[HN Gopher] Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia
___________________________________________________________________
Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia
Author : tartoran
Score : 160 points
Date : 2021-03-24 21:34 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| gens wrote:
| Too many cpu companies are USA-ian.
| JBiserkov wrote:
| CPU, OS, Search engine, Social networks, ...
| gens wrote:
| This forum.
| philistine wrote:
| He didn't get the memo Trump isn't president anymore. The dog
| whistles are out of style right now.
| [deleted]
| excalibur wrote:
| TSMC is far too important to far too many parties. We're getting
| dangerously close to a direct US/China war for Taiwan. That
| wouldn't be good for anybody. Both sides will claim it's about
| something else, but really it's all about the chips.
| rory wrote:
| It really is pretty terrifying. I'd go as far to say that the
| most likely thing the next World War (pray there isn't one)
| will be fought over is TSMC.
| davedx wrote:
| Full of sound and fury, isn't he?
|
| Let's see Intel really take that gigantic mountain of cash they
| have and actually execute on this. Then we'll see.
| king_magic wrote:
| He's entirely right. I think this is the best move Intel has made
| in decades.
| topspin wrote:
| He's also talking out of both side of his mouth. Yesterday we
| learn this[1] and this "Galsigner says" story unironically
| fails to point it out.
|
| [1] Intel to Outsource Some Key CPU Production for 2023 Chips
| to TSMC https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-to-outsource-
| some-ke...
| 01100011 wrote:
| What's wrong with that?
|
| The company has to react both tactically and strategically.
| Short term, they may have to use overseas production while
| the domestic capability improves.
| smiley1437 wrote:
| I'm all for redistributing fab capacity geographically. But I
| thought it became concentrated in Asia because of the lower cost
| for high quality engineers due to LCOL. How will Intel change
| this equation to make it profitable in other geographic regions?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Labor costs in a modern fab are a pretty small part of total
| costs. The fab construction itself as well as filling it with
| semiconductor equipment (like those ASML EUV lithography
| machines) swamp labor costs.
| stanislavb wrote:
| I guess that if the US gov begins offering skilled VISAs,
| that'd help.
| phone8675309 wrote:
| >How will Intel change this equation to make it profitable in
| other geographic regions?
|
| Let me introduce you to this little thing called an H1B visa...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| What fraction of a fab's costs are labour today versus twenty
| years ago?
| tantalor wrote:
| Cost of living is 20% lower in San Jose, Costa Rica (location
| of Intel manufacturing plant) compared to TSMC in Taiwan.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Yeah, it's not cost of living, it's that everything is
| there... it's a chicken-egg because even if you move the
| physical fab, everything you need still needs to be
| transported or you need to convince people to move with you.
|
| This isn't a one year project, this could be a 25 year
| project to get the entire pipeline from raw resource to a
| piece of silicon.
| dragontamer wrote:
| USA has some of the lowest cost of energy / electricity in the
| world and one of the best rail-freight systems in the world.
|
| Our passenger rail sucks and our people are expensive. But
| significant manufacturing remains in the USA (yes, we
| manufacture more today than ever before, despite the hoopla
| about outsourcing). There's a reason for that: USA has some
| pretty good advantages if you know what to look for.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| I (we... us Europeans) often make fun of the US but when shit
| hits the fan the US often seems to be quite a bit better at
| actually _getting stuff done_.
| dragontamer wrote:
| I mean... only when we (Americans) feel like getting things
| done.
|
| A lot of it is just arguing with ourselves over what to do.
| But if a consensus is reached, Americans can get it done
| pretty quickly. There's just so much discussion / debate /
| noise now.
| ironmagma wrote:
| This could be great. Personal anecdote time, when I was using
| ESP32 there were some things it couldn't handle due to a very
| unconfigurable WiFi interface -- captive portal advertisement via
| DHCP specifically. (Before people get their knickers in a twist,
| it was connecting to a box that had no internet access, so there
| was no hostage situation there.) It turns out there are basically
| no open source or even American options that replace that chip. A
| lack of competition leads to a stymied market.
