7 ms·

Can’t they use the defense production act or something to take over the company or the factory?

by atonse 5y ago

wildrhythms 5y ago
I don't think that works when the companies aren't in the U.S. >the Pentagon relied on one production line for key chips, and that production line, owned by Abu Dhabi-controlled Global Foundries, just sold it off to a firm that will shut it down.
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  Yes, I don't think it works for foreign owned entities although I guess they could basically use the DPA as more of a carrot for an Intel or someone to have a guaranteed purchase order for X# years at a certain price for these chips at a level that would be profitable for them
- mrtnmcc 5y ago
  Globalism, why war is obsolete.
  - atlasunshrugged 5y ago
    Kinetic conflict anyways. Economic warfare seems alive and well
    - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
      Sanctions are a euphemism for economic warfare.
  - LogonType10 5y ago
    Funny, that's what they said before WW1.
    - seanw444 5y ago
      Did they though?
    - mrtnmcc 5y ago
      If they did, the World Wars proved the point, such conflicts are in nobody's interest.
      - LogonType10 5y ago
        Was the US not better off after WW2?
        FpUser 5y ago
        Bet it won't be better off after WW3. Nobody will except maybe some primitive tribes in forgotten places.
        LogonType10 5y ago
        [flagged]
        FpUser 5y ago
        >"I've heard this cold war doom and gloom stuff way too many times." Why would I care what you've heard. I expressed my opinion. I do not need "good reason" for it. You are entitled to your own. Go start the war and celebrate.
        dang 5y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing this a lot, and it's not what this site is for. We're trying for something other than internet default here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
        5y ago
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    It's not out of date, it's retro.
- pm90 5y ago
  If the company is not in the US, they can use coercion through diplomatic channels. This appears to be a lack of willingness or incompetence to react to this event. Considering that the factory itself is in the US, it seems pretty absurd that it wasn’t taken over. Like do we ground all our B2s if we run out of spare parts and nobody is around to make them? Insane.
- legutierr 5y ago
  It is very doubtful that the factory itself is foreign-owned. It's more likely directly owned by a US corporate entity, and Global Foundries held ownership in that entity. In any event, the Defense Production Act does not have an exception if the business is foreign-owned. The President's powers are very broad. The scenario described in TFA is exactly why the Defense Production Act exists, and I am also curious to know why it wouldn't be invoked in this case.
whatshisface 5y ago
State monopolies are not that good of an alternative to private monopolies.
- baybal2 5y ago
  Absolutely, people matter. And in case of USA government taking over the ON Semi through DPA, you will have essentially the same creed of people being appointed to run it. This comes from an obvious fact that the prime majority of public companies in USA have boards stuffed with bankers, and asset managers, because a big portion of there are owned by bankers, and asset managers. Most people in government service administering companies also come from exactly the same banker/asset manager background for simple lack of any others.
- lostlogin 5y ago
  It depends though doesn’t it? For police, army and things like water supply, they are good. Many (including me) argue that far more services work better when state owned, eg health, education, power, infrastructure (eg roading) and public transport. It becomes a political argument rather fast.
- Teever 5y ago
  Is that true? I was under the impression that state monopolies are a fundamental part of modern arms procurement in some instances.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Yes, they are. Are you serious? A state monopoly's problems are complacency and applying government policy ( e.g. in a racist segregated country, they will apply that). A private monopoly will absolutely bleed their customers dry out of any money they can take off them, they'll usually stagnate and become complacent ( just like a state monopoly). Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides. You have to be really careful with this. Most of the natural monopolies are very narrow. You can't just say "infrastructure" or even "telecommunications." The natural monopoly is limited to the physical plant in the last mile. Transit is a competitive market. You don't want to extend the monopoly an inch more than it needs to be. Almost nothing in "healthcare" is a natural monopoly. Maybe emergency services, and even then it's not a "real" natural monopoly (which is characterized by high fixed costs and low variable costs) but rather a market failure as a result of being unable to make a rational choice between providers while you're unconscious. It certainly doesn't apply to, for example, cancer treatment, where there are many providers and people are willing to spend as much time as necessary and travel long distances in order to receive the most competitive care. And there is no sense in which any education is a natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable (per-student) rather than fixed. There is a case to be made for the local government to do the thing which is actually a natural monopoly, but that doesn't mean you can just reclassify a bunch of random stuff you want the government to do as a natural monopoly when it isn't.

Can’t they use the defense production act or something to take over the company or the factory?

by atonse 5y ago

Can’t they use the defense production act or something to take over the company or the factory?

