This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The US government is seeking stakes in Intel, TSMC, and Samsung, among other firms:
Similarly, a few months ago, the Trump administration approved Nippon Steel's acquisition of US Steel contingent on the USG receiving a golden share that gives it considerable supervisory authority:
It's an interesting turn for the traditionally market-oriented, small government party to start making a play for the commanding heights of the economy. The Federal government has a long history of giving out subsidies as a matter of policy, but it generally hasn't tried to assert an actual stake in recipient businesses (it will sometimes assume control of failing institutions, but this is generally an emergency measure rather than a long term plan).
Stupid government scope creep is fine when my favorite team does it!
I think if you're pro Trump doing this you also need to consider you're implicitly pro Kamala doing this, do you think that sounds good?
Because in 4-8 years the blue tribe might start doing it too, and this is a silly road to go down.
It's definitely a move away from New England Finance's control over the party
Profoundly, this is a risk for every government in perpetuity
Yes, I'm not sure but I have serious doubts as to their ability to make better choices than businesses now. If they could, planned economies would have a way better track record than they do.
Yes.
I can kind of think of a Steelman here where government shareholdings in major national champions could enhance corporate governance and specifically help align business and government interests over the long term, but I give this roughly a 0% chance of happening with the current status of western governance institutional skill.
Feels like everyone in the political class finally woke up to China's industrial results and going "oh fuck maybe there was something to be said for this" and are now trying to cargo-cult-government to replicate.
Trump doing this doesn't make the Dems more likely to do it. They've already thought of ways to do this on their own (e.g. the government held over 60% of GM as part of Obama's plan in the aftermath of the GFC) anyway. The danger is more that if it appears to succeed (i.e. Intel both does well in the short term and builds more advanced fabs in the US) that a future Republican administration will do more of the same. If, as I think is more likely, it fails (because Intel sucks and this amounts to a further bailout) and future Republicans decide to do more of it anyway, that's mostly on them.
I would posit the GM share ownership was as a result of a huge exigent circumstances, which Intel is not facing.
I also think this makes the Dems more likely to do it, as Trump is moving the Overton window towards doing this whenever you feel like it and towards companies that aren't on the verge of total collapse (although maybe Intel is, lol).
How would you feel if the Dems started buying equity shares in solar panel manufacturers because "the climate is an urgent crisis we must address"?
But overall I am a fan of your comment and mostly agree with you. Thanks for sharing!
They were already facing it; this is a follow on from their taking of CHIPS Act money. Intel is in trouble; x86-based architectures have lost to ARM at the high end, they don't have a GPU design, and their foundries aren't state-of-the-art. They can either try to build down and compete only in markets which don't want the cutting edge (defense, aerospace, automotive), or build up and try to get themselves out of the hole they are in. They probably are simply too big and have too much debt to do the first without bankruptcy, and it's simply not clear how they can do the second.
About the same way I felt about Solyndra. My point isn't that this isn't bad, it's that it's not some new sort of badness.
Fair points!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link