I now consider this a mafia that aims to milk us for more money. This includes all AI companies but also manufacturers who happily benefit from this. It is a de-facto monopoly. Governments need to stop allowing this milking scheme to happen.
Technically it's a lot closer to monopsony (Sam Altman/OAI cornering 40% of the market on DRAM in a clever way for his interests that harms the rest of the world that would want to use it). I keep hoping that somehow necessity will spur China to become the mother of invention here and supply product to serve the now lopsided constrained supply given increasing demand but I just don't know how practical it will be.
"Monopoly" means one seller, so you can't say multiple X makes a monopoly and make sense. You probably mean collusion.
If demand exceeds supply, either prices rise or supply falls, causing shortages. Directly controlling sellers (prices) or buyers (rationing) results in black markets unless enforcement has enough strength and integrity. The required strength and integrity seems to scale exponentially with the value of the good, so it's typically effectively impossible to prevent out-of-spec behavior for anything not cheap.
If everyone wants chips, semiconductor manufacturing supply should be increased. Governments should subsidize domestic semiconductor industries and the conditions for them to thrive (education, etc.) to meet both goals of domestic and economic security, and do it in a way that works.
The alternative is decreasing demand. Governments could hold bounty and incentive programs for building electronics that last a long time or are repairable or recyclable, but it's entirely possible the market will eventually do that.
> If everyone wants chips, semiconductor manufacturing supply should be increased. Governments should subsidize domestic semiconductor industries and the conditions for them to thrive (education, etc.) to meet both goals of domestic and economic security, and do it in a way that works.
If there is already demand at this inflated price, shouldn’t we ask why more capacity is not coming online naturally first?
Yes, one of the most valuable companies in the world has been supply strained for years. Unless incredibly well focused investments are made, cash is not the problem. Subsidies are madness.
It would be understood that any action under the sherman act is unlikely and as you say, the financial penalties are tokenistic.
The non financial parts, which include mandated restructuring and penalties to directors including incarceration however, are not tokenistic. They'd be appealed and delayed, but at some point the shareholders would seek redress from the board. Ignoring judicial mandated instructions isn't really a good idea, current WH behaviour aside. If the defence here is "courts don't matter any more" that's very unhelpful, if true. At some point, a country which cannot enforce judicial outcomes has stopped being civil society.
My personal hope the EU tears holes in the FAANG aside, the collusive pricing of chips has been a problem for some time. The cost/price disjunction here is strong.
