[HN Gopher] Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made...
___________________________________________________________________
Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor
chips
Author : lettergram
Score : 286 points
Date : 2022-07-27 18:40 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| snikeris wrote:
| I guess inflation isn't a concern after all.
| yonaguska wrote:
| When you can hedge against inflation with insider trading, no.
| It's not your problem. It's just a problem for the little
| people.
| lettergram wrote:
| I disagree that subsidizing R&D to a few companies is going to
| make us more competitive.
|
| Look at GE or Boeing, it didn't work out.
|
| What works is a free market. Raise import costs on CPUs and
| you'll incentivize building in the US and more companies to form.
| It costs $0 tax dollars and brings in revenue and high paying
| jobs. Similar to what we did with car manufacturing.
| connicpu wrote:
| Tariffs on products we don't have immediate domestic
| manufacturing capacity for will hurt the economy in the short
| term, which is not a great move during a period of rising
| inflation. It's a tough decision though, because it does feel
| like the better move for the long term.
| lettergram wrote:
| The US still produces a lot of computer chips...
|
| Intel is still a very large player in chips and dominate in
| some areas. Even TI which has tons of fabs (not highest end)
| as well. I don't really understand this.
| Buraksr wrote:
| TI's fabs are mainly focused on analog, so the requirements
| are a bit different. IIRC we have 3 130-65nm layers for
| digital in our mixed signal designs which is roughly on par
| with a the process technology Intel used in 2005.
| anfilt wrote:
| The majority ICs used for products and such do not need
| bleeding edge node sizes.
| Buraksr wrote:
| True. That is part of the reason why only 3 of maybe
| 30-60 layers are that small.
|
| Analog gets some signal integrity benefits from larger
| transistors, and often we have fairly large fets for low
| rdson and high voltage tolerance.
| wildzzz wrote:
| Relatively few consumer electronics use Intel chips. Even
| in the devices that do use Intel chips, it's one Intel CPU
| versus dozens of others.
| mminer237 wrote:
| I agree tariffs are the right long-term move. I think they
| just have to be implemented gradually. Just increase it by 4%
| per year for the next 10 years.
| acchow wrote:
| > Tariffs on products we don't have immediate domestic
| manufacturing capacity for will hurt the economy in the short
| term
|
| I suppose you could announce tariffs which will take place 5
| years down the line? And ramp it up over time?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Congress offloads imposing tariffs to the executive branch,
| so they'd need to take it back to do that. Otherwise, it's
| just a countdown for the industry to donate enough to the
| opposing political party's PACs to get them in office and
| repeal the looming tariffs.
|
| ie. the current bill only passed because both political
| parties are fine with giving companies government money.
| [deleted]
| Cuuugi wrote:
| "What works is a free market. Raise import costs on CPUs and
| you'll incentivize building in the US and more companies to
| form."
|
| Is the market really free with tariffs?
| chalst wrote:
| No, lettergram is misusing the term 'free market'. Free
| marketeers don't just want less government enterprise, they
| also want lower tariffs and light regulation.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Could a market be free without tariffs? Does free not imply
| competitive?
|
| US policy can't force South Korea or Taiwan to have a free
| market. No matter what we do, any domestic company has to be
| able to compete with Samsung and TSC. Because of that, there
| is no purely "free" global market.
|
| Either you change the rules at the border (tariffs), you
| match your competitors' strategy (subsidize), or you lose.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| It definitely isn't, but at this point "free market" has been
| watered down so heavily it gets used improperly all the time.
|
| It's more of a political slogan than an actual policy.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| A "free market" isn't borderless. There's virtually no
| precedent for that.
| haroldp wrote:
| Commerce between the States?
