3 ms·
The problem with this governmental intervention is that you can't have it both ways. These companies want the governmetn to step in to hlp them with their probl
by Traster 5y ago
The problem with this governmental intervention is that you can't have it both ways. These companies want the governmetn to step in to hlp them with their problems, but let's take a look - are they going to contribute back once the government has intervened? What are they really proposing, a 20% revenue tax on consumer products that are sold with these new US sourced chips? No. Of course not. God forbid they actually pay taxes to fund the government services they're asking for.
- Covzire 5y agoJust to play devil's advocate, what would the world look like had there been massive investment 5-10 years ago? The benefits would probably have been a chip shortage that wasn't and we'd be free to complain about other things.
- instafail 5y agoIn this world, obviously, we would be complaining about the government subsidising unprofitable chip factories with billions of tax credits. Since we wouldn't have a chip supply crisis, we wouldn't know what its like to have one :D
- pjc50 5y agoUnless they put the fab in Texas and it went offline with all the other fabs in the power outages? Or went bankrupt, like the previous "let's onshore an important piece of high tech" plan, Solyndra? If it was started 5-10 years ago, would it have survived the change of administrations?
- antonzabirko 5y agoI would take a chip shortage over subsidizing them.
- paulddraper 5y ago> God forbid they actually pay taxes to fund the government services they're asking for. That unironically makes complete sense. If they were going to pay taxes to fund the subsidy, why have the subsidy in the first place? (My conclusion: don't subsidize, don't pick winners and losers.)