Sure. Now make the same argument for TSMC, SMIC, and Samsung, and see if their governments listen.

tokioyoyo 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

All those three, from what I can see, is a bit different though. Samsung is basically a part of the government, because of its history. TSMC is the market leader, so it’s in government’s best interest to protect its future.

Chinese large scale investments are a bit different. It’s not just SMIC who gets a lot of funding, but others as well, so they can still compete with each other, until the winner is chosen and the others fade away. Similar to what is happening in EV market in China.

Intel… there is a decent chance that company fails even after this investment. They basically need to force other companies to use Intel chips instead of competitors for them to be viable at some point.

	▲	sieabahlpark 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

AnimalMuppet 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Their governments don't operate under the same legal limits that the US government does.

▲

like_any_other 4 days ago | parent [-]

But they operate in the same global market.

▲

AnimalMuppet 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes. So there are two considerations. One is competitive balance internationally. That is a consideration.

But you also have to consider whether the government has the legal authority to make the investment. For a country claiming a limited government and the rule of law, that is a serious consideration.

You seem to be focused on the first consideration, but do not overlook the second one.

	▲	sieabahlpark a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[dead]
	▲	like_any_other 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> For a country claiming a limited government and the rule of law, that is a serious consideration. I'll be blunt - I don't think anyone takes either of those seriously, not since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. GeekyBear gives a less blunt similar argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45008439