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| Obviously it's less free with tariffs than it would be
| without, but given the goals of the bill _some_ level of
| interference is unavoidable. The question is whether to meet
| those goals with top-down central planning, or by tweaking
| the incentives and letting the market handle the details on
| its own. The latter is much more in keeping with free market
| principles than the former.
| lettergram wrote:
| Yes it is, there's always been taxes. Free market typically
| refers to regulations, free commerce (means ability to buy
| and sell), etc. that doesn't mean no taxes, particularly
| tariffs.
|
| The US federal government was initially only able to make
| revenue from tariffs. Basically you control the borders, but
| inside the borders there are no control (ie free market).
| Once you deal between nations, you cannot have a perfectly
| free market, else your enemies will eat you. Which imo is
| what happened the last 50 years.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| A tariff is a regulation. Tariffs are the interstate
| commercial equivalent of Pigovian taxes. When the
| government puts its thumb on the scale of what should or
| shouldn't be sold with an extra cost attached, that is not
| a free market.
| [deleted]
| clairity wrote:
| i'm with you that a tariff scheme is better than giving money
| to large corps, which always puts money in the pockets of the
| already rich rather than into creating customer surplus and
| driving innovation. there is a (mostly front-loaded) cost, but
| there is also a clear net benefit in the long run. the tariff
| scheme just needs to be graduated (both on and off) and based
| on industry milestones. if it isn't ramped down as soon as
| feasible, then it becomes a overly-depended-upon subsidy and a
| market distortion masking price signals instead.
|
| because we know there is a large and likely growing demand for
| semiconductors, it's not a very risky bet for us to be
| subsidizing it via trade restrictions for some finite amount of
| time.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _What works is a free market. Raise import costs_
|
| Well, which do you want? You can't have both.
| taneq wrote:
| Internal free market mechanics with macro somewhat controlled
| by regulation. Sort of like a commercial Hunger Games.
| oofbey wrote:
| Undoubtedly this is a massive gift from taxpayers to Intel.
| Hard to see anything good in that.
|
| I also agree that subsidizing R&D isn't a reliable strategy to
| make us more competitive. Government incentivizes to find
| solutions works much better.
|
| BUT building high-end fabs is SO very capital intensive, that I
| think this actually could work out. This might actually be a
| case where the skids need to be greased a bit (to the tune of
| billions of dollars) to get them over the hump and back in the
| game.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| What's the alternative? SK is subsidizing Samsung by more
| ($450 Bn)[1]. China is doing the same. [1]:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-
| unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q
| gscott wrote:
| > What works is a free market.
|
| If such a thing existed then you would be right.
| kube-system wrote:
| Unfortunately, this is true. We have to subsidize the
| industry because other countries are subsidizing them. We
| can't compete on a level playing field because there isn't
| one.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Consider that semiconductor fab has a very high barrier to
| entry in that the cost and time required to bring it online.
|
| No company presently appears to be poised to build out
| significant domestic chipmaking capability as far as I know.
|
| I believe that this is where subsidization makes sense, because
| if we wait for the free market to catch up to the shortfall in
| supply created by raising import costs, it will ultimately take
| longer to get the manufacturing capacity online.
| [deleted]
| analognoise wrote:
| There is no such thing as "the free market" - it's this
| mythologized idea that people keep pushing, usually to damage
| workers so they can ship jobs offshore.
|
| If anything, the more something resembles a "free market", the
| worse it is - you don't think Intel wouldn't poison the water
| supply if it juiced the Q4 earnings?
|
| It's always more economical to just dump the toxic waste into
| the local river. If anything these subsidies even the playing
| field for people who don't think that's a good idea.
| Bloating wrote:
| There are absolutely free markets, usually small, niche, some
| under ground. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it
| doesn't exist. The world, and its economies, are more complex
| then you, I or anyone on this board can comprehend
| lettergram wrote:
| Lol the whole point of the US design was to allow the free
| market internally. Externally it was designed to be
| protectionist.
|
| I agree "free market" today is insane. Initially the federal
| governments only source of revenue was tariffs, so it would
| protect domestic production. This makes the US independent
| and wealthy.
|
| You can't have an international "free market" system unless
| you don't want to protect domestic production. Which imo is
| what the US did starting in the 70s until today.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| > Lol the whole point of the US design was to allow the
| free market internally
|
| Dear reader, this was not true in any shape.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Compared to Articles of Confederation?
