• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The CHIPs act also favored union work and even funneled some money to worker owned shops.

    It overwhelmingly favored Intel, for better or worse. And the early influx of cash did nothing to prevent Intel from axing 15,000 jobs.

    I’m not here to praise Trump for any of his trade policies. But what Biden pitched through the CHIPs Act was largely a bailout for under-performing domestic producers more focused on dividends than scaled production or R&D. He’d have been better off nationalizing Intel than just handing them bricks of cash in the form of grants and low-interest loans. That is (kinda) what Trump ended up doing when he ordered the Treasury to take a 10% stake in the firm.

    • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Honestly. I agree. A big issue the US has with “industrial policy” type of deals in general is this. Big businesses can afford to have specialists to get access to programs and programs can “accomplish” their budgets goals faster with these bigger deals. The COVID small business loans had the same issue.

      Also supply side money funnels are popular with donors/lobbyists (for obvious reasons) but are almost always garbage. Demand side (upfront funding for some needed thing, and payments for fulfillment) are still possible for to fuck up but do WAY better.