It would be cool to see the EU bar a few tech CEOs from travel to Europe, since they’re very clearly the people behind this. Say Zuckerberg and Musk. Tit for tat immigration restrictions seems like a hot upcoming idea.
I'd rather not, because it would damage the power dynamic of the EU.
The USA is an all-powerfull political entity that can dictate terms on its own. A bit like a monopoly. Europe is a large group of players, condemned to each other, making parallel but not identical choices (e.g are you in/out/half part of the EU).
This changes the way you talk to others, as you'll need to talk to them again, and the power dynamic will have shifted.
So the USA knows it's the best at everything, and will loudly declare it. Most inhabitants only have second hand impressions from other cultures.
European countries each know they individually are the best, but there are tons of neighbours with near status, so it's impolite to say it loud. If differences get big, you can't help but notice next time you enter a neighbour.
The neverending wars, culminating in WWI and WWII, tought everyone what happened when you stop communicating and start ordering. A lot of our politics is trying not to restart that and working together with others who we don't like very much. The EU is but one such project, and if we're honest, the USA pushing for stability was one helper in the past.
One way to look at Trump is: Can we Europeans deal with each others as adults when the big USA stick has disappeared. And can we talk to a partner who seems to have gone mad temporarily but might come back ?
> Can we Europeans deal with each others as adults when the big USA stick has disappeared. And can we talk to a partner who seems to have gone mad temporarily but might come back ?
There's always a bigger bully for the EU for it to go back to bickering within itself. USA, Russia, later China, maybe Turkey and the rest of the MENA down the line....
IMO it's not even quite right in its description. The first picture that describes virtual memory shows all processes as occupying the same "logical" address space with the page table just mapping pages in the "logical" address space to physical addresses one-to-one. In reality (at least in all VM systems I know of) each process has its own independent virtual address space.
Intel didn't cancel any fabs in Arizona, one just came online. They killed plans Fabs in Poland and Germany, and the Ohio fab is on hold. You don't get the money up front, so nothing to give back.
I doubt there was much; the sort of outright subsidy the US sometimes does is usually classed as unlawful state aid in the EU (there are exceptions; in particular member states were allowed to bail out/nationalise their banks in the financial crisis. But subsidies to random foreign companies would generally be illegal; see the Apple tax case).
The way that worked is that part of the CHIPs act after Intel reached a milestone the USG handed them a bag of cash.
Intel failed at finishing a bunch of milestones so there was a large pot of money Intel did not get. Trump gave them that pot of money in return for 10% stock.
You can make up your own mind about whether investing money into a company that couldn't achieve milestones is a good idea.
I mean the Jones act was pretty practical for it's time. When you could obtain a ship via a cheap lease from the US Navy then the lack of capital spend building the ship is fine to spend employing US sailors.
However, now that the navy is out of the business of buying overpriced ships to rent out (with the idea that they'd be repurposed if a war broke out) now the Jones act isn't very effective.
However, unlike the Jones Act there's no criteria that Intel be able to supply chips. At least with the Jones Act we're going to have US citizens practiced sailing ships. With the stock purchase Intel doesn't need to have capacity to build chips for missiles/drones/etc; especially with the government treating them as non-voting shares!
If the USG wanted a hedge they should've just forked some money over for an option to buy X chips for $Y. Or some more complex option about fab time / output. You hedge production concerns with futures not equity!
It's also not great to hedge by using a vendor that wasn't able to meet previous goals you gave them. Counterparty risk is a real thing.
Yeah hence the “I don’t know that I would” it was more an attempt to see it from their point of view and assume a rationale, there may not have been one or not a sensible one we can infer with what is publicly known, as an outsider I can’t say the US is a rational actor at this point.
reply