| andrekandre wrote:
| im not sure thats true, but putting that aside, why do you
| feel it cant scale across national borders?
| snikeris wrote:
| "The General Market's mechanisms are always operating - even
| when governments like to believe they've overruled it. For
| guns and bombs and red tape and regulations can only obstruct
| a consumer's quest for what he wants; they can never destroy
| his insatiable desire to improve his life and enjoy greater
| mental well-being.
|
| The self-interest of each human being, his continual search
| for whatever he wants, is a natural law. Governments can make
| it difficult for him, but their roadblocks only cause him to
| seek other avenues in order to get what he wants.
|
| As a result, the General Market will always triumph
| eventually whenever there's a conflict between consumer
| desires and government interference. And it's vitally
| important to understand this. For it's the reassertion of the
| market's sovereignty as the ruler of the world that's causing
| today's economic upheavals."
|
| - Harry Browne 1974 (but just as relevant today).
| andrekandre wrote:
| > The self-interest of each human being, his continual
| search for whatever he wants, is a natural law.
|
| it is?
| disintegore wrote:
| This looks like an appeal to nature, concerning a form of
| conduct that could just as well be conditioned in
| individuals.
|
| It also seems to place the government in direct opposition
| with the wants of consumers, without acknowledging at all
| the fact that markets are just as often made unfree by the
| actions of its private actors.
| snikeris wrote:
| > the fact that markets are just as often made unfree by
| the actions of its private actors.
|
| Example please.
| disintegore wrote:
| There are countless examples of anticompetitive conduct
| going all the way back to prehistory. The legal
| vocabulary around it pretty extensive.
|
| Since this is HN though maybe these will ring a bell :
|
| * Intel's rebate program (https://www.ftc.gov/news-
| events/news/press-releases/2010/08/...) which ended up
| with a $1.2B payment to AMD
|
| * Microsoft's notorious antitrust case (https://en.wikipe
| dia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....)
|
| * AT&T abusing its monopoly status and being broken up
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T)
|
| Honestly this is such an obvious notion that the fact
| that you're asking for examples is suspect on its own.
| closedloop129 wrote:
| How do you prevent companies from avoiding the import costs by
| building their data centers in Canada?
| sbf501 wrote:
| That's exactly what they do. That is why Intel has a Fab in
| Ireland.
| Bayart wrote:
| Industries that heavy in frontloaded capital expenditures (like
| chip manufacturing) fare better with government support.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Uh I mean yes Boeing is kind of a mess right now, but it's
| ridiculous to argue that having Boeing based in the US isn't an
| enormous strategic advantage.
|
| Can you imagine a world where US airlines had to depend on
| either Airbus or Sukhoi planes? Do you really think that would
| be better?
| acchow wrote:
| > Can you imagine a world where US airlines had to depend on
| either Airbus or Sukhoi planes? Do you really think that
| would be better?
|
| Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year and
| half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I think
| a world without Boeing would have been clearly better?
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >Are we going to pretend 737MAX wasn't grounded for a year
| and half after 2 devastating crashes killing 346 people? I
| think a world without Boeing would have been clearly
| better?
|
| I seriously think you should consider reading the history
| of air travel, they don't say "regulations are written down
| in blood" for no reason. There's been many an accident due
| to a mechanical fault that's eventually remedied.
|
| Its a tragedy but you seriously have to take a breath and
| think a little. If you want to get into a pissing contest
| over aircraft manufacturers, the air France 447 (airbus
| plane) crash was largely caused by the inputs being
| averaged together. On a Boeing plane, the inputs are synced
| (one side pushes down, the other side goes down as well).
| Maybe we should eliminate airbus as well.
| lazide wrote:
| Big difference between a mechanical fault and what
| appears to be regulatory capture from a monopolizing
| entity causing a very sketchy product to be approved in a
| safety critical role - which then kills a lot of people.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| >Big difference between a mechanical fault and what
| appears to be regulatory capture
|
| You can't call Airbus's design decision to average the
| inputs a "mechanical fault", somehow that got approved by
| regulators.
