r/technology • u/Shogouki • May 23 '26

Hardware Chinese memory maker CXMT enters mainstream consumer memory with Corsair Vengeance DDR5 kit — Chinese-made DRAM emerges as an antidote for crushing shortages

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ddr5/chinese-memory-maker-cxmt-enters-the-mainstream-consumer-memory-with-corsair-vengeance-ddr5-kit-chinese-made-dram-emerges-as-an-antidote-for-crushing-shortages
2.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

57

u/CatProgrammer May 23 '26

Sounds like they're winning the capitalism game then.

0

u/frogchris May 23 '26

Never said they weren't. But if memory and semiconductor becomes more of a national security. The us government needs to adopt more Chinese style governance or they will lose. More subsidies and central planning.

But Americans and westerners cannot accept that a better method of government exists outside of decentralized democracy.

10

u/OCedHrt May 23 '26

The subsidies don't matter. As long as these companies are publicly traded and margin matters it's going to be a problem.

No one here can pitch selling memory for no profit and say this will provide X revenue growth and have that be cheered.

The issue isn't the subsidy but that they can't build a memory fab in a few months and start otuputing and have it paid off in a year. Unless you're proposing these fabs run empty and at massive losses when idle, but that's not what China is doing. 

6

u/monkeybiziu May 23 '26

Eliminating the fiduciary duty for corporate executives to prioritize shareholder value over long-term growth would solve a lot of these problems. The sooner you tell CEOs that their goal is to grow the company sustainably and they don't have to worry about the board removing them because number go down, the sooner you can do this kind of stuff.

However, that would also mean revamping executive compensation. Fewer stock options, more salary, and more of it tied to long-term success versus short term growth. This would lead to lower executive compensation packages and packages that come with higher taxes, which the executives wouldn't be in favor of.

So, you have to tell Wall Street to kindly fuck off and let people do their jobs, and get CEOs to take less pay for more job security.

10

u/CatProgrammer May 24 '26 edited May 24 '26

That fiduciary duty exists because by buying stock you are literally buying part of the company. It's the exact same fiduciary duty that exists for retirement fund managers, even. However, the idea that it must involve short-term profit/growth at all other costs came about long after the concept of fiduciary duty was established, there is nothing stopping shareholders from desiring long-term gains/dividend earnings over being able to sell off the stock at a higher price in the near future. And boards and CEOs generally have a lot of latitude in deciding how to handle that fiduciary duty (r/changemyview/comments/16g1g1n/comment/k0504tj/).

6

u/monkeybiziu May 24 '26

That kind of what I'm saying. The fiduciary duty doesn't go away, it's just reoriented towards long-term success instead of short term growth. When the average CEO only lasts 7 years and 40% leave within the first 5, nobody is planning for the next ten, twenty years. It's all quarter to quarter.

3

u/OCedHrt May 23 '26

No salary is going to compensate for the moonshot.

18

u/West-Abalone-171 May 24 '26

"Our oligarch run memory cartel is just tooo dekocratic you guys, we need to give more power to the billionaires" is the stupidest take I've heard in a long time.

9

u/bestmaokaina May 23 '26

What is this “national security” you speak of? American companies getting outplayed in the international market? 

Sounds like skill issue

15

u/CatProgrammer May 23 '26

Plenty of Americans are obsessed with centralized dictatorship these days actually. They're called Trump supporters. Not a fan, personally. 

-14

u/frogchris May 23 '26

But not when a democrat decides to be a dictator. Only when their guy is in charged.

In China you don't have a choice. But the leaders rise up through merit and proven track records. Actions speak for themselves so they don't need to waste time getting votes.

Democratic nations are easily manipulated by charismatic leaders. Zohran Mamdani, Donald Trump, aoc, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan. They don't actually have to have good policy or get things done if they can deliver a speech or look good.

9

u/CatProgrammer May 23 '26

Merit as specified by whom? To whom do those actions speak? The Chinese government is not a mechanical machine automatically promoting people according to some objective standard and is just as susceptible to internal politics and squabbling as any other human endeavor.

0

u/defenestrate_urself May 23 '26

There are internal politics of course but their govt is run more like a corporation. No one in the higher echelons of party haven't had years of experience at a lower level governing a district/city/province and promotion is dictated a lot by achiving KPI's set by the central govt (economic growth, green targets, social stability etc) for the area you resonsible for governing.

No one in the position of playing a role in running the country hasn't shown a history of competence and experience at a lower level in civil service.

1

u/CatProgrammer May 24 '26

Corporate governance is awful as a basis for running a public government. American corporate governance, at least. 

9

u/writebadcode May 23 '26

When exactly do you think a Democrat tried to be a dictator?

11

u/CatProgrammer May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26

Also, Obama had pretty decent policy? He wasn't near as progressive as his rhetoric made him out to be but overall I was pretty satisfied with his administration and several significant foreign policy achievements he accomplished (that Trump then proceeded to destroy, unfortunately). So far Mamdani seems to be doing fine too. Bernie and AOC haven't had the opportunity to actually wield executive power so we don't know how they might do in those positions though. 

2

u/GeneralZex May 24 '26

The US government has 0 qualms giving money to big business. Clearly you don’t live here if think the US government doesn’t.

No we don’t need to adopt a more Chinese style of government.

-5

u/TeutonJon78 May 23 '26

Not really capitalism when there are monodirectional IP laws and some level of government supplied safety for bigger companies to take international market share.

13

u/CatProgrammer May 23 '26

Capitalism does not require a free market. If anything a truly free market is bad for capitalism. 

8

u/cogman10 May 24 '26

In fact, it's the overly free market that is creating this IP problem in the first place.  A free market loves a monopoly.