| TeeMassive wrote:
| This have been bothering me for a while. What would happen if for
| any reasons the biggest fabs are destroyed? It would take years
| to get more than half of a century of accumulated knowledge just
| from patents, and that's not even counting industrial secrets and
| all the economical machine needed to support such an industry.
|
| There have been projects focused on securing Humanity's
| technological knowledge in case of a worldwide calamity like
| GitHub storing all its source code in microfilms, but I can't
| think of any project entirely focused on building from scratch
| and kick-starting the industrial motor of modern civilization.
| sigstoat wrote:
| > What would happen if for any reasons the biggest fabs are
| destroyed?
|
| it "just" takes some years and heaping piles of money to
| replace them. though probably more if you're trying to replace
| them all at once, as there aren't a lot of folks who make the
| equipment to rebuild the fabs.
|
| > It would take years to get more than half of a century of
| accumulated knowledge just from patents, and that's not even
| counting industrial secrets and all the economical machine
| needed to support such an industry.
|
| sounds like you're more concerned about loss of the personnel
| and records, rather than the buildings.
|
| > I can't think of any project entirely focused on building
| from scratch and kick-starting the industrial motor of modern
| civilization.
|
| i mean, "world peace" is generally concerned with preventing it
| from being destroyed in the first place.
|
| conventional wisdom is that taiwan bases a chunk of their
| national security on nobody wanting to see TSMC ruined.
| riversflow wrote:
| World peace will only go so far if a huge solar storm hits us
| and we are not adequately prepared.
| [deleted]
| yongjik wrote:
| > "Having 80% of all supply in Asia simply isn't a palatable
| manner for the world to have its view of the most critical
| technology," Mr Gelsinger said.
|
| Eh, the whole set of FAANG plus Intel itself is based on American
| West Coast, and this guy's take is that so many chips being made
| in East Asia is not "palatable" for the world?
|
| There's nothing wrong with saying "That's a large pie they're
| eating and we want a bigger slice for ourselves." We could do
| without this kind of self-serving pseudo-cosmopolitanism.
| kmonsen wrote:
| That's not really a counterpoint though. It is kind of bad for
| the world that FAANG++ and for example most of the movie
| industry is centered in US (west coast)?
|
| Also with tensions rising there it is not good if 80% of the
| chips are being made in a war zone. And bad for everyone but
| China if China takes control of Taiwan.
|
| I don't think any of these are value statements?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| When he says "the world" he means the US and western Europe.
| m463 wrote:
| I would say the #1 consumer good in the world (not just the
| west) is the cellphone.
|
| I would even say it is even _more_ heavily dependent on the
| cellphone than the west.
| tw04 wrote:
| I think you missed the point. He isn't going to outright say
| "If China decides to follow-through on their threats to invade
| Taiwan it will cause a worldwide disruption to technology".
|
| But at the end of the day, that IS reality, and it's a systemic
| threat to both Europe and the US. The fact it's self-serving
| doesn't make the statement any less factually accurate or
| important.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| It's interesting that Pat hopes that Apple would want another
| supplier, but I don't see 3nm Intel fab happening in the near
| future.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Apple did it once before when it sourced CPU's from Samsung and
| TMSC for the A9 iPhone 6S using a 14 vs 16nm node processes.
|
| But I don't see why they would do it unless there was supplier
| issues.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| People didn't like Samsung chips, they started complaining
| about battery life, that was why Apple moved to being TSMC
| only I think.
| Zenst wrote:
| I think Intel are more focused upon not surfing the bleeding
| edge, more the bulk of other silicon production that is usually
| on many generations behind. So offering those the opportunity to
| step up in nodes for them but also using proven nodes which ,
| whilst not bleeding edge - will do ok. That with any bleeding
| edge needs, being open to outsourcing on a case by case bases for
| their own parts.
|
| I think for many, they view Intel based upon how well they do
| running computer games and think the stock resolves around that
| when we have learned that their income streams are more widely
| spread.
|
| As for alternative to TSMC, that gets down to getting ahead on
| nodes or when nodes get to a stage that they won't get any
| smaller. Also the work with IBM is interesting and whilst IBM
| left the FAB industry, they still do research and that
| combination may help Intel catchup or surpase the current cutting
| edge TSMC offer.
