US Intel

Summary

Now that everyone is using ChatGPT, the lazy columnist’s trick of quoting Wikipedia to open an Article is less cliché than it is charming (at least that’s my excuse). Anyhow, here is Wikipedia’s definition of “steelmanning”: A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented. Creating the strongest form of the opponent’s argument may involve removing flawed assumptions that could be easily refuted or developing the strongest points which counter one’s own position. Developing counters to steel man arguments may produce a stronger argument for one’s own position. The beauty of being in the rather lonely position of supporting the U.S. government taking an equity stake in Intel is that I don’t have to steelman the case about it being a bad idea. Scott Lincicome, for example, had a good Twitter thread and Washington Post column explaining why this is a terrible idea; this is the opening of the latter: President Donald Trump’s announcement on Friday that the U.S. government will take a 10 percent stake in long-struggling Intel marks a dangerous turn in American industrial policy. Decades of market-oriented principles have been abandoned in favor of unprecedented government ownership of private enterprise. Sold as a pragmatic and fiscally responsible way to shore up national security, the $8.9 billion equity investment marks a troubling departure from the economic policies that made America prosperous and the world’s undisputed technological leader. Lincicome lists a number of problems with this transaction, including (but not limited to!): Intel making decisions for political rather than commercial considerations Intel’s board prioritizing government interests over their fiduciary duties Other companies being pressured to purchase Intel products,...