Biden to meet with Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger to discuss semiconductor supply chain issues

midian182

Posts: 6,897   +62
Staff member
Why it matters: The Biden administration’s continuing attempts to address the semiconductor shortage problem will take another step next week when the president meets executives from top chipmakers and automakers, including Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger.

In February, the Biden administration announced it was getting involved in the chip shortage crisis, which has had a significant impact on the automotive industry, among others. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the Biden team was “identifying potential chokepoints in the supply chain and actively working alongside key stakeholders in industry and with our trading partners to do more now.”

Reuters reports that Biden’s team has put together a meeting for April 12 to discuss the semiconductor supply chain issues. Attendees will reportedly include Biden’s national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, economic aide Brian Deese, and Intel boss Gelsinger.

Biden last week announced infrastructure investment plans that include $50 billion for the US semiconductor industry. The money will fuel production incentives and R&D, including the creation of a National Semiconductor Technology Center.

Gelsinger recently revealed that Intel would be spending $20 billion on two new state-of-the-art fabs focused on EUV-based (extreme ultraviolet) process technologies at 7nm and below in Arizona. Global Foundries, meanwhile, is doubling its expansion budget to $1.5 billion this year.

The global chip shortage has led to a situation where graphics cards and many other components are almost impossible to find and cost way above MSRP. Asus looks set to increase the price of its products, again, as a result, and there are rumors that Nvidia will increase the GTX 1650 supply to the desktop market as a way of easing the strain.

Masthead image credit: U.S. Secretary of Defense

Permalink to story.

 

Irata

Posts: 1,512   +2,474
I hope they are not getting the multi-Billion subsidies that are rumored as I can‘t see how that would help anyone but Intel themselves. And that would hurt everyone else.

If the government wants to improve fab capacity and process quality available to third parties, funding Global Foundries would make much more sense, ideally combined with a buy out by US based investors ?

 

VitalyT

Posts: 5,682   +5,502
Nice try, just the wrong company. It is not Intel CPU shortage, it is AMD's.

Somebody didn't get the memo.
 
Last edited:

Irata

Posts: 1,512   +2,474
Nice try, just the wrong company. It is not Intel CPU shortage, it is AMD's.

Somebody didn't give him the memo.
The point may be having more fab capacity in the US - much of the industry being dependent on fabs that are located close to mainland China is not a good thing strategically.

That said, Intel would be the wrong recipient as they manufacture chips for themselves.

-> Do you remember the news a little while ago where Intel said they want to fab for third parties ? What a coincidence, but they tried that before and it did not go to well for those partners trusting Intel‘s roadmaps.

If the US govt wants to prop up a contract foundry, propping up GloFo to get them back on track would be a better bet imho, and as a bonus they could probably get the EU to pitch in, as well.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 241   +223
I think Biden did not do his homework. The foundry issue affects all the chip companies. He should be talking to the foundries, and not specifically Intel. Intel has a foundry business no doubt, but while Intel says they will open up their foundries for others to use, but there is an obvious conflict of interest here. Intel will most likely give themselves priority over others, since that is one of the reasons they provided to keep their foundry business.
 

Bobbydpue

Posts: 167   +104
It's a political stunt nothing politicians will do will affect us and even if there was something they can do that effort wouldn't be tangible for years.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,758   +2,082
Make America a tax "haven" for business. If corporations had a reason to move here, they would.
 

Vrmithrax

Posts: 1,580   +633
Make America a tax "haven" for business. If corporations had a reason to move here, they would.

Unfortunately, if you look at the Democrat tax plans that are being kicked around, it's likely going to be the exact opposite. They plan on increasing business taxes in the US (particularly on multi-national corporations), and it will probably be even less attractive to build business ventures in the states.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 824   +630
Biden knows nothing about electronics let alone what state he visits and needs a cheat sheet with circled pics of what press to ignore and who to question him.

Also Biden has a big FOR SALE SIGN and I guarantee INTEL is bribing and finding other shady business strategies on how to beat AMD. Two of the shadiest people in one room isn't good!!
 

duckofdeath

Posts: 420   +557
Nice try, just the wrong company. It is not Intel CPU shortage, it is AMD's.

Somebody didn't get the memo.
It's everything coming out of Taiwan and China. I think, they should have had this talk with both AMD and Intel last year, but unfortunately the guy in charge last year was preoccupied with self-promotion.
 

TheBigT42

Posts: 551   +502
They should get to pay less than the 0% tax they're paying now?
No Company pays taxes. Only people pay taxes. Companies just collect taxes. It is business expense passed down to people that purchase goods and services just like power and water utilities.
 

duckofdeath

Posts: 420   +557
No Company pays taxes. Only people pay taxes. Companies just collect taxes. It is business expense passed down to people that purchase goods and services just like power and water utilities.
Yeah, that's the point I made. If you don't pay taxes, just smooching off every human being in society, why are you complaining about "too high taxes"?
 