|
| I do feel what Intel is going for is opening up their 14nm(insert
| plus signs to taste) as they shift their core onto the 10nm. They
| had a lot of investment in 14nm and milked it well, but now they
| have the opportunity to open that up and gain value from that
| instead of the usual retooling one node into a new node and some
| node changes will be more impacting and might well be the case.
| Let alone the downtime and then to get the plant particle free
| after all the work - very costly. So to cash in on that as is
| more and just build new plants from scratch can for the
| accountants become very much the right direction to go and that
| is how it seems to be. More so when politically getting subsidies
| to build new plants over retooling an existing one can make that
| option even cheaper.
|
| However it is being driven, it's good for Intel and the industry
| as a whole as more choice. Equally I'm very interested in how
| Intel and IBM will collaborate and have a good feeling about all
| this.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| This already exists/existed at GlobalFoundaries and they've
| been closing fabs.
|
| The fab business isn't great, tbh, because most of the money is
| in the value add.
| foobarbazetc wrote:
| Sort of what he has to say to sell his fabs, no?
|
| I mean, he's not saying Intel have a better product, because they
| don't.
|
| Eh.
| ngngngng wrote:
| I'm stoked. I've been a bit of an Intel hater lately but more
| competition is good for everyone. Though I'm guessing other
| people are excited about these directions as well because their
| stock is pretty high at the moment.
| m463 wrote:
| There have traditionally been cycles and we all win.
|
| I remember years back when AMD became competitive with intel
| and then intel turned around and came out with fast cpus, and
| we had all kinds of choices.
|
| I think the PC is a really good thing we don't want to lose it.
| When we have competition it is better for customers with more
| choices, and employees who actually have to compete, and there
| are standard interfaces new companies can develop for.
|
| Honestly, what I worry about is Apple and their spiral into
| themselves and their closed ecosystem.
|
| I think Apple was at their best when the adopted the PC
| architecture and interoperability made everything better.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Same here, although I wouldn't call myself as much as a hater
| as it's just schadenfreude.
|
| If Intel were to double down on their own fabbing and become a
| reasonable alternative to TSMC I think that would be great for
| everyone.
| Nokinside wrote:
| As he says here, the decision not to take risk and jump to EUV
| with TSMC and Samsung was the mistake that started this downfall
| and it snowballed. The decision happened somewhere in the
| pathfinding stage into 10nm.
|
| When Gerald Marcyk was running Intel components research back in
| the 2001 Intel was already considering using EUV lithography for
| the 45nm technology node that would come out 2007. It turned out
| that the switch to EUV could be delayed and delayed again. Intel
| thought they could get away with it this last time and it was a
| wrong decision.
|
| EUV is super hard. There is only one company that can make EUV
| lithography machines, Dutch company called ASML. TWINSCAN
| NXE:3400B costs ~$120 million
| https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems/twi...
|
| Intel, Samsung and TSMC invested billions into ASML in 2012. In
| exchange Intel got 15% ownership, Samsung 10% and TSML 5% if I
| remember correctly. They don't have any significant ownership
| anymore.
| rakah wrote:
| EUV is hard, but isn't part of the reason why only ASML can
| make those machines because of the CRADA they have with DOE as
| a member of the EUV LLC? I believe this agreement was why ASML
| wasn't allowed to sell their solution to China recently. I bet
| Intel will have no trouble buying EUV to bring in-house -
| especially if that serves US strategic interests.
| baybal2 wrote:
| Well, not to forget the 157i debacle.
|
| Intel first started cheaping out as far back as 2003-2005.
|
| 157i could've been almost as good as EUV, at much lower cost,
| but Intel fully consciously decided to forego it because
| "nobody can beat us on 193i yet," and of conern that 157i
| consortium will give superior litho to potential competitors.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| What is 157i? Googling with various helper terms doesn't turn
| anything up.
| baybal2 wrote:
| 157nm lithography process using fluorine excimer laser
| light source.
| trishmapow2 wrote:
| As someone with no background knowledge, I first looked up
| "193i" intel which lead me to the term 193nm immersion
| lithography. After that doing the same for 157nm was
| trivial.
