Thursday, December 2nd 2021
Intel CEO Asks US Government for More Backing, Calls Taiwan Not Stable
Since Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger joined the company earlier this year, the messaging language from Intel has changed radically, as it has become a no-nonsense message of Intel going back to its roots as a leading foundry and a leading chip maker. However, Gelsinger might've overstepped a little bit as of lately, as during a conference in California, he went on record saying that Intel deserves special treatment by the US government, in favor of some of its competitors.
At the same time, it's not hard to see why Intel thinks the US government should favor it and other US companies like Micron and Texas Instruments, over Samsung and TSMC. However, Intel's selling argument here is that investing in non-US companies means that the R&D money and IP ends up abroad, which isn't entirely true when it comes to foundries. Gelsinger also complained about the fact that Samsung and TSMC was getting large government subsidies in their home countries and claimed that because of those subsidies, Intel was competing with Korea and Taiwan, rather than with Samsung and TSMC.
As if that wasn't enough, Gelsinger went on to call Taiwan "not a stable place" due to the current situation between the PRC and Taiwan. He also highlighted the fact that the PRC is infringing on Taiwan's air defence identification zone (ADIZ) on a regular basis, with as many as 27 military aircraft encroaching on a single day. It should be noted that the Taiwan ADIZ actually stretches well inside the PRC, although the areas that the PRC normally enter that are being reported are quite close to Taiwan, rather than flights over PRC territory.
The US government still hasn't reached a conclusion on the CHIPS Act, which is meant to set aside as much as US$52 billion for chipmakers in the US. There's no secret that Intel wants a large share of that money, deservedly so or not. As Intel is slowly moving towards offering foundry services, it makes sense that they would need to invest even more heavily into building foundries, since as we know, there simply aren't enough cutting edge foundries at the moment and too many companies are fighting over the cutting edge nodes these days. That said, scare tactics isn't the way forward, instead Intel should show that they can operate a foundry business just as well as its competitors and try to win over business from them, as that's how you show that you deserve both the business and the investment.
Sources:
Taiwan News, image courtesy of @PGelsinger
At the same time, it's not hard to see why Intel thinks the US government should favor it and other US companies like Micron and Texas Instruments, over Samsung and TSMC. However, Intel's selling argument here is that investing in non-US companies means that the R&D money and IP ends up abroad, which isn't entirely true when it comes to foundries. Gelsinger also complained about the fact that Samsung and TSMC was getting large government subsidies in their home countries and claimed that because of those subsidies, Intel was competing with Korea and Taiwan, rather than with Samsung and TSMC.
The US government still hasn't reached a conclusion on the CHIPS Act, which is meant to set aside as much as US$52 billion for chipmakers in the US. There's no secret that Intel wants a large share of that money, deservedly so or not. As Intel is slowly moving towards offering foundry services, it makes sense that they would need to invest even more heavily into building foundries, since as we know, there simply aren't enough cutting edge foundries at the moment and too many companies are fighting over the cutting edge nodes these days. That said, scare tactics isn't the way forward, instead Intel should show that they can operate a foundry business just as well as its competitors and try to win over business from them, as that's how you show that you deserve both the business and the investment.
128 Comments on Intel CEO Asks US Government for More Backing, Calls Taiwan Not Stable
The US government should help the overall market, not individual companies.
investor.tsmc.com/english/faq
Just yesterday Japans ex-PM Shinzo Abe made a simple statement "“A Taiwan emergency is a Japanese emergency, and therefore an emergency for the Japan-US alliance,”
I would consider this to be self-evident, but China summoned their envoy to China and berated Japan saying Abe’s remarks “gave brazen support to Taiwan independence forces” and “China is resolutely opposed to this”. They said Japan had “no right” to make “irresponsible” remarks on the Taiwan issue, because of its history of aggression against China.
I've read up on this quite a bit and, most analysts for the region believe that there will be a decision point sometime within 5 years. Many say the next 3 years. By decision point, I mean China will make a move.
And from that reading, the most likely first move is a naval blockade of Taiwan by China. Then the west has to make a decision, let them fall to China or break the blockade...
Unless the west - not just the US but the EU and other allies - are willing to defend Taiwan from China full stop, there's a huge risk there. So like I said, Gelsinger is not wrong.
Also, why does Intel deserve special treatment by the US government?
A lot of people in the west likely won't stomach any conflict or threat of conflict. However either way, succumbing to China and letting them take Taiwan or fighting to defend Taiwan, Gelsinger's comments are on target.
This doesn't really have anything to do with competing against TSMC, it has to do with national security. And yeah Gelsinger is using that to his advantage, which is frankly his job.
Also Intel is not the only one to benefit, there are many chip fabs in the US - just as many as in Taiwan, China, or Japan.