Vrmithrax

Posts: 1,580   +633
They should get to pay less than the 0% tax they're paying now?
In exchange for opening up big facilities that stimulates the construction industries, followed by long term hiring of citizens once the facilities open up, adding business to local economies, paying large amounts of local, property and payroll taxes, adding revenue into local utilities, etc., etc., etc.? Sure, why not? The alternative is that companies find it's not profitable at all to operate in the US, and move everything offshore, and you take all of the associated money and jobs away from your country.

Economics is a complex topic, there's a lot of sides and cause/effect that has to be considered. You have to be careful not to get stuck in a "I'm far left/right and only think this way" attitude and consider situations from all sides - don't just listen to the talking heads spouting out facts that are always targeted and skewed to only support their agendas...
 

duckofdeath

Posts: 420   +557
In exchange for opening up big facilities that stimulates the construction industries, followed by long term hiring of citizens once the facilities open up, adding business to local economies, paying large amounts of local, property and payroll taxes, adding revenue into local utilities, etc., etc., etc.? Sure, why not? The alternative is that companies find it's not profitable at all to operate in the US, and move everything offshore, and you take all of the associated money and jobs away from your country.

Economics is a complex topic, there's a lot of sides and cause/effect that has to be considered. You have to be careful not to get stuck in a "I'm far left/right and only think this way" attitude and consider situations from all sides - don't just listen to the talking heads spouting out facts that are always targeted and skewed to only support their agendas...
Yeah, I've heard the arguments before. That could just as easily be said about employees. If you're an employee, you generate all the revenue in YOUR specific mini-ecosystem. Therefore, you shouldn't also have to pay taxes for the hard work you're doing. The employer should be the one paying all the taxes as they are the ones profiteering off YOUR skills.

See how easy it is to make up nonsense that sounds sustainable?
 

Vrmithrax

Posts: 1,580   +633
Yeah, I've heard the arguments before. That could just as easily be said about employees. If you're an employee, you generate all the revenue in YOUR specific mini-ecosystem. Therefore, you shouldn't also have to pay taxes for the hard work you're doing. The employer should be the one paying all the taxes as they are the ones profiteering off YOUR skills.

See how easy it is to make up nonsense that sounds sustainable?
Right, except in your example you are conveniently leaving out the fact that you are being paid to do that work, not the one paying others to do that work. And having to reinvest in R&D and innovation, risking failure, paying overhead to keep the business open, answering to investors who demand profitable business results, etc.

I fully conceded that many ways that some companies dodge paying taxes can be shady. I was simply pointing out that the "paid 0% tax" argument does not show the entire picture of the impact of a company on people and regions. Or the impact of companies NOT wanting to do business in the US and leaving the country high and dry. It's not as simple an argument as you want to make it with that blanket statement. Not even a little bit.
 

duckofdeath

Posts: 420   +557
Right, except in your example you are conveniently leaving out the fact that you are being paid to do that work, not the one paying others to do that work. And having to reinvest in R&D and innovation, risking failure, paying overhead to keep the business open, answering to investors who demand profitable business results, etc.

I fully conceded that many ways that some companies dodge paying taxes can be shady. I was simply pointing out that the "paid 0% tax" argument does not show the entire picture of the impact of a company on people and regions. Or the impact of companies NOT wanting to do business in the US and leaving the country high and dry. It's not as simple an argument as you want to make it with that blanket statement. Not even a little bit.
You are conveniently leaving out the fact that corporations are getting paid to deliver products and services.

You can pretend as hard as you like in one direction and it applies equally in the other direction. Corporations benefits as much from society as people, therefore corporations also owes the society in taxes and fees. Letting one half of the revenue smooch off the other half isn't sustainable. In that comparison, I will always be on the people's side over big corp.
 

Aranarth

Posts: 113   +99
No Company pays taxes. Only people pay taxes. Companies just collect taxes. It is business expense passed down to people that purchase goods and services just like power and water utilities.

To clarify this for people and make it easier to understand:

Taxes are a business expense.
This means that like all expenses it becomes a line item on the BOM or BOS.
Essentially it means that taxes on businesses becomes another hidden tax.
You have no idea what percentage of the price for an item you buy is taxes. Odds in the end it is about 1/3 to 2/3rds of the price.

This is why often you see an item in the store and think man this is an expensive price to pay for some plastic moldings and a motor! (nerf gun etc.)

Another simple example is buying gasoline.
You see a price at the pump but you also know that a percentage is sales tax, gasoline tax, road taxes, etc. etc. etc. so that if you drill down through all the layers you find that the 55 gallon drum of oil that costs $55 now costs $165 at the pump ($3/gal) and 1/2 of that is taxes.

The final end user of the goods or service is the real person "paying" the taxes.
 
Last edited: