Holy f***. America is basically Russia now.

2 hours ago, Matt! said:

Holy f***. America is basically Russia now.

13 hours ago, Matt! said:

Biden supported Intel through the CHIPS act so what is he complaining about?

China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (Taiwan semiconductor which is beating Intel) have their governments heavily involved in promoting their strategic industries. Without public help those industries would not be at their current level right now and out-competing western corporations.

2 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

Biden supported Intel through the CHIPS act so what is he complaining about?

China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (Taiwan semiconductor which is beating Intel) have their governments heavily involved in promoting their strategic industries. Without public help those industries would not be at their current level right now and out-competing western corporations.

Supporting and owning are two very different things in this context. The CHIPS Act gave Intel subsidies and tax credits to encourage U.S manufacturing, which one would consider a normal industrial policy. Government buying 10% of the company’s stock at a discount, that’s direct ownership. One is about incentives, the other blurs into state control. That’s government overreach = socialism.

Hence,

20 hours ago, Matt! said:

Supporting and owning are two very different things in this context. The CHIPS Act gave Intel subsidies and tax credits to encourage U.S manufacturing, which one would consider a normal industrial policy. Government buying 10% of the company’s stock at a discount, that’s direct ownership. One is about incentives, the other blurs into state control. That’s government overreach = socialism.

Both cases would be 'socialism' under the definition of nonsensical American political propaganda.

So basically not correct. 'Normal industrial policy' is essentially making the company hybrid public/private which is what both administrations did.

This is what happened to the national champions in the East Asian countries. Also Tesla is one of the biggest welfare queens if not the biggest in the US.

Something like a Soviet State owned enterprise is different, for instance it is not publicly traded on the global financial markets.

Also complex high technology and manufacturing or anything that requires a lot of basic scientific/engineering research is very difficult for private-sector finance to incubate naturally (free market fundamentalist/fraud political ideology has it wrong) because finance seeks to maximize profits. It would end up speculating in crypto or high profit industries/scams instead.

Also American info-tech's origins is in the cold war and the defense industry- public funding.

A replacement for a company like Intel is hard to incubate naturally.

Pentagon fires intelligence chief after Iran attack assessment

3 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

Both cases would be 'socialism' under the definition of nonsensical American political propaganda.

Everything is socialism if you stretch the definition enough, but that's not the point here.

Subsidies aren’t the same thing as direct ownership. If every incentive is "socialism", then the entire tax code makes America socialist — which is bs (at least for now).

The CHIPS Act was an industrial policy aimed at encouraging manufacturing, similar to tax breaks for Tesla or defense contracts for Boeing. But the government taking a 10% equity stake in Intel at a discount? That’s not incentive, that’s ownership. That’s the line between policy and control and that’s why it deserves to be called government overreach.

Hence,

3 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

Also complex high technology and manufacturing or anything that requires a lot of basic scientific/engineering research is very difficult for private-sector finance to incubate naturally (free market fundamentalist/fraud political ideology has it wrong) because finance seeks to maximize profits. It would end up speculating in crypto or high profit industries/scams instead.

Also American info-tech's origins is in the cold war and the defense industry- public funding.

A replacement for a company like Intel is hard to incubate naturally.

So you think government involvement in the form of ownership in strategic tech is a practical necessity?

16 minutes ago, Matt! said:

Everything is socialism if you stretch the definition enough, but that's not the point here.

Subsidies aren’t the same thing as direct ownership. If every incentive is "socialism", then the entire tax code makes America socialist — which is bs (at least for now).

The CHIPS Act was an industrial policy aimed at encouraging manufacturing, similar to tax breaks for Tesla or defense contracts for Boeing. But the government taking a 10% equity stake in Intel at a discount? That’s not incentive, that’s ownership. That’s the line between policy and control and that’s why it deserves to be called government overreach.

Wrong again:

In certain industries, especially in high tech/complex manufacturing they cannot survive/naturally developed without government involvement.

Private Equity funds/Oligarch angel investor funds can only invest so much, often taking considerable financial risk.

Overall Tesla/Boeing and other 'strategic' companies are heavily state-funded/state infiltrated. By the definition of ideological purists they are socialist enterprises. TBH government contracts are hardly market competitive (basically legalized corruption if you think about it).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC or Taiwan Semiconductor)^[5][6] is a Taiwanese multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. It is one of the world's most valuable semiconductor companies,^[7] the world's largest dedicated independent ("pure-play") semiconductor foundry,^[8] and Taiwan's largest company,^[9][10] with headquarters and main operations located in the Hsinchu Science Park in Hsinchu, Taiwan.

Although the government of Taiwan is the largest individual shareholder,^[11] the majority of TSMC is owned by foreign investors.

30 minutes ago, Matt! said:

So you think government involvement in the form of ownership in strategic tech is a practical necessity?

It's pretty much required for global dominance, especially against countries in East Asia that do like China etc. Private capital will not incubate complex R & D for 20 years and run at a loss etc.

if you look at the state of American 'high tech'/'industry' today (and also publically traded corporate america as whole) it has been screwed up for about 4 decades due to obsession with short-term profits and quarterly profits, and corruption by the stock market which is not the real economy.

Extreme De-industrialization happened fundamentally because the US was not cost-competitive. In a way humanity as a whole has been severely damaged- "High tech" merely means information tech or AI while other technologies that benefit human life/flourish have been neglected because it was 'not profitable' especially in the short term.