Do any of you have a good source of financial news that isn't too right wing and explains things like the Intel deal?
-
Do any of you have a good source of financial news that isn't too right wing and explains things like the Intel deal? Or even just a really dry but not too technical source. The government bought a tenth of a company with left over CHIPS act money? But also Taiwan is in it too for some reason. I don't understand what they are even doing.
Can the government buy a tenth of my cousin's sticker etsy shop for national security? I'm confused.
-
Do any of you have a good source of financial news that isn't too right wing and explains things like the Intel deal? Or even just a really dry but not too technical source. The government bought a tenth of a company with left over CHIPS act money? But also Taiwan is in it too for some reason. I don't understand what they are even doing.
Can the government buy a tenth of my cousin's sticker etsy shop for national security? I'm confused.
@futurebird only if stickers are critical components of the F-35
-
@futurebird only if stickers are critical components of the F-35
Well as a matter of fact.
-
Do any of you have a good source of financial news that isn't too right wing and explains things like the Intel deal? Or even just a really dry but not too technical source. The government bought a tenth of a company with left over CHIPS act money? But also Taiwan is in it too for some reason. I don't understand what they are even doing.
Can the government buy a tenth of my cousin's sticker etsy shop for national security? I'm confused.
@futurebird It was obvious very early (1970s) that there would only be a single chip manufacturer standing. (Everybody talks about Moore's Law, but the cost to create the fab doubles, too, not just the chip performance.)
Intel figured they were the Lord's anointed and made repeated strategic errors: x86/Itanium (could be three), ignoring power efficiency, not making phone chips for Apple, relying on monopoly power/Wintel leverage for market share, and missing graphics processing.
-
@futurebird It was obvious very early (1970s) that there would only be a single chip manufacturer standing. (Everybody talks about Moore's Law, but the cost to create the fab doubles, too, not just the chip performance.)
Intel figured they were the Lord's anointed and made repeated strategic errors: x86/Itanium (could be three), ignoring power efficiency, not making phone chips for Apple, relying on monopoly power/Wintel leverage for market share, and missing graphics processing.
@futurebird This has a bunch of consequences; the major one (anything not a phone is a niche device) is that Apple put billions upon billions into full vertical integration which funded TSMC for the half what wasn't "not in our strategic interests to deal with those monopolists at Intel" (any value of strategic you want, there); the result is that the one global chip foundry when the music stops for Moore's Law is NOT Intel.
(It is that hard to do; the entire global economy can afford _one_.)
-
@futurebird This has a bunch of consequences; the major one (anything not a phone is a niche device) is that Apple put billions upon billions into full vertical integration which funded TSMC for the half what wasn't "not in our strategic interests to deal with those monopolists at Intel" (any value of strategic you want, there); the result is that the one global chip foundry when the music stops for Moore's Law is NOT Intel.
(It is that hard to do; the entire global economy can afford _one_.)
@futurebird Taiwan (where TSMC's core bits are located) is in the path of a Chinese invasion. Having material control of the one global chip foundry is either a crushing PRC economic advantage or a global economic disaster (nobody has current/modern/cutting edge processor chips, for anything); for the US to get out of this position involves making Intel much more capable from a supply chain inside the US. (This isn't possible, the US economy is too small, but the empire can't admit that.)
-
@futurebird Taiwan (where TSMC's core bits are located) is in the path of a Chinese invasion. Having material control of the one global chip foundry is either a crushing PRC economic advantage or a global economic disaster (nobody has current/modern/cutting edge processor chips, for anything); for the US to get out of this position involves making Intel much more capable from a supply chain inside the US. (This isn't possible, the US economy is too small, but the empire can't admit that.)
@futurebird So, anyway; China has internal chip-making initiatives, the US public stake in Intel is part of the US internal chip-making initiative, the actual economic capability to do it is mostly Europe and Taiwan (and the rest of insular and peninsular Asia) being held up by the entire global economy, and it's painfully obvious (since about 1990) that chips are up there with oil as a necessary input to an effective military.
Note that tariffs tend to break the necessary global integration.
-
@futurebird So, anyway; China has internal chip-making initiatives, the US public stake in Intel is part of the US internal chip-making initiative, the actual economic capability to do it is mostly Europe and Taiwan (and the rest of insular and peninsular Asia) being held up by the entire global economy, and it's painfully obvious (since about 1990) that chips are up there with oil as a necessary input to an effective military.
Note that tariffs tend to break the necessary global integration.
OK why are some liberals being weird and calling it "communism" I thought the CHIPS act was... fine. Like I wish it said something about mandated unions or something, but for what it's about it's fine. Isn't this trying to do the same thing in a kind of clumsy way?
