←back to thread

US Intel

(stratechery.com)
539 points maguay | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
themgt ◴[] No.45026515[source]
I’ll be honest: there is a very good chance this won’t work .... At the same time, the China concerns are real, Intel Foundry needs a guarantee of existence to even court customers, and there really is no coming back from an exit. There won’t be a startup to fill Intel’s place. The U.S. will be completely dependent on foreign companies for the most important products on earth, and while everything may seem fine for the next five, ten, or even fifteen years, the seeds of that failure will eventually sprout, just like those 2007 seeds sprouted for Intel over the last couple of years. The only difference is that the repercussions of this failure will be catastrophic not for the U.S.’s leading semiconductor company, but for the U.S. itself.

Very well argued. It's such a stunning dereliction the US let things get to this point. We were doing the "pivot to Asia" over a decade ago but no one thought to find TSMC on a map and ask whether Intel was driving itself into the dirt? "For want of a nail the kingdom was lost" but in this case the nail is like your entire metallurgical industry outsourced to the territory you plan on fighting over.

replies(19): >>45026609 #>>45026778 #>>45026847 #>>45027040 #>>45027203 #>>45027671 #>>45028085 #>>45028186 #>>45029665 #>>45029679 #>>45030185 #>>45031538 #>>45032843 #>>45034153 #>>45034357 #>>45034925 #>>45035444 #>>45035539 #>>45037189 #
mvc ◴[] No.45027203[source]
If all advanced countries follow this reasoning, where does that leave us?
replies(1): >>45027509 #
minkzilla ◴[] No.45027509[source]
Robust and redundant manufacturing spread across the world with more opportunity for innovation?
replies(1): >>45027711 #
mallets ◴[] No.45027711[source]
Trillions of dollars spent just for redundancy? Most wouldn't even succeed in building a working process, forget profitable.
replies(5): >>45029013 #>>45029726 #>>45029826 #>>45031965 #>>45034302 #
1. axus ◴[] No.45031965[source]
The world collectively (mostly the US) spends trillions on national defense, that spending is unnecessary if we all just got along. I think you're right that everyone spending money on local semiconductor industries is even more wasteful.
replies(1): >>45034235 #
2. SlowTao ◴[] No.45034235[source]
Unfortunately, that defense allows hoarding wealth. If the wealth was more evenly distributed globally, there would be little reason to defend against raids.

This is how places like the US despite having 4% of the population have about a quarter of the material and energy consumption. Not to single them out, I am in Australia, it is a similar ratio.

I am not defending this situation, just highlighting its role.

replies(2): >>45035189 #>>45035338 #
3. prewett ◴[] No.45035189[source]
Not all wars are about raiding, especially in the modern era. Putin isn’t interested in Ukraine’s wealth. Nor would a Chinese invasion of Taiwan be about money.
replies(1): >>45036770 #
4. XorNot ◴[] No.45035338[source]
Why would a more even distribution of resources lead to less war?

Like, it might but if resources are equally distributed then raiding your neighbors for more is one of the best ways to get more of them.

Does no one study history? War wasn't invented in the 20th century.

Chimps in the damn jungle go to war with each other.

5. SlowTao ◴[] No.45036770{3}[source]
You are right. I was far to reductionist there.

"No wars have been more ruthless and ravaging than “just” wars, fought in “defense” of religion, honor, or principle. If war must be, give me rather a war to capture an enemy’s wealth and territory, based on honest greed, in which I shall be careful not to destroy what I want to possess. " - Alan Watts