Where are you pulling this number from?
Your statements are easily shown to be false. Intel didn't receive anywhere near that amount. It's a really poor way to try to engage with people unless your intent is to mislead.
And no, Biden didn't sign a "280 billion dollar Intel subsidy for chip-making." If you're talking about the CHIPS and Science Act, that number is overall authorized funding for many things. Intel has received ~10b until now.
They were promised $10B. They had received only about $2B.
Personally, as much as I accept that the top chips were made in Taiwan, I don’t think it’s impossible in theory for top chips to be made in the U.S.- but it would require massive changes. Starting with the culture. We’d need to turn off the T.V., work longer hours, and homeschool kids for 15 hours per day with the world’s best educational resources. And even when other countries’ kids and parents do that, they still don’t succeed.
But, I think China will end up being self-sufficient, not needing the rest of the world. In a few years, they’ll be charging an arm and a leg for AI. The rest of the world won’t be able to compete with because we don’t have adequate energy production. They’ll also acquire the ability to make the chips they need.
We could just give it up, and I think that’s where most of us are- watching fascism slowly take hold, knowing we’re fucked and the next thing we’ll see is news of a full-scale global war.
In the meantime, maybe we’ll start making shitty products like Britain did in the mid-20th century.
In my humble opinion, AI is only useful as a mechanism of oppression, so the fewer countries able to use it against their people, the better.
> and homeschool kids for 15 hours per day with the world’s best educational resources
Taiwan doesn't have the world's best educational resources - what language do you think they're written in?
Btw, when they did try to do this, they ended up with a national epidemic of myopia and had to make the kids go outside.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/01/shortsighted-t...
That’s not what they were saying. They were saying that in order to compete globally, the U.S. should ramp up education, which is valid, because Asians have dominated in higher education, which is needed to have first-class R&D, which is needed to lead in manufacturing and product development. The reason the U.S. excels is that they both outsource that to China and other countries as well as import top talent from China and other countries, but that has slowed and will slow.
> Btw, when they did try to do this, they ended up with a national epidemic of myopia and had to make the kids go outside.
You’re arguing for and against yourself. What point are you trying to make?
> You’re arguing for and against yourself.
No such thing as for or against, just things to be aware of.
miohtama•5mo ago
"From 2001-2020, Intel blew $128 billion on buybacks (64% of net income) on top of paying out $68 billion as dividends (35% of net income),” notes Lazonick. That’s money that couldn’t go into innovation, retaining and training employees, R&D, and other critical areas.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/america-need...
Fade_Dance•5mo ago
It wasn't a money problem, it was a badly run company on all fronts. When it comes to R&D the sheer magnitude of the money they squandered is legendary. They lost billions on Larrabee, billions on mobile chips, helped invent phase change memory and even made drives with it, and then dumped it for nothing, the list goes on. It's bad management all the way down, and impressively so, considering that many of these initiatives were the right products for the right time just with a horrible execution (massively parallel compute/GPUs launched Nvidia to a 4 trillion dollar valuation, mobile chips are a huge industry, etc). Arguably they needed to streamline and downsize well before they did. They were full on old school IBM level bloat.
The last few years before their implosion was indeed MBA style running the company into the ground (they had a particularly awful CEO during that period), but that was just the capstone on a large decline, during which Intel had massive budgets that they squandered.
itsthecourier•5mo ago
Fade_Dance•5mo ago
gruez•5mo ago
Is that supposed to be a lot? Sure, hindsight is 20/20 and now we know they should have spent more on R&D, but what would be the correct amount? 50% 100%?
astrange•5mo ago
You can sell the stock again, or use it for employee compensation.
eviks•5mo ago
Investment account analogy fails because you're not investing in your own ownership, so there is no "circular" relationship with yourself
SR2Z•5mo ago
Public companies diluting shareholders generally causes people to flee for safer investments.
A company is not a person. It doesn't always own 100% of itself.
eviks•5mo ago
And the person doesn't own himself, he is himself
stefap2•5mo ago