4 ms·
The US will fund as many people who will develop this tech as need be. The national champion approach produces a too big to fail lazy company.
by wbl 11mo ago
The US will fund as many people who will develop this tech as need be. The national champion approach produces a too big to fail lazy company.
- alfiedotwtf 11mo agoWouldn’t any form of government funding produce a lazy company vs companies standing on their own two feet with the free market acting as drill sergeant?
- AnthonyMouse 11mo agoSuppose you have to do some R&D in order to make something happen. There is no way to keep it a secret and China isn't going to enforce a patent on it, so if you pay to do the R&D and then have to charge prices high enough to recover it, they undercut you on price and you go out of business. But if the government covers the R&D then you can do domestic production at a competitive price. Meanwhile the subsidy should be going to every company in the industry so then they still have to compete with each other. Or to put it a different way, what's really the difference between a subsidy and a tax cut?
- wbl 11mo agoThe funding can get companies spun up and competing.
- dmix 11mo agoAssuming they are picking winners. Western government's usually just throw money at existing legacy organizations, not up and coming companies. In this case it's an institute attached to a big university (University of Texas) that is scaling up an R&D idea, that happens to be useful for the military https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2024/07/18/semiconductor-microsystems-ut-austin-texas-institute-for-electronics-dod-awarded-840-million/74444801007/ https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2024/07/18/semicond...