|
| You are damning Airbus with the same attack you are
| aiming at Boeing.
|
| The 737-MAX crashes are absolutely horrific and how the
| FAA responded was terrible. The design was shit and
| should have had better review, same for Airbus and what
| caused France 447.
| nrb wrote:
| Perhaps, if you completely write off the breathtaking
| economic impact of the manufacturing and operation of
| Boeing products since its inception.
| lettergram wrote:
| I don't think subsidizing them has been a success. I think
| tariffs and awarding contracts to the best domestic
| manufacturers are the way forward. That's why SpaceX took
| off, they won contracts.
|
| Boeing effectively lobbied to regulate others out of
| existence. Bought off who they could, then won grants and
| contracts because there was no one else.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| As they say "competition is for losers". They've all
| figured that out lol.
| taneq wrote:
| Sun Tzu would say you don't take to the battlefield
| unless you have already won.
| bumby wrote:
| _That's why SpaceX took off, they won contracts._
|
| Can you elaborate? How was Boeing subsidized in this
| instance and SpaceX not? It's my understanding that it was
| closer to the other way around. Both Boeing and SpaceX won
| commercial crew contracts, but Boeing (at the time) had a
| stronger track record. It was a strategic move by NASA to
| not put all their eggs in one basket and it worked out well
| by subsidizing the early dark horse (SpaceX).
| bushbaba wrote:
| Government spending could require multiple vendors.
| Encouraging at least a duopoly.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| Maybe a combination of the approaches. I might actually be
| in favor of raising import costs if there were a guarantee
| of some sort that the resulting funds would be applied to
| jumpstarting domestic chipfab capabilities, specifically to
| overcoming the initial capital intensive investment
| required to get started.
| mwattsun wrote:
| We support strategic defense industries [1] in the U.S. so I
| don't understand how offshoring chip making was ever allowed to
| happen
|
| [1] As a former sub sailor, I'm aware that we kept submarine
| building capability afloat at New London, CT and Newport News, VA
| even when there is no current demand, but this was long ago and
| may no longer be true
| abvdasker wrote:
| That's capitalism, baby! It turns out domestic chip fabrication
| wasn't competitive (in this case a rare double-whammy of
| failing to compete on both cost and capability). The global
| market determined that Taiwan and South Korea made the best and
| cheapest chips so that's where all the manufacturing went.
| Demand for semiconductors is overwhelmingly not created by the
| military so it doesn't really make sense to compare it to
| submarines.
| mwattsun wrote:
| > Demand for semiconductors is overwhelmingly not created by
| the military
|
| That may be true, but semiconductors are absolutely crucial
| to the military. I suppose the military has their own fabs
| locally located in partnership with Intel, AMD, IBM, TI,
| etc...
| fabfabfab wrote:
| Fab guy here. This is excellent news and much needed, but
| vigilence is needed to make sure it doesn't end up being devoured
| by crony corporate agenda and it actually results in favorouble
| pro-US climate for semiconductor manufacturing.
|
| I'd like to share personal experience with how we bankrupted
| American leadership in cutting edge nodes. Although, it is not
| lithography related, I was part of a few billion $ ROI program
| where we'd hot test the chip for binning, best I don't disclose
| too many details. Let's just say, it was critical so much so that
| I sat in unmarked buildings. I saw that get transfered under my
| personal watch to China. We had Chinese employees visit US for 6
| months at a time and during this rotation, we'd teach them
| _everything_. Had to take a Chinese culture course. Process
| charts, metrics, drawings and schematics, whitepapers, how
| everything works, be part of troubleshooting process and then
| test them for their acuity. This was around 2012-2014. Usually,
| US semiconductor manufacturers do not transfer fab capabilities
| to China, only assembly /packaging. But, here, the was a clear
| violation of backend fab activities that were transferred to
| China and built out. I visited China for 3 months to get things
| up and running. This was a brand new process that _no one_ in the
| world has. All custom equipment from a major Japanese equipment
| manufacturer. This process was so insane that it took 10 years of
| development internally to come to this point. Even today, in
| 2022, no one has replicated it.