| brundolf wrote:
| Is there a term for "company starts advocating a valid social
| concern when it aligns with their interests"?
| lacker wrote:
| "standard practice"
| oblio wrote:
| It's broader than just social, but I really like "strategy
| credit": https://stratechery.com/2013/strategy-credit/
|
| Basically, do the right thing when it's easy to do, or even
| better, it directly benefits you.
| granularity wrote:
| See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| since social concern are in most case lead to legislationing i
| would call "regulatory recapture".
| jacquesm wrote:
| Salon Socialism?
| heckerhut wrote:
| Time to buy some stonks
| Waterluvian wrote:
| America should use the "we need to spend spend spend to
| revitalize the economy" to domesticate more industry.
| tootie wrote:
| Import substitution is usually a loser policy for developing
| nations. Also subsidies can frequently run afoul of trade
| agreements because they're basically the same as a tariff in
| terms of disadvantaging exporters.
|
| National security is not really a valid concern but could maybe
| be used to justify divestment from China. But that just means
| diversification of import partners. We could be building fabs
| in Mexico like we do with the auto industry. Or, as he's
| actually suggesting, europe.
| Zenst wrote:
| > "we need to spend spend spend to revitalize the economy"
|
| Yeah, I'm showing my age but I'm reminded of a comparative
| ethos regarding developers
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs
| paxys wrote:
| I think a national security argument will highlight the
| importance and urgency a lot better.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I think National Security might have something to do with
| manufacturing of electronics moving outside the US. The war
| on crypto called for manufactures to either provide two
| versions of their product, or move manufacturing to a place
| they could export a single product:
| https://www.eff.org/pages/decrypting-puzzle-palace
| kingaillas wrote:
| So? Don't most manufacturers already have to provide
| multiple product versions if they sell internationally, to
| handle different electricity/plug differences around the
| world (among many other things)? Maybe there is an effect,
| but it isn't as if products sold worldwide come in one
| version that works everywhere.
|
| Corporations love excuses to differentiate (read: charge
| more, especially for local captive customers) for products.
| Big Pharma uses all sorts of US government programs to run
| interference for them - patents, import/export
| restrictions, legal buying requirements, etc - all to
| charge more for the US version of products they sell dirt
| cheap elsewhere.
|
| Whatever "National Security" effect was present causing
| manufacturing to move overseas was dominated by maximizing
| profits: wringing savings out of the supply chain and lower
| labor costs. The result was predictable.
|
| I see Intel's complaint about this a way to drum up or
| steer business their way, hobble their competitors that
| rely on Asian chip manufacturing, seek future government
| intervention to help them - or accomplish all of the above.
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if environmental regulation makes it harder to
| manufacture in the US, more specifically california.
| vkou wrote:
| As a taxpayer, I'm not particularly keen in seeing my money
| subsidize privately owned firms.
|
| Spend-spend-spend should either be done through secured loans,
| or by the government receiving equity.
| jonhohle wrote:
| Or... products.
|
| Occasionally I think about the tradeoff between municipal
| purchases that support the community (with expanding degrees
| of community) or which are the best for the task. Prior to
| EVs, for example, should parking enforcement be performed in
| a Prius to maximize long term TCO or should it use a
| GM/Ford/Dodge and keep money in the US.
|
| At least in the US we've found that major global competitors
| control relatively critical roles in production of goods in
| the medical space. Who is responsible for quantifying the
| risk of being cut off from components?
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Sometimes the govt needs to intervene and provide resources
| when you want to get things done properly.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Press_Program
| vkou wrote:
| Great, and it can do that in exchange for equity.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Yes, but some of the ROI of that intervention should be
| able to be captured by the US (as a representative of the
| people) in the form of equity or secured loans.
|
| Insisting on stimulus of private industry without equity or
| interest is a great way to socialize losses and privatize
| gains, as they say.
| lumost wrote:
| a great way to do this is to create a joint venture which
| the government owns but the private company
| operates/develops.
|
| The government can later sell the stake to a private
| party to balance out the books.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| According to the article Alcoa operated them as a
| contractor starting in 1956 but but later bought it
| outright from the govt in 1982.
| ajmadesc wrote:
| Cantillion effect
| greedo wrote:
| You mean like Boeing/ULA, agriculture, mining, forestry, ad
| infinitum?
