5 ms·
The problem here isn't that the government gets involved in businesses. That has always been something they do. The problem is that these days they do it capri
by srvo 1y ago
The problem here isn't that the government gets involved in businesses. That has always been something they do.
The problem is that these days they do it capriciously, without any sort of plan or intention.
The government played a foundational role in supporting the early stage research that enabled companies like Intel to emerge. Underwriting that sort of long-term investment that wouldn't easily attract commercial capital is a great place for them to be.
Meanwhile, is it even the case that the American chip industry is declining? Apple, Nvidia, and Google all have significant chip manufacturing operations. And this isn't an industry I even follow particularly closesly.
- xethos 1y ago> Apple, Nvidia, and Google all have significant chip manufacturing operations No, they all (as well as AMD) all have significant chip designing operations. Not one of them can actually fabricate their own chips. Every single one of them must speak to TSMC or Samsung if they want to take their designs from the whiteboard to the physical world.
- anonfordays 1y agoAmazes me how many self-proclaimed "techies" don't know this simple fact.
- jajko 1y agoYou would be amazed how many seemingly basic things about this world and IT you don't know... a bit of humility goes much longer way than this.
- anonfordays 1y agoIf I don't know something, I don't make statements such as "Apple, Nvidia, and Google all have significant chip manufacturing operations..." a bit of humility goes much longer way than this.
- jajko 1y agoI don't think you understood my post
- anonfordays 1y agoNor did you understand mine.
- srvo 1y agoThanks for clarifying! I misspoke there, but from my standpoint (portfolio manager/equities investor) that's better. Wafer fabs are capital intensive, complex, and need constant retooling. The bulk of the commercial value lives in the stuff you do on your whiteboard. From a geopolitical standpoint, I'll concede there's value in having the ability to actually make the stuff without acceding to the duopoly. But I'd still rather see the capital invested in basic research which might change the capital dynamics of the industry in the intermediate to long term.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago> Thanks for clarifying! I misspoke there, but from my standpoint (portfolio manager/equities investor) that's better. From a national security point it really, really isn't. Like, I'm not a fan of the Trump administration, but having basically all chip manufacturing in Asia is not a good idea if you think there'll be a war with China in the next few decades.
- kasey_junk 1y agoThe CHIPs act passed Congress during the Biden administration. The only thing Trump added was this weird non-elected post hoc equity grab.
- LeafItAlone 1y ago>but having basically all chip manufacturing in Asia is not a good idea if you think there'll be a war with China in the next few decades. I see this a lot, but I’m not smart enough to understand it. The US still has immense military power. Is the suggestion China/Asian is going to make the US so desperate for lack of chips that they use this power? Whether the manufacturing plants exist in Texas or Taiwan, the US military basically ensures they exist. And if that supply is cut off and that is forecasted to be the turning point of a war, then with a figurative push of a button, the US military makes sure that other countries also don’t have chip manufacturers (i.e. blows them up). Similarly, other countries can target plants on US soil if war breaks out anyways. I don’t see a war coming to that point or to the US losing access to chip manufacturing because of one. What don’t I understand from this angle? That said, I do think it’s important for the US to have their own chip manufacturing on shore. Not as some protective measure over some combat war, but (1) to ensure less possible influence from foreign governments and decrease likelihood of possible backdoors or intentional sabotage and (2) to protect against other factors from shutting down the facilities, like natural disasters.
- jacknews 1y agoExactly, and indirectly supported all business, with roads, the police, schools... Government should own a stake in every business, and citizens should then get shares in that government fund.
- petralithic 1y agoWhich American companies manufacture chips on the latest node? Certainly not Texas Instruments, Global Foundries and one might even argue Intel, compared to Samsung and TSMC. It is a matter of national security that Intel not fail.
- freeopinion 1y agoIt is a matter of national security that state-of-the-art fabs exist within the nation and that the expertise to operate them also exists within the nation. As you point out, it is questionable whether Intel has either of these. It might be argued that it is critical to national security that Intel be replaced by HP. Or Nvidia. Or Sun, or Motorola, or Micron, or TI, or... What's that you say? Most of those companies had their chance and failed? None of those companies are really in the game? Why among all the list of failed or current fab owners is it so important that Intel be declared sacred? Why not recognize that Intel is getting its clock cleaned by a company that doesn't design chips? Why not look outside of the chip design industry to save the chip fab industry?
- qwopmaster 1y agoThe bet seems obvious - Intel has been failing for a while, but they're still much better positioned to produce what the US government wants than some random companies like HP or TI. Their fabs aren't quite on the bleeding edge and the yields aren't quite what they'd like to have but it's still much more advanced than TI's 45-250nm fabs. If HP, or Nvidia, or Sun, or Motorola wanted the bag maybe they should've tried building their own modern fabs.
- tomp 1y ago> Why among all the list of failed or current fab owners is it so important that Intel be declared sacred? Has TI ever made anything nearly as complex as CPUs? Has NVIDIA? (Hint: the answer is "no"). Intel is pretty much the only option, though ChatGPT suggests GlobalFoundries as a potential other option (spun out of AMD).
- petralithic 1y agoBecause Intel is the only player left. What do you mean look outside the chip design industry to save the chip fab industry? It takes a very long time and lots of money to spin up a new state of the art fab, while Intel already has it mostly set up.
- JeremyNT 1y agoIntel is definitely special in that it's the only truly American fab. I don't have a problem with a US government owning a stake in Intel given its massive strategic importance, but I have a problem with this government owning a stake in Intel given its brazen corruption.