Intel stock soars almost 25% in one week after JD Vance' new comments on the chip maker's AI future, as the US and UK refuse to agree to EU request...

I'm torn on this. I'd like to see Intel and the U.S. more broadly do better with chips, both for the sake of the manufacturing jobs and also as a national security matter (safer to make them here), but generally these protective efforts make the companies weaker and less competitive. If Intel can't stand on its own, does this protection do anything beyond slowing its decline? I'm dubious.

To be clear, I'm 100% for removing our dependence on China in particular, because they fight dirty through currency manipulation and effective slave labor of their people. They may also incorporate backdoors into tech they build in anticipation of access or control in a future way they expect to enter against the U.S. But with other countries, like Taiwan, Japan, EU, etc., I think it's usually better (national security being the sole exception) to encourage U.S. companies to fight for their lives and die if they can't win on an open battlefield.

If those other countries have tariffs or other challenges against the U.S. then reciprocal tariffs just as incentive for them to drop theirs are fine and reasonable, but protectionist policies likely just make us weaker.
 
I'm torn on this. I'd like to see Intel and the U.S. more broadly do better with chips, both for the sake of the manufacturing jobs and also as a national security matter (safer to make them here), but generally these protective efforts make the companies weaker and less competitive. If Intel can't stand on its own, does this protection do anything beyond slowing its decline? I'm dubious.

To be clear, I'm 100% for removing our dependence on China in particular, because they fight dirty through currency manipulation and effective slave labor of their people. They may also incorporate backdoors into tech they build in anticipation of access or control in a future way they expect to enter against the U.S. But with other countries, like Taiwan, Japan, EU, etc., I think it's usually better (national security being the sole exception) to encourage U.S. companies to fight for their lives and die if they can't win on an open battlefield.

If those other countries have tariffs or other challenges against the U.S. then reciprocal tariffs just as incentive for them to drop theirs are fine and reasonable, but protectionist policies likely just make us weaker.
I feel you, but I don't think it's necessarily about hurting Korea, Taiwan, etc, just diversifying the supply chain. God forbid, but if a small asteroid hit Taiwan and wiped it out tomorrow, it would upend the global economy. 90% of all adv. chips come from Taiwan, that feels like a huge risk in the tech-based economy we have nowadays.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GraniteStateColin
I feel you, but I don't think it's necessarily about hurting Korea, Taiwan, etc, just diversifying the supply chain. God forbid, but if a small asteroid hit Taiwan and wiped it out tomorrow, it would upend the global economy. 90% of all adv. chips come from Taiwan, that feels like a huge risk in the tech-based economy we have nowadays.

Yeah, I'd put that in the general "national security" bucket and agree that's a good reason to incent production here. Frankly, with Taiwan, I think there is a very real risk, not so much from an asteroid (we're getting pretty good at tracking those and can redirect if needed :-) ) but from a China invasion. In the most extreme case, that could be worse than an asteroid: U.S. and Europe lose all access to TSMC production, China takes it over and uses the shift to escalate the war it believes it's already waging against the west.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
331,823
Messages
2,254,797
Members
428,695
Latest member
mlhutche