“As for federal support, TI got $1.6 billion of CHIPS Act funding, and a whopping 35% investment tax credit from Trump’s big bill passed in July.”
So how much ownership is the US gov gonna get in this one?
So how much ownership is the US gov gonna get in this one?
America is the last place that is short of capital for industry investments where it requires gov taxes going to it, they have a huge domestic financial market and tons of foreign investment (but those require legitimate plans, not national security woo woo). This is just propping up weak megacorp industry like they did with Boeing, instead of fostering real progress.
* The state can't risk taxpayer money on ventures that might not pay off or lose them money. How the state "gets around this" is by issuing zero recourse loans. The advantage is that when economic development money is handed out there's not an asset on the balance sheet. It's treated like it was spent. The value the state gets from spending the money has to be independently worth it for taxpayer without considering financial returns.
* It eliminates a whole category of conflicts of interests where the government will get squeamish regulating or punishing bad behavior because it would hurt the taxpayers' investment.
* It also eliminates vectors for corruption as well as the negative effects of the government having direct influence over specific businesses. No backdoor regulations from the state's ownership stake that don't go through the legislature.
So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about. I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing.
> So I'm very heavily in the camp that government shouldn't ever be allowed to have stake in any private company. The line between government and private enterprise should be the wall this admin likes to talk about.
> I certainly didn't expect it would be republicans I would be trying to convince that state ownership of business is a bad thing.
The Ohio government works around this by cooperating with private “development corporations.”
It’s not all that different from development tax incentives which are very common.
I think the grants had some requirements to build up domestic production.
And this comes from a place of love... My family's been invested in GSI for almost 100 years
calculators have consistently been a minor percentage of TI’s business (~5% of profits per source below). I doubt MSP430s in particular amount to a huge percentage either
one random source: https://www.meta-calculator.com/blog/ti-graphing-calculator-... (this is pretty easy info to find)
Also... revenue, profit and margin are all different things.
the person above made an analogy —- they didn’t claim TI loses money per calculator
My point is, the statement "calculators and MSP430s for remote power meters are keeping TI from closing up shop" isn't based in reality. Both of these products are tiny parts of their business. If that's all you know of TI, you don't know TI. Like thinking McDonald's is an ice cream shop and completely being ignorant of the burgers and fries, saying those ice cream cones are keeping McDonald's from closing up shop.
Even for the MSP430, it's a small product line of their wireless and microcontroller products.
They make important chips and many top of the line products of their segments but they're not things like server grade CPUs or GPUs.
But... everyone seems to think TI will be competing with TSMC's and Samsung's small-node parts. And they probably could, but they would need to a) build a fab that can make 5 or 3nm parts and b) build a sales channel for new parts. I was alive in the 2000s so remember TI doing an exceptionally poor job of step b.
It's a better story than your misleading statements acting like TI only makes calculators and old microprocessors and flat out inaccurate ones about profit margins.