3 ms·
Intel could have (and has) funded building fabs themselves, but if we are advocating for a free market solution, why would they build it in the US vs somewhere
by tgma 3y ago
Intel could have (and has) funded building fabs themselves, but if we are advocating for a free market solution, why would they build it in the US vs somewhere cheaper? Forcing their hand to do it inside the US does not seem like a fair free market solution either. There has to be either a carrot (subsidy), or a stick (tarriffs and embargoes) to nudge them to bring it back home; neither is a clean free-market solution. The additional money is to bridge the gap and cover the unfavorable conditions for conducting the business in the US.
- randerson 3y agoI just question whether the government is backing the right horse. Intel has been losing market share in every segment for years despite once having everything in their favor: a head start, a strong brand, mountains of cash. They failed to capture the mobile phone and tablet market altogether. And the govt thinks Intel can make AI chips that compete with Nvidia?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI don't think the goal is even to compete, even though maybe it's being sold that way. The goal is to have a domestically controlled source of relatively high tech chips. It doesn't matter if they're subpar
- JonChesterfield 3y agoGlobal foundries seems like a better bet than intel for that objective.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoGlobal foundries doesn't have enough money. Intel is investing 75b in the deal. Founries is only worth 25B as a company.