Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
> That's unusually astute for you, although you haven't got it
> quite right. I moved the discussion into areas where I have
> strong credentials (fluid mechanics, writers of whom I have
> extensive knowledge) to show that Robert would follow and
> claim superior knowledge no matter where I want. He obliged.
You are confused. Where did I claim superior knowledge (other
than of the french language)? I just bring up points and watch you
fail to address even the simplest. Even in areas you claim to know.
I do not mistake my ability to criticise for superior knowledge.
> My real concern is the capital to do "big" technology.
> Companies like AMD siphon off capital without making a
> commensurate contribution.
Oh dear, more Marxist "wasteful competition" fallacy. First,
for the actual capital (fabs), basically the same number are
needed whether they're AMD or Intel. They've gotten about as big
as they can. Run out of economies of scale, or more precisely,
economies of scale are balanced by diseconomies of scale.
Second, for the "human" capital, things like developing masks and
other unique items: this is "duplicated effort", but also increases
reliability (second source for Pentium FDIV) and spurs competition.
Intel and AMD are constantly chasing each other. The competition
improves everyone -- Intel (who would otherwise grow lazy). AMD
(who would otherwise not exist in this space), employees (who are
better trained by vigorous business) and consumers (who get better
products less expensively).
Go look at some references for the benefits of competition.
Read especially the University of Chigago, since this appears
to be a new idea for you and so you need to be shocked.
-- Robert
|
