Context is king. Why would the CEO of a company do this, if it wasn't to benefit the company itself?
You might disagree, but this is Intel trying to get as much money out of this as possible and nothing else.
He is obviously not doing it for charity, but you are misrepresenting what he is saying.
As you implied several times that he want is the lion share of this to go to Intel.
Honestly, if we take a look in the
CNN opinion piece itself(which you didn't link), we see that it's a bit different from what you describe.
The first selling point is a bit ridiculous, as he claims that each person that is hired by Intel, creates up to another 13 American jobs, although all these jobs are apparently in the services and supply business at other companies, not at Intel. This is supposedly because when Intel builds a fab, it's like building a small city, so in other words, if you build it, they will come seems to be the reasoning here.
Pat Gelsinger actually linked a report/research, so by saying it's ridiculous, you would have to dispute the claims made there.
The claims do make some sense, as if Intel is building a fab, they will need an increased amount of supplies so the suppliers will have to hire more people. The 'small city' comment is probably because it's preferable for those suppliers to build next to the fab.
It's the same logic/reasoning of how something like investing in railways or whatever.
In addition, you never clarify on "why it's a bit ridiculous". You are just telling the readers to feel that way and hope they don't think on it too deeply.
The second argument is about how it's not profitable for US companies to manufacture semiconductors domestically, which again seems like a very odd reasoning, since if that was true, how come Intel is still in business, considering they're the largest semiconductor manufacturer in the US. Someone at Intel has worked out that US foundries have a 30 percent cost disadvantage versus Asian based foundries, which may or may not be true. Regardless, he goes on to further state that the US has gone from making 37 percent to only 12 percent of all semiconductors in the world from 1990 to 2020, with Europe dropping from 44 percent to a mere 9 percent in the same time period. As such, the US government should step up and help balance things, if for no other reason than the fact that the EU has agreed on its own Chips Act.
The same thing as the first one, especially this
Someone at Intel has worked out that US foundries have a 30 percent cost disadvantage versus Asian based foundries, which may or may not be true
That's not true. Pat Gelsinger is talking about(and he has linked) a report from that SIA(the semiconductors association founded in 2020) made together with a consulting group.
Have a link to it:
Secondly is that yourself said that Intel has fabs in other regions too and note that it's a
competitive advantage, even if it's true, it doesn't mean that Intel would go bankrupt or leave the business as you are implying.
About the EU Chip Act, he was just giving an example of how Europe and other countries are reacting to the situation. Note that he mentions China in the same paragraph.
Gelsinger also seems to be upset that the PRC (...)
No, this is all that he said about China
and
China alone is investing $150 billion in semiconductors in the coming years.
At no other point, does he say anything that would indicate that he is upset or so. In addition, the fact that his numbers are outdated and that China has invested more than that does nothing to the reasoning that he presented. You might have a point if the PRC decided to greatly reduce the investment or stop it altogether, but they didn't.
And etc, etc. I am not going to sit here all day and point everything wrong that you said in this editorial(which wasn't marked as one when it was posted).
