zlacker

Didn't Biden sign a 280 billion dollar Intel subsidy for chip-making? I mean as far as I can tell we already do it, this isn't a fantasy, and there's no reason to think we can't absorb more of the market. I can't read the article but it seems more political than economic, judging from the first paragraph

>>guywit+(OP)
> 280 billion dollar Intel subsidy for chip-making?

Where are you pulling this number from?

>>guywit+(OP)
You should consider reading the article: https://archive.ph/h1RrC

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.

>>Jtsumm+31
From the CHIPS act. It allocated 280 billion, and was criticized for being an Intel bailout since many thought it was a response to their poor market performance. It was signed during the Biden admin, before trump entered office

>>guywit+n7
But it wasn't $280 billion for Intel. Why are you conflating the entire amount with the amount put towards Intel?

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.

>>Jtsumm+X7
The discussion was that this article calls Trump's push for chip making a "fantasy", while Biden made his own push years ago. The chips act was 280 billion, and it was widely viewed as a bill to help Intel, who is/was struggling. Nothing I said was misleading, and you're attempting to misconstrue what was said to win an internet argument with a person you'll never meet in a thread no one else will read.

>>interm+F1
> 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.