4 ms·

America succeeds when we let unprofitable companies die and it fails when we subsidize them to the point that they can't run an undistorted budget or be competi

America succeeds when we let unprofitable companies die and it fails when we subsidize them to the point that they can't run an undistorted budget or be competitive anymore. That is the difference between here and the places that will never even get close regardless of how many unprofitable silicon wafer factories they allow to crawl around the ground like sick mutants. Speaking of, how's Boeing doing lately?

ethbr1 2y ago
To that point, how is American manufacturing or shipbuilding doing lately? There a case to be made for subsidizing core enabling industries.
- kyledrake 2y ago
  Like Cuba did with the sugar industry? They can't even make sugar anymore. Distorting markets usually destroys them. Intel isn't too big to fail.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Like Europe did with aircraft manufacturing? Or Japan did with auto manufacturing? Or Taiwan did with semi? Or South Korea did with semi/auto/ship? There's a lot of successful examples of governments using protectionism and subsidies to build globally competitive industries.
    - me_me_me 2y ago
      Correct, but one can make a point those were an impetus measures that allow those to kick off and operate at competitive level In case of Boeing their business pivoted in order to extract the funds themselves, not to use funds to make products. Thats the problem, corruption and profit chasing over product creation.
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    Yes, because any subsidy is literally communism. /s How's the US farming industry doing? I wonder why you brought up a completely different industry in a different country ran by a dictator instead of a core industry right here in the US that has been heavily subsidized for decades and for very good reason.
    - kyledrake 2y ago
      Tons of farm production is now going not into food, but into massive ethanol subsidies that are energy negative, damage cars and pollute more (ethanol generates smog, plus gas for tractors and equipment, plus fertilizer runoff creating massive dead zones in lakes and rivers and the Gulf) than gasoline does, and will ultimately have to go away in order for EVs to replace fuel engines (which they will now lobby against because it ruins their subsidized industry). There's probably some examples that more prove your point to some extent, this is definitely not one of them. My argument is that when governments try to manipulate or force market demand based on political priorities they tend to create problems. If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild.
      - KK7NIL 2y ago
        1) ethbr1 brought up many other good examples 2) ethanol is less than 50% of corn production, which is in itself about 25% of the crops in the US. 3) > If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild. This is a bad faith comparison. Intel isn't asking for money because its top talent left to start an even more successful US based semiconductor manufacturer. Instead, the whole US semiconductor industry has been slowly off-shored after decades of US capital and talent doing the math and realizing that SW pays a lot better. Intel is simply the last holdout due to its vertical integration providing higher margins which allowed it to afford the higher US wages, until recently. If the US had started the CHIPS act 10 years ago when there were other US companies anywhere close to the leading edge (i.e. GlobalFoundry) then it wouldn't effectively be an Intel bailout, but that's not Intel's fault.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - consteval 2y ago
    > Distorting markets usually destroys them These markets are already destroyed and have been by corporations. America doesn't have an economy. Well, not really. We don't make anything. We used to, when we had a manufacturing industry, but they all left and now stuff is made somewhere else and shipped here. Same thing happened with automobiles and will only get worse when the inevitably better Chinese cars come in. But, at least, we had computer. Except now we lose that too. Look, the US is currently only propped up on invisible money and greed. What we do it make someone else do the work, and then turn around and sell it for 10x more, and pocket the difference. We justify it with having busy bodies in suits sitting around "creating value" or something. Tada! Highest GDP in the world. It's only a matter of time before these countries, like Taiwan, China, Bangladesh, India, wisen up and realize what's going on. Soon, they're gonna put two and two together and realize THEY are the US economy. They make everything. They have all the capital. They have the means of production. We don't. We're on thin ice. If we let more US industries die off to be replaced by manufacturing in other countries, we won't have anything left. In my opinion, the situation is unsustainable. I don't know how much longer we have, and I think the consequences will be more severe than anyone is imagining.

ethbr1 2y ago

To that point, how is American manufacturing or shipbuilding doing lately? There a case to be made for subsidizing core enabling industries.

kyledrake 2y ago
Like Cuba did with the sugar industry? They can't even make sugar anymore. Distorting markets usually destroys them. Intel isn't too big to fail.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Like Europe did with aircraft manufacturing? Or Japan did with auto manufacturing? Or Taiwan did with semi? Or South Korea did with semi/auto/ship? There's a lot of successful examples of governments using protectionism and subsidies to build globally competitive industries.
  - me_me_me 2y ago
    Correct, but one can make a point those were an impetus measures that allow those to kick off and operate at competitive level In case of Boeing their business pivoted in order to extract the funds themselves, not to use funds to make products. Thats the problem, corruption and profit chasing over product creation.
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  Yes, because any subsidy is literally communism. /s How's the US farming industry doing? I wonder why you brought up a completely different industry in a different country ran by a dictator instead of a core industry right here in the US that has been heavily subsidized for decades and for very good reason.
  - kyledrake 2y ago
    Tons of farm production is now going not into food, but into massive ethanol subsidies that are energy negative, damage cars and pollute more (ethanol generates smog, plus gas for tractors and equipment, plus fertilizer runoff creating massive dead zones in lakes and rivers and the Gulf) than gasoline does, and will ultimately have to go away in order for EVs to replace fuel engines (which they will now lobby against because it ruins their subsidized industry). There's probably some examples that more prove your point to some extent, this is definitely not one of them. My argument is that when governments try to manipulate or force market demand based on political priorities they tend to create problems. If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild.
    - KK7NIL 2y ago
      1) ethbr1 brought up many other good examples 2) ethanol is less than 50% of corn production, which is in itself about 25% of the crops in the US. 3) > If I was going to fight my own argument I would probably try the heavy government investment into silicon valley for military purposes. It clearly worked out pretty well. At the same time, the government didn't bail out Shockley after all the talent left to Fairchild. This is a bad faith comparison. Intel isn't asking for money because its top talent left to start an even more successful US based semiconductor manufacturer. Instead, the whole US semiconductor industry has been slowly off-shored after decades of US capital and talent doing the math and realizing that SW pays a lot better. Intel is simply the last holdout due to its vertical integration providing higher margins which allowed it to afford the higher US wages, until recently. If the US had started the CHIPS act 10 years ago when there were other US companies anywhere close to the leading edge (i.e. GlobalFoundry) then it wouldn't effectively be an Intel bailout, but that's not Intel's fault.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- consteval 2y ago
  > Distorting markets usually destroys them These markets are already destroyed and have been by corporations. America doesn't have an economy. Well, not really. We don't make anything. We used to, when we had a manufacturing industry, but they all left and now stuff is made somewhere else and shipped here. Same thing happened with automobiles and will only get worse when the inevitably better Chinese cars come in. But, at least, we had computer. Except now we lose that too. Look, the US is currently only propped up on invisible money and greed. What we do it make someone else do the work, and then turn around and sell it for 10x more, and pocket the difference. We justify it with having busy bodies in suits sitting around "creating value" or something. Tada! Highest GDP in the world. It's only a matter of time before these countries, like Taiwan, China, Bangladesh, India, wisen up and realize what's going on. Soon, they're gonna put two and two together and realize THEY are the US economy. They make everything. They have all the capital. They have the means of production. We don't. We're on thin ice. If we let more US industries die off to be replaced by manufacturing in other countries, we won't have anything left. In my opinion, the situation is unsustainable. I don't know how much longer we have, and I think the consequences will be more severe than anyone is imagining.