|
| This should not have happened IMO from a national security
| standpoint. But, these things continue to happen and US gov does
| not have enough insight into America's semiconductor industry
| when it comes to protecting IP. Far too many things do not
| require ITAR and are exported without oversight.
|
| I am pretty much against over-regulation, but here there needs to
| be strict regulation for exporting any semiconductor technologies
| whether it is fab or assembly or what have you. The entire
| industry needs to be hamstrung with export control.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It sounds to me as though that would be closing the barn after
| the horse has bolted.
| fabfabfab wrote:
| A new horse is heading to Vietnam. There is still opportunity
| to stop it.
| alexb_ wrote:
| For your convenience, the text of the bill is here:
| https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20220725/BILLS-117HR434....
| Relevant text for semiconductor funding is on page 10.
|
| The bill says "for section 9902/9906 of Public Law 116-283". This
| can be found on page 1460 here:
| https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ283/PLAW-116publ283.p...
| nceqs3 wrote:
| King!
| samstave wrote:
| When will senate pass a technological test.
|
| Lets make these blokes take a MINIMAL entry level exam;
|
| * What is a data base
|
| * What is personal identifiable identification and why does it
| mattter
|
| * What does a walled garden mean
|
| So many functionally identifiable comms
|
| These fucking morons cant even state the above.
|
| De-Seat them all.
| nitrixion wrote:
| I don't mean to be rude, but your list of questions is a
| perfect example of why this type of test would be meaningless.
|
| * What is a data base - Are you asking what type of military
| base stores data? Or did you mean database?
|
| * What is personal identifiable identification and why does it
| matter? - Do you mean PII (personally identifiable
| information)? Or are you talking about a driver's license?
|
| * What does a walled garden mean - Are you talking about what
| is in my back yard? What is around a castle? Or Apple's App
| Store?
| mjevans wrote:
| I agree at least half of the lawmakers probably couldn't
| correctly (enough) answer those questions.
|
| Though there are a number of really savvy ones like Wyden
| (D-OR) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden That senator has
| done good work, even if I don't live in Oregon anymore.
| kube-system wrote:
| People in leadership positions don't necessarily need to be
| domain experts to be good leaders. The problem with Congress is
| money, not a lack of domain expertise. A leader with the right
| incentives, without domain expertise, knows how to ask
| questions to the right people.
|
| Your congressperson doesn't know what a database is because
| they don't care, not because they're dumb.
| fmakunbound wrote:
| Should have put it into fundamental STEM education
| vxNsr wrote:
| The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on
| condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec
| compensation for similar amount of time for any company that
| accepts the handouts.
|
| This should be true for any company that accepts gov money.
|
| The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders, they're
| doing it to benefit the larger economy and country. Stock holder
| shouldn't even be considered as beneficiaries in these deals.
| djbebs wrote:
| Profit isn't a sin, and if you want shareholders to do
| something for you, why do you think they will want to do it if
| there is nothing in it for them?
| vxNsr wrote:
| No one is asking shareholders to do anything... We're having
| the government give the company money for a joint venture. If
| the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they
| would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit.
|
| If the company cynically takes the money, intentionally fails
| to uphold their side of the contract, and then rebuffs
| attempts by the government to reclaim the money, while that
| might be in the interest of the shareholders they haven't
| actually done anything there and don't deserve to benefit. In
| fact they should be punished (along with the executives) for
| being unethical.
| jdasdf wrote:
| >No one is asking shareholders to do anything... We're
| having the government give the company money for a joint
| venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they
| promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders
| benefit.
|
| The company belongs to the shareholders, that's what being
| a shareholder means.