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I agree. There's so many ways the government can spend spend
| spend. Doesn't need to be hand outs to generate fictitous
| fleeting economic states.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| It it Intel speak "we can't compete against TMSC/Samsung".
| NobodyNada wrote:
| How is that? As the article explains, they have just announced
| their plans to _directly_ compete against TSMC /Samsung as a
| manufacturer of chips for other companies (rather than just
| manufacturing their own designs).
|
| To me, this suggests Gelsinger is confident in the company's
| ability to get their 7nm-and-beyond processes back on track and
| become competitive once again.
| coliveira wrote:
| > this suggests Gelsinger is confident in the company's
| ability to get their 7nm-and-beyond processes back
|
| Or it may suggest that the company wants to say anything to
| reassure investors that it will change course and stop losing
| market share. I wouldn't read any particular guarantee into
| these statements.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Rocket Lake is still on 14nm because of issues with their
| 10nm process and the new guy a week in is talking smack about
| them shipping 7nm product and compete against the likes of
| TMSC/Samsung ???.
| astrange wrote:
| They don't have to do 10 and 7 on the way to 5, right? I
| assume they can just skip some of the work, especially if
| the newer process is totally different anyway.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Probably. They must have either gotten a prospective deal with
| the US state or lost some competition in Asia.
| coding123 wrote:
| We absolutely do need to keep the secrets for how this stuff is
| made local.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Who is we?
| tehjoker wrote:
| Why do we need to keep secrets? If chips are distributed
| evenly, there will be no advantage given to anyone but lots of
| people can reap the benefits.
|
| I don't like nationalist arguments, but I do think it is a bad
| idea for critical tech to be concentrated in a single place. It
| would be good for there to be advanced manufacturing sites on
| all six populated continents owned by different countries.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| > Why do we need to keep secrets?
|
| Because every geopolitical competitor is keeping their own
| secrets. Makes no sense to disadvantage yourself when your
| peer and near-peer competitors aren't.
| leetcrew wrote:
| that would be good, but it would be even better to be the
| people that have the advantage.
| tehjoker wrote:
| I don't understand this thinking. Why would we want to
| impoverish others? After all, it's not like these power
| brokers give a shit about the American public, it's about
| great power competition.
| leetcrew wrote:
| first of all, I don't think "impoverish" is quite the
| right word. if you have a 9700k and I buy a 10900k, my
| cpu is faster, but your cpu is no slower than it was
| yesterday.
|
| past that, I don't really understand what there is to
| explain. if it would be good for everyone to have $1000,
| it would be even better (as an individual) to have
| $10000. assuming you care about money/chips/whatever. if
| you don't it obviously doesn't matter.
|
| edit: ah, I see what you are really asking is "why should
| we care who wins a power struggle among the world's
| elite?". I guess maybe we shouldn't, but personally I'd
| rather be on the winning team, even if I think the
| "teams" are silly.
| tehjoker wrote:
| I don't see how depriving others of technological
| advancement comports with any kind of justifiable theory
| of social governance, it's just a method of dominating
| others.
|
| I am not convinced we even benefit much from these kinds
| of antics. We have a few more consumer goods, but
| fundamental goods (education, housing, medicine, food)
| are sky-high in price, there are few worker protections,
| and huge portions of the budget are dedicated to illegal
| military adventures. I think cooperating and sharing
| technology widely leads to a richer world.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Is it better to be beholden to another party, or be the
| one the other party is beholden to? Which also means you
| are more self-reliant. If trade relations soured to the
| point no more chips exported to your country, how would
| your country handle that? How long would it be before
| other fabs could even come close to competing?