I don't think that works when the companies aren't in the U.S. >the Pentagon relied on one production line for key chips, and that production line, owned by Abu Dhabi-controlled Global Foundries, just sold it off to a firm that will shut it down.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
Yes, I don't think it works for foreign owned entities although I guess they could basically use the DPA as more of a carrot for an Intel or someone to have a guaranteed purchase order for X# years at a certain price for these chips at a level that would be profitable for them
mrtnmcc 5y ago
Globalism, why war is obsolete.
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  Kinetic conflict anyways. Economic warfare seems alive and well
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    Sanctions are a euphemism for economic warfare.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  Funny, that's what they said before WW1.
  - seanw444 5y ago
    Did they though?
  - mrtnmcc 5y ago
    If they did, the World Wars proved the point, such conflicts are in nobody's interest.
    - LogonType10 5y ago
      Was the US not better off after WW2?
      - FpUser 5y ago
        Bet it won't be better off after WW3. Nobody will except maybe some primitive tribes in forgotten places.
        LogonType10 5y ago
        [flagged]
        FpUser 5y ago
        >"I've heard this cold war doom and gloom stuff way too many times." Why would I care what you've heard. I expressed my opinion. I do not need "good reason" for it. You are entitled to your own. Go start the war and celebrate.
        dang 5y ago
        Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? You've unfortunately been doing this a lot, and it's not what this site is for. We're trying for something other than internet default here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
      - 5y ago
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  It's not out of date, it's retro.
pm90 5y ago
If the company is not in the US, they can use coercion through diplomatic channels. This appears to be a lack of willingness or incompetence to react to this event. Considering that the factory itself is in the US, it seems pretty absurd that it wasn’t taken over. Like do we ground all our B2s if we run out of spare parts and nobody is around to make them? Insane.
legutierr 5y ago
It is very doubtful that the factory itself is foreign-owned. It's more likely directly owned by a US corporate entity, and Global Foundries held ownership in that entity. In any event, the Defense Production Act does not have an exception if the business is foreign-owned. The President's powers are very broad. The scenario described in TFA is exactly why the Defense Production Act exists, and I am also curious to know why it wouldn't be invoked in this case.

whatshisface 5y ago

State monopolies are not that good of an alternative to private monopolies.

baybal2 5y ago
Absolutely, people matter. And in case of USA government taking over the ON Semi through DPA, you will have essentially the same creed of people being appointed to run it. This comes from an obvious fact that the prime majority of public companies in USA have boards stuffed with bankers, and asset managers, because a big portion of there are owned by bankers, and asset managers. Most people in government service administering companies also come from exactly the same banker/asset manager background for simple lack of any others.
lostlogin 5y ago
It depends though doesn’t it? For police, army and things like water supply, they are good. Many (including me) argue that far more services work better when state owned, eg health, education, power, infrastructure (eg roading) and public transport. It becomes a political argument rather fast.
Teever 5y ago
Is that true? I was under the impression that state monopolies are a fundamental part of modern arms procurement in some instances.
sofixa 5y ago
Yes, they are. Are you serious? A state monopoly's problems are complacency and applying government policy ( e.g. in a racist segregated country, they will apply that). A private monopoly will absolutely bleed their customers dry out of any money they can take off them, they'll usually stagnate and become complacent ( just like a state monopoly). Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Many things are natural monopolies ( infrastructure, education, healthcare) and are best left to state monopolies, even with the downsides. You have to be really careful with this. Most of the natural monopolies are very narrow. You can't just say "infrastructure" or even "telecommunications." The natural monopoly is limited to the physical plant in the last mile. Transit is a competitive market. You don't want to extend the monopoly an inch more than it needs to be. Almost nothing in "healthcare" is a natural monopoly. Maybe emergency services, and even then it's not a "real" natural monopoly (which is characterized by high fixed costs and low variable costs) but rather a market failure as a result of being unable to make a rational choice between providers while you're unconscious. It certainly doesn't apply to, for example, cancer treatment, where there are many providers and people are willing to spend as much time as necessary and travel long distances in order to receive the most competitive care. And there is no sense in which any education is a natural monopoly whatsoever. It is the exact opposite -- a competitive market whose costs are predominantly variable (per-student) rather than fixed. There is a case to be made for the local government to do the thing which is actually a natural monopoly, but that doesn't mean you can just reclassify a bunch of random stuff you want the government to do as a natural monopoly when it isn't.