non-recipient of these subsidies, I might be better off if they existed if they reduce risk to the supply chain I'm downstream of as a consumer. If it's unfair to me but makes me better off, I'm not going to cry over the unfairness. (Maybe tariffs on imported chips are a better solution, but I suspect that's more politically fraught, and solutions that work are better than solutions that don't.)

pixelatedindex 5y ago
> As a rule, I don't care if giving someone money is fair. Sure > I care about whether it causes a general increase in the welfare of our society. But by what metric do you measure that? There has been a tech boom in the last couple of decades but the inequality divide has been growing day by day.

meowkit 5y ago

Obviously they don’t need subsidies. But economics works on incentives. Problem is these incentives are discontinuous and can change on a dime. You can accelerate a change by aligning incentives. Chip manufacturing is important for products, but its also a security risk. The government should put up support to incentivize these companies to redirect capital towards US manufacturing. Otherwise the incentives for these companies are not going to align on a timeframe that is acceptable to employees and shareholders. Now we can make all kinds of normative claims about how this should play out, but I honestly don’t have the energy to entertain that kind of conversation anymore.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

_zamorano_ 5y ago

If they thought the risk of building a fav and launching a business was reasonable, they'd already have. They acknowledge the importance of the issue, but are not willing to take risks in a difficult an foreign (to them) business. So, mostly worthless words.

zepto 5y ago

Their international competitors have subsidies. If the government doesn’t match that then you are asking these companies to pour water uphill.