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Wow he really said that. Kinda stupid if you ask me, people may
| take it personally. This is why when you mean "We need a more
| distributed supply chain" you say "we need a more distributed
| supply chain" and don't single out a geoethnic region.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| I guess he's not used to political speech, as he has more
| technical experience. He needs to get used to picking his words
| more carefully.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Not being xenophobic doesn't require training
| kennywinker wrote:
| Pointing out that there is a concentration of chip
| manufacturing in one region (or even country) is not
| xenophobic. It is globalist, and it is capitalist, but it's
| not xenophobic any more than it is to say that the
| concentration of social networks coming out of silicon
| valley is a problem (it is!).
| [deleted]
| tester756 wrote:
| There are at least two interpretations of his words
|
| yet you picked the one that's easier to criticize, well.
| zaphirplane wrote:
| Isn't he being politically aware by not naming the Asian
| country ? Because as a technical person what's the concern if
| a lot of chips are made in the continent of Asia
| whatshisface wrote:
| Asia, in addition to being a continent, is an interlocked
| geopolitical sphere, with concerns like local wars, which
| can be amortized over by having factories in several
| countries too far apart to fight each other practically.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| When you are a CEO of one of the biggest companies in the
| world (or even just a commenter on HN), even the smallest
| thing that you say can be misinterpreted by people. Pat
| said great things, but the newspapers picked the most
| controversial part of course.
| [deleted]
| balls187 wrote:
| > and don't single out a geoethnic region.
|
| He didn't. Asia is a continent, and it's no different than
| saying the biggest consumer of hot dogs is North America.
|
| I'm Asian, fwiw.
| jbm wrote:
| Israel (edit: where Intel does a lot of their work) is in
| Asia too. In a water-limited region, at that.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Asia is not a continent though, more like "other worlds that
| don't speak Indo-European languages"
| triceratops wrote:
| > Asia is not a continent though
|
| According to...?
|
| And if it's not a continent, what is it?
|
| > "other worlds that don't speak Indo-European languages"
|
| There are hundreds of Indo-European languages spoken in
| Asia. One of them (Hindi) is the 4th most common first
| language in the world, after Mandarin, Spanish, and
| English[1]. (I'm actually surprised Arabic isn't higher on
| that list but maybe the various regional variants count as
| different languages?)
|
| I'm not sure where you're getting your geography and
| linguistics information from.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_numbe
| r_of...
| numpad0 wrote:
| Asia is a hyper broad term that could include areas from
| east to Russia to just west of Turkey except Middle East.
| Some thinks Central Asia is not or whatnot.
|
| "Continent" refers to single contiguous land encircled by
| seawater, that aren't islands, at least as I think of the
| word.
|
| > where you're getting your geography
|
| It's 7:45 now where I am.
| conteenants wrote:
| "Indo" in "Indo-European" comes from India, one of the two
| largest countries on the Asian continent. You might
| classify some languages spoken in India as.. Indo-European.
| Shocking. Those Indians who speak those languages.. are
| Asian! Surprise!
|
| Since you missed third grade geography, the other
| continents in addition to Asia are Europe, North America,
| South America, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, and recently
| discovered to be its own continent, Zealandia
|
| Good try though, projecting your own racism onto the topic
| at hand while simultaneously revealing incredible ignorance
| numpad0 wrote:
| So how often would you refer to people from India as
| Asians, should you use the word?
| ghufran_syed wrote:
| I agree with your points but feel it would be better to
| try and and aim for a more mature tone when replying to a
| possibly less mature comment?
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| It is specific to that part of the world. He's not worried
| about African chip manufacturers, is he?
| scsilver wrote:
| Doesnt asia have like 3 billion people of all sorts of
| ethnicities? Sorry 4.5 billion people.
| irrational wrote:
| How many chips are being manufactured in Antarctica, Africa,
| Australia, Europe, Oceania, or South America?
| redisman wrote:
| How is his statement any different from saying too much of our
| oil comes from the Middle East or too much of our wine from
| Europe? Or are all those also forbidden statements?
| hintymad wrote:
| Is what he said true? We should really seek facts and truths
| instead of focusing on feelings or race or ethnicity. Truth
| does not care about feelings.
| elliekelly wrote:
| The headline is a bit editorialized. Here's what he actually
| said:
|
| > It also needs more geographically balanced supply. Today
| there's a heavy bias to Asia. And as we've seen, coming out of
| some of the disruptions and challenges, the world needs US and
| European supply in a more balanced way. It's the right thing
| for the global supply chain requirements, for both commercial
| as well as for government and defence use as well.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-24 23:00 UTC)