You just argued with yourself. You said there’s only three suppliers, two of which the U.S. wants to avoid. Then, that Intel is controlling and benefiting from how those projects are manufactured. That means the billions would shore up a domestic monopoly that’s in a tiny oligopoly.
My proposal would use our tax dollars to create plants that use Intel technology, but aren’t under their control, with different business strategies, operational priorities, and money going to other directors. The supplier diversity would increase competition domestically while strengthening us. While not done the same way, my precedents for increasing suppliers are Intel having to license to AMD and IBM licensing to Freescale.
Ok, I misunderstood what you meant. I thought you meant license access to the foundry, like TSMC does.
What you're proposing is that the US stand up a semiconductor fab that can compete with Intel. That's going to be hard!
I think "use Intel technology" is a lot less practical than it might seem. After all, Intel uses ASML technology, and anyone with enough money can buy the machinery (as long as they're not based in China). Intel manufacturing tech is the sum total of all the skill and expertise of Intel's employees.
My proposal would use our tax dollars to create plants that use Intel technology, but aren’t under their control, with different business strategies, operational priorities, and money going to other directors. The supplier diversity would increase competition domestically while strengthening us. While not done the same way, my precedents for increasing suppliers are Intel having to license to AMD and IBM licensing to Freescale.