And as I'm sure you're aware, from an ethical standpoint Intel and other US / EU / Japanese / Korean chip makers are competing against heavily state subsidized TSMC and SMC in Taiwan as well as China subsidized SMIC in China. My meaning there is that there is no ethical problem, because that is what other countries are doing already.
But I also can read between the lines.
If the US / EU and other western countries get enough high tech fab capacity then they no longer need to defend Taiwan, because it is no longer critical.
^^ That's the end game. Also might prevent another world war. Taiwan in the long run is probably screwed.
Unless China tries to play its hand too early, in which case China is probably screwed.
www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/china-s-taiwan-jet-incursions-at-second-highest-level-in-november/ar-AARk3SH
news.yahoo.com/china-no-room-compromise-taiwan-142156731.html
www.newsweek.com/china-threatens-crack-skulls-after-japans-shinzo-abe-speaks-taiwan-1655198
www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-sends-warplanes-near-taiwan-after-us-lawmakers-visit/ar-AARfod2
www.msn.com/en-xl/asia/top-stories/as-china-menaces-taiwan-the-island-s-friends-aid-its-secretive-submarine-project/ar-AARg6N9
Precious!
If you want to look at something dodgy, look at Norway.
Taiwan is in a rather precarious spot.
Ya'll feeling okay because this is complete and total bs?
Huawei had a secret room where no American employees were allowed to enter... in a plant, in Texas :D. It's another level. There's a low key war going on in semiconductors.
2: He was right.... And wrong at the same time IF he were to speak of it today. The oceans are no longer the "Great Barrier" they used to be - Still a big obstacle but not like they were in the past.
3: Now this is wrong - Completely wrong.
Even back then it took time to get everyone mobilized and you must think about what the term "Mobilization" really means. That means ALL aspects of the nation, including industry, civilian, military MUST be ready and in action to be mobilized and that's something no nation, even today can do overnight.
Industry has to be producing what it needs, the personel of the military must not only be in uniform but equipped, supplied and trained to even start to do their job which would be to take on every and anything.
The civilian sector has to contribute too to keep the nation itself running and alot of that goes back to the industrial part of it. Everything from supplying the raw materials in quantity, preperation of these materials into what's useable by industry is yet another step..... You can take Steel as an example.
You gotta mine it, stockpile the ore, ship the ore, process the ore and refine it into actual steel and that's before anything is made from it.
All that takes time to get going as it did back then, it was said the US wasn't fully mobilized until about a year in because all that had to be setup and running.
You just can't snap your fingers and have it "Mobilized" - Far from it.
As for the size military you'd need, enough is never enough - That's just a fact of war.
4: Got nothing to do with climate..... And I can promise you the lessons learned in hindsight by Japan were also learned by the PRC except they didn't have to pay the price to learn them. They instead studied what happened, why and so on, then took steps to get around these issues. The trade deal signed back in 1979 by Pres. Carter was the tipping point and one of the big things China wanted to happen to fit their long range plans.
As for trade, China knew if they could reduce our own trade and even make us reliant on them for goods they'd have us, in terms of industry and economics and yes, that's exactly what they've got now - And they know it.
5: You made the point about the above with this - Better than you realize in fact.
6: Yes, blame can be assigned to both sides but the reckless policies being done today by the "Brandon Bunch" is accelerating these problems. I will say you won't find any Saints on the hill or there would be a repeat of a "Marketplace in the temple" being shutdown.
7: And that just shows how reliable CNN is not and leaving it at that.
However, post election independent polls actually validated the results. Unlike Taiwan, Crimean clearly wanted to rejoin Russia. It's usually a losing proposition to militarily intercede to force a population to do something they do not want, see Vietnam (& Afghanistan).
Another thing is our rights as Russians after the fall of the wall were pretty low(from what my family tells me), it was hard to own your flat, and some social services were difficult to get, etc. Ukranian government was an absolute corrupt s**t show.
1) Executive compensation, who sits on the board, how much anyone is paid at that level
2) Stock buybacks, dividends, and all manner of accounting
3) Where $ is spent, and on what
4) Retail Prices
5) and maybe a whole bunch of other things.
This can't be a "just give us money, we will handle it" affair, that won't work. They will just turn around and use it to pay out big bonuses, engage in market manipulation through stock purchases and other machinations, and/or squander it.
Russia invited the UN to monitor the referendum, the UN refused. That would be to intentionally de-legitimize the referendum. Also read those poll results, they are not from Russia, they are independent western polling organizations. Read the last bullet, they didn't even hit the most pro-Russian parts of Crimea and still have ~80% support for reunification with Russia. And the history of Crimea. Crimea was full of Russians from the get-go. A lot of them have family in Russia. It would be like the US breaking up and giving Alaska to Canada because it's land locked with Canada. Alaska would still be full of Americans 20 years later.