Trump’s Intel deal is a threat to US economic liberty \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Trump’s Intel deal is a threat to US economic liberty www.ft.com/content/2ddbfdc4-e200-4f0c-ae18-91a598695ea8

337 sats \ 9 comments \ @Coinsreporter 25 Aug econ

Trump’s escalation of government intervention in the economy makes it important to step back and ask three foundational questions.

First, can the US actually achieve the goals it seeks? Building up domestic chip manufacturing would require decades of policy continuity from administrations of both parties. Is this possible when parties are divided, policy is made by presidential whim and long-term corporate planning is limited by the four-year presidential election cycle?

Intel, our would-be national chips champion, is struggling, having announced a 15 per cent cut of its workforce last year. It is planning on cutting an additional 20 per cent this year. A fundamental question: why should it get $8.9bn of taxpayer’s money? Are there not better uses of those funds?

Second, even if the Chips Act succeeds, will it make America safer and more resilient? Optimistic estimates suggest it could help the US to produce 28 per cent of cutting-edge chips by 2032. In the event that China tried to cut off US access, would the US be qualitatively better off if 72 per cent, rather than 100 per cent, of cutting-edge chips were produced in other nations?

Te writer is spot on what Trump is intending what it's implication can be. And what's best for any nation is ..

It would clearly be better for the US to double down on its former broad bipartisan consensus: neutral support for business investment, basic research, infrastructure and worker training — and a strong commitment to the rule of law and free markets.

But these politicians are too selfish, they swear on the name of the nation and serve only themselves.

view all related items

100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 25 Aug

TLDR: dumb protectionism is dumb

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Aug

There has never been a successful empire built without significant state lead strategy. The British Empire was built upon working with merchants and industry and provision of a military force that dominated the planets seas enabling capture and control of the planets resources and markets. The US is the successor to this empire and is equally reliant upon the use of force and threat of use of force along with legacy control of global protocols and institutions to maintain its extraordinary privilege. The delusion that US wealth is based soley upon private enterprise and free markets is a delusional joke. The US has for decades been one of the most protectionist and for many decades has used military force to acquire and maintain its global monetary and resource hegemony. Now China is positioning to threaten that dominance the US is struggling to come up with a workable response.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Aug

What the writer of this article does not understand is that China winning the trade war. Chinas mixed economy with strong capital allocation direction from the CCP has deliver incredible results while the US with its crony capitalist economy based ever increasingly on financialisation is sinking into a mire of chronic debt and it cannot compete in world markets for most products because it is degraded in terms of productive efficiency. The entire supply chain of US manufacturing is bloated with parasitic rentseeking corporate cartels who increase the input costs for all other enterprise. In contrast Chinas economy is designed to minimise input costs for all productive enterprise making China the most efficient producer in the world. Trumps attempt to mimic Chinas state directed strategy is unlikely to succeed as the write notes the US political system is very unlikely to provide the continuity that would be required for such a process to succeed. It would take 2-4 decades to achieve if there was the political concensus- but there isn't. US economy is thus on an almost unavoidable path to insolvency and ruin. The only question now is how to best manage the decline of US power wealth and hegemony, and there Trump is probably ahead of the others. Damage limitation is now the only credible viable option, but with very US citizens even aware of let alone ready to accept the problem even that will not be easy.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @jbschirtzinger 25 Aug

So the problem with companies like Intel is that they power stuff the nation needs for security purposes. The government of the US being involved in such companies is a far better than a place like China. Unless everyone wants to set technology back to the Stone Age, which, by the way, I'd be fine with, these are the kinds of problems you have wherein a free market cannot be free because the market alone is not the prime consideration.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 25 Aug

Where was this moonbat when the money was actually given?

All Trump did was claw it back in the form of equity since cash would have been impossible.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 25 Aug

So as someone who helped craft CHIPS and Science the issue I always had with it and still do is the sheer amount of money we were giving these huge companies via grants. Yes you could argue that the US would get the money back via taxes and economic power but with Intel they got 8.5 billion and were talking about not actually building chips anymore leaving us with just Taiwan Semi and Samsung.

I'd have rather it have been a loan if anything but that wasn't what it was so to me getting some sort of return is the correct thing to do. The Gov can unload the Intel shares over time just like they did with GM years ago.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 25 Aug

China produces everything, including rare earth refining more efficiently than the US can. The US is an over financialised dinosaur struggling to respond effectively to the Chinese mixed economy model that has delivered China decades of Trillion Dollar surpluses while the US sinks deeper and deeper into Debt with more than 5 decades of chronic trade and fiscal deficits. The best viable strategy for the US empire is probably managed decline- perhaps possible to retain hegemony over the Americas and some outposts, leaving Europe and Asia and Africa to Chinese domination...

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 25 Aug

No they are not more efficient at all they have extremely lax rules and regulations hence the huge air quality issue. They “fixed” the big cities by moving these industries elseware. Lets not forget about the huge ghost city issues cause that's sure not efficient nither is arresting and or sending the homeless to Th country

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 18h

In terms of competitiveness with what other nations produce in terms of almost all manufactured goods China is second to none. Youncan quibble about environmental standards for sure but neither G.Britain nor the USA were exemplars of environmental protectionism in the days leading up to their empires dominance- once a nations bellies are full then they loom at air and water quality. Today the US is increasingly despoiling the natural environment and is waaaaaay behind China in terms of energy efficiency- China leads the world in solar. wind, nuclear and hydro power and LED and EV production. The USA is addicted to fossil fuels and a 1950s mentality that is not fit for the 21 century and is not competitive either. It is only the legacy hegemony of US military and global institutions and protocols that sustains the US for now but the debt bomb is not going away- it is growing bigger and is about to bring down the US empire within 5 years. China holds all the cards now- USA is on the back foot...and its Jewish bankster sponsors who have lurked behind western imperialism for centuries are worried. China is not owned by the Jewish banksters and their usury...