5 ms·
Given the criticality to National security interests, perhaps the US government should have brought the stick with heavy taxes / penalties for not having the US
by aceon48 2y ago
Given the criticality to National security interests, perhaps the US government should have brought the stick with heavy taxes / penalties for not having the US Based plant instead of the carrot of more corporate subsidies.
This is still a US based company, with US leadership
- willcipriano 2y agoYour brother's idiot son doesn't get a no show job if you use the stick.
- skywal_l 2y agoWouldn't be easier for the US government to buy Intel shares rather than subsidies it? It should actually be mandatory for the government to own part of a company that is so critical to national and security interest.
- _giorgio_ 2y agoHere's the crazy one. Punishing a company just because it's american.
- harimau777 2y agoAlternative take: Punishing a company because it's selling out Americans in favor of cheap labor.
- gruez 2y agoYeah I'm sure that's going to cause investors/other companies to think that the US is a good place to set up shop and/or make further investments.
- belorn 2y agoI believe that $77B as a fairly good cause for investors/other companies to set up shop and make investment into the US semiconductors market. According to random market statistic site, it is also currently growing by 10% each year. Is that market so poor that subsidies really is needed on the basis of profitability?
- gruez 2y agoA $77B market that's growing by 10% each year doesn't mean much when the government turns against you demands you do a bunch of expensive investments for nationalist reasons. See also: all the investors fleeing china because they were spooked by the tech crackdown/covid lockdowns. "Punishing a company because it's selling out Americans in favor of cheap labor" is basically the same thing but with a different coat of paint.
- addicted 2y agoThis is a myth. Cheap labor is a benefit but not the primary reason companies are manufacturing in the U.S. today. Look at TSMC. It started setting up US operations years ago and is expecting to complete many years from now. OTOH they started setting up in Japan about a year or so ago and are already cranking out chips.
- api 2y agoI think you meant “aren’t manufacturing” and you are correct. It’s not cheap labor, except for the lowest end manufacturing. It’s that you can’t build anything in America anymore. The government needs to address that instead of subsidizing one off efforts.
- fancyfredbot 2y ago
- owisd 2y agoIntel is a product of Shockley, which was a product of Bell Labs, which was a product of “punishing” AT&T for “being American”. AT&T would have zealously guarded the transistor patent and never have licenced it out to Motorola, TI, etc. if they only cared about maximising shareholder value.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- DonnyV 2y agoWe're always bending over backwards for a handful of companies instead of promoting a healthy market. We should of created a race with multiple companies to build the best chip factories.
- gruez 2y ago> We should of created a race with multiple companies to build the best chip factories. That's insanely expensive. Today the only companies that make leading edge chips are TSMC, Samsung, and Intel. Global Foundries (headquartered in US) dropped out a few years ago because it was too expensive. How on earth are you going to fund "a race with multiple companies to build the best chip factories"? It's going to cost multiples of whatever the intel subsidy is.
- sgarland 2y agoMultiples of $8 billion? Oh no, where would we find the money? If this is truly a national security issue, perhaps some of the DoD’s ~$150 billion R&D budget could go towards it.
- prerok 2y agoTo be fair: to build whole companies would not cost multiples of 8B but multiples of 150B. And if you really wanted to cover all "critical" industries, even this would be a drop (or maybe a puddle) in the ocean.
- specialist 2y agoAccelerated consolidation was policy for decades. Clinton Admin's dept of defence pushed it really hard, esp for defense contractors. To reduce costs, make our nat'l champions more competitive internationally, make our hair more luxuriant, and cure rickets. Because reasons. Now the pendullum might finally be swinging back towards pro-competition and healthy open markets.
- prerok 2y agonit: should of -> should have
- sschueller 2y agoThe US Government could pass a new ruling requiring all chips in all military hardware (or even all hardware used by any government agency) down to the smallest IoT shit needs to be made in the US by a US firm. I doubt Intel would need any money or other incentive if the orders start coming in.
- YetAnotherNick 2y agoGood way to force Intel/all remaining chipmakers to move its headquarters to other country.
- rob74 2y ago...and then stop buying military hardware for 5+ years, until these US-made chips are available?
- willcipriano 2y agoPurchase orders like this happen years out. Before the deliveries dry up, Intel's cash flow will dip and investors will riot until Intel is ready to do business in the US.
- wakawaka28 2y agoThe military may not be a large enough customer to make such demands. Or perhaps a handful of companies would do it at 100x the cost of similar civilian products. It would turn into another $10k toilet seat fiasco.
- andsoitis 2y agoIt is highly likely that that was considered but discounted for being suboptimal.
- lumb63 2y agoThe supply chain for military hardware is already under heavy scrutiny. I don’t think the CHIPS Act is about security; it’s about onshoring production so the US can avoid caring about Taiwan.
- 2y ago