←back to thread

335 points aspenmayer | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
srvo ◴[] No.45008850[source]
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.

replies(4): >>45009433 #>>45009577 #>>45010141 #>>45015032 #
xethos ◴[] No.45009433[source]
> 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.

replies(2): >>45009870 #>>45010648 #
srvo ◴[] No.45010648[source]
Thanks 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.

replies(3): >>45011961 #>>45012114 #>>45016211 #
disgruntledphd2 ◴[] No.45011961[source]
> 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.

replies(3): >>45012671 #>>45012801 #>>45013655 #
1. altcognito ◴[] No.45013655[source]
Another commenter already noted the CHIPS[1] act, which was a deliberate act to try and specifically bring fundamental high value chip manufacturing and science to the United States.

It is extremely relevant to this conversation. Regardless of whether you think China engages in a war with Taiwan, it is a crucial resource the US will want developed locally (similar to any critical resource like farming, steel, or rare earth metals).

CHIPs seemed more well thought out than simply taking control of 10% of Intel.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act