4 ms·

Affirmative action but for companies

chii 2y ago
the US wants to stratigically diversify away from TSMC, in case a war does start. Not to mention that having more competition in the fabrication industry can't hurt. The only question is whether taxpayers will get the value and benefit from this investment. I would hope so, but i can't tell from the past whether such an investment have netted benefit overall.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > The only question is whether taxpayers will get the value and benefit from this investment. Do I get a benefit from keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen if I happen to never actually need to use it?
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    That's pretty funny because per-taxpayer we're each just about paying the cost of two fire extinguishers each to pay for that corporate welfare.
  - tyre 2y ago
    Yes, because you can't predict the future.
  - sadeshmukh 2y ago
    Does anybody benefit from insurance? You'll be glad if a fire actually breaks out for a relatively low cost.
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
  - chii 2y ago
    decisions dont stand alone - opportunity costs have to be taken into account. What else could you have spent the money instead of on fire extinguishers, and would that have been more benefitial? Resources are always limited, and so not choosing the optimal spending would be considered a loss.
  - vachina 2y ago
    Very expensive fire extinguisher you have there. But you don’t care. Because America can will USDs into existence anytime.
nextworddev 2y ago
It’s called subsidies
- dmix 2y ago
  For reference, chart of US subsidies by year from St Louis fed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B096RC1Q027SBEA?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B096RC1Q027SBEA?utm_sourc... US spends about $92B/yr on subsidies, so this is about 8% of the total to one company. CHIPs was $52.7 billion total, which plans to go to $100B.
theoreticalmal 2y ago
Except for reasons like national security and domestic jobs rather than skin color or sexual preference
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  What domestic jobs? These boondoggles never generate the jobs promised, and even if they did, the per-head cost of the handout is usually enormous compared to the per-head salary. https://goodjobsfirst.org/gajs/ https://goodjobsfirst.org/gajs/ Second: you don't enhance national security giving a near-monopoly company a giant pile of cash, further solidifying their monopoly, especially when they have a reputation for slacking off the second the teacher turns their back. The only reason Intel has innovated at all is that AMD has been forcing them to. You realize why Apple switched to Apple Silicon for their laptops and desktops, right? Apple was sick and tired of Intel's incompetence. They're getting $8BN in taxpayer money damn near immediately after putting out not one but TWO generations of processors that self-destruct. Why do they self-destruct? Greed and sloth. Intel has been skimping on R&D to goose the numbers for investors, so they've had to keep pumping up clock speeds and voltages to stay relevant against AMD's actual innovation (ex: 3D cache.) Just look at the TDPs for the top chips from Intel and AMD; intel's power consumption is insane, which is hilarious given it used to be the other way around - AMD's athlon chips being huge power hogs. They boosted voltages so high the chips burn themselves out. On top of this, their GPU lineup isn't remotely competitive, showing they can't innovate to save their lives. The initial drivers for their GPUs were just...hilariously bad given they've been putting out GPU drivers for two decades or so...and the hardware is grossly underwhelming.
  - hackernewds 2y ago
    Precisely if not for the national security angle and also the fact that the existing president is departing, this grant would never have been made
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    Intel is a near-monopoly? That's news to everyone who's been following chip fabs for the last decade. TSMC is a near-monopoly, and that's what the parent comment was referencing when they mentioned national security (since China is constantly threatening to invade Taiwan).
smolder 2y ago
A worse case of meddling is the oil industry. They have been considered strategically important and gotten mind-blowingly expensive special treatment for a long time. That's one example among many.

chii 2y ago

the US wants to stratigically diversify away from TSMC, in case a war does start. Not to mention that having more competition in the fabrication industry can't hurt. The only question is whether taxpayers will get the value and benefit from this investment. I would hope so, but i can't tell from the past whether such an investment have netted benefit overall.

tbrownaw 2y ago
> The only question is whether taxpayers will get the value and benefit from this investment. Do I get a benefit from keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen if I happen to never actually need to use it?
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  That's pretty funny because per-taxpayer we're each just about paying the cost of two fire extinguishers each to pay for that corporate welfare.
- tyre 2y ago
  Yes, because you can't predict the future.
- sadeshmukh 2y ago
  Does anybody benefit from insurance? You'll be glad if a fire actually breaks out for a relatively low cost.
- remarkEon 2y ago
  Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
- chii 2y ago
  decisions dont stand alone - opportunity costs have to be taken into account. What else could you have spent the money instead of on fire extinguishers, and would that have been more benefitial? Resources are always limited, and so not choosing the optimal spending would be considered a loss.
- vachina 2y ago
  Very expensive fire extinguisher you have there. But you don’t care. Because America can will USDs into existence anytime.

nextworddev 2y ago

It’s called subsidies

dmix 2y ago
For reference, chart of US subsidies by year from St Louis fed: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B096RC1Q027SBEA?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B096RC1Q027SBEA?utm_sourc... US spends about $92B/yr on subsidies, so this is about 8% of the total to one company. CHIPs was $52.7 billion total, which plans to go to $100B.

theoreticalmal 2y ago

Except for reasons like national security and domestic jobs rather than skin color or sexual preference

KennyBlanken 2y ago
What domestic jobs? These boondoggles never generate the jobs promised, and even if they did, the per-head cost of the handout is usually enormous compared to the per-head salary. https://goodjobsfirst.org/gajs/ https://goodjobsfirst.org/gajs/ Second: you don't enhance national security giving a near-monopoly company a giant pile of cash, further solidifying their monopoly, especially when they have a reputation for slacking off the second the teacher turns their back. The only reason Intel has innovated at all is that AMD has been forcing them to. You realize why Apple switched to Apple Silicon for their laptops and desktops, right? Apple was sick and tired of Intel's incompetence. They're getting $8BN in taxpayer money damn near immediately after putting out not one but TWO generations of processors that self-destruct. Why do they self-destruct? Greed and sloth. Intel has been skimping on R&D to goose the numbers for investors, so they've had to keep pumping up clock speeds and voltages to stay relevant against AMD's actual innovation (ex: 3D cache.) Just look at the TDPs for the top chips from Intel and AMD; intel's power consumption is insane, which is hilarious given it used to be the other way around - AMD's athlon chips being huge power hogs. They boosted voltages so high the chips burn themselves out. On top of this, their GPU lineup isn't remotely competitive, showing they can't innovate to save their lives. The initial drivers for their GPUs were just...hilariously bad given they've been putting out GPU drivers for two decades or so...and the hardware is grossly underwhelming.
- hackernewds 2y ago
  Precisely if not for the national security angle and also the fact that the existing president is departing, this grant would never have been made
- reissbaker 2y ago
  Intel is a near-monopoly? That's news to everyone who's been following chip fabs for the last decade. TSMC is a near-monopoly, and that's what the parent comment was referencing when they mentioned national security (since China is constantly threatening to invade Taiwan).

smolder 2y ago

A worse case of meddling is the oil industry. They have been considered strategically important and gotten mind-blowingly expensive special treatment for a long time. That's one example among many.