5 ms·
I'm not against pork spending, especially in cases like this where we know how strategically important it is to be a world leader in semiconductors. Critics wi
by ishjoh 5y ago
I'm not against pork spending, especially in cases like this where we know how strategically important it is to be a world leader in semiconductors. Critics will point out correctly though, that the government isn't historically good at picking winners and losers, and that a lot of this money is paid to companies who donate heavily to a candidate, so they look a lot like political favors
- N1H1L 5y agoCritics say that - true. But first of all, those critics originate more from Milton Friedman school of economics. Or the Austrian school. And honestly, as the work of economists like Card/Krueger show - many of the so-called common sense economics understandings have very shaky evidence foundations. Long story short, there is very little data in evidence of such claims.
- lazide 5y agoPork == corruption. You can protect an industry without explicitly handing billions of dollars to one single player in a corrupt process that doesn’t actually help the company or the country be competitive.
- N1H1L 5y agoThat single player is the only player. And semiconductors are a classic case of structural monopolies, because semiconductor manufacturing is closer to an utility rather than competing food joints - the barriers to entry are insanely capital intensive.
- lazide 5y agoJust like commercial aerospace, and hence why Boeing gets the special treatment it does. Doesn’t make it stink less though, in my opinion.
- N1H1L 5y agoThe solution to this is stricter anti-trust laws. The FTC is honestly outgunned when it comes to mergers and acquisitions. Part of it is manpower and salaries, and part of it is by design (regulatory capture). However, Intel is not that much to blame here. GlobalFoundries bowed out of the node race on it's own.