|
| Let me quote you:
|
| >The sane way to do this would have been to give the
| handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and
| cap total exec compensation for similar amount of time for
| any company that accepts the handouts.
|
| >This should be true for any company that accepts gov
| money.
|
| >The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders,
| they're doing it to benefit the larger economy and country.
| Stock holder shouldn't even be considered as beneficiaries
| in these deals.
|
| You'll note that not a single word in that post said
| anything about the company not holding up its end of the
| bargain. And indeed you made no mention as to why "stock
| buybacks" or "total exec compensation" would prevent the
| company from holding up its end.
|
| Let's be clear here about what you're doing, you're so
| focused on hurting shareholders, you don't even care if the
| results you get are compatible with what you state you
| want.
| Drblessing wrote:
| You have a great idea. It would be tough corralling the boards
| and execs of these companies to accept Gov money that limits
| their compensation. Still, with competition, one company would
| be incentivized to take the money.
| jdasdf wrote:
| Why would there be competition, and why would any company
| take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?
| vxNsr wrote:
| Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent
| giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical
| means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound
| by the contract, for some reason you and most company
| executives are having trouble understanding that. They all
| (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run,
| then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That
| anathema to a civil society.
|
| I'll address your disingenuous reply to me above over here:
|
| Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give
| out when the company is doing well -- through its own
| means, not when you get charity from the government because
| you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and
| innovate. If intel which had record profits last year and
| revenues in excess of $70billion needs a handout because it
| doesn't have the money to invest in the US, then it
| shouldn't be allowed to reward it's owners and failed
| executives until the US government gets a return on its
| investment.
|
| It takes 5 years to bring a fab online and 5 years to see
| the economic impact of that new fab, so 10 years before
| they're allowed to start rewarding their owners again. Or
| return the money early and then you can do stock buybacks,
| and phat exec bonuses.
| andrewstuart wrote:
| It'll be money wasted.
|
| They should be paying out a large sum ONLY on completion, defined
| as when the first 10 million semiconductors are delivered to
| commercial customers.
| jason-phillips wrote:
| As a side note, that's like a couple of days of production for
| one fab. A billion chips would be more meaningful in your
| example.
| [deleted]
| tootie wrote:
| I'm not an expert but that could be considered dumping by the
| WTO
| PaywallBuster wrote:
| Tax based on manufacturing concentration?
|
| e.g. at current market shares, we could
|
| - 10% tax for Asia manufacturing
|
| - 20% tax for Taiwan manufacturing
|
| By moving away from these centers, taxes would be adjusted say
| annually
|
| I think this would be interesting for other industries too
|
| #ChinaDecoupling
| tomohawk wrote:
| If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on moving, regulate it. If it
| stops moving, subsidize it.
|
| - Ronald Reagan
| JadeNB wrote:
| With no context, I'm not sure what you mean by this; but,
| without saying anything about the validity of the position,
| it's probably worth noting (as you surely know) that Reagan
| said this to satirize "big-government" perspectives on
| taxation. It was not his policy statement.
| culi wrote:
| Funny but it turns out subsidization is pretty much the only
| way we've ever gotten things done. The most productive
| economies have ever been have always been wartime economies
| when gov't basically takes full control of every aspect
|
| Look at your iPhone. That touch screen, GPS, the internet,
| voice-assistant AI, etc. It's all a collection of government
| technologies. Economist Mariana Mazzucato has written[0] about
| the myth of private sector innovation in depth. Even the
| industrial revolution was driven through purposeful government
| investment.
|
| Another economist, Ha-Joon Chang, has written[1] extensively
| about this as well. The same tools the US used to build itself
| up (subsidization, tariffs, gov't programs, etc) are the first
| things that the US (through World Bank and IMF) bans with
| "structural adjustment" policies when these countries
| inevitably can't pay back the loan that was shoved down their
| throats. They "liberate" the economy. In other words remove any
| local protections from competition by US companies that are
| themselves heavily subsidized. And also get rid of any
| government services and leave it up to the "free market"
|
| The thing is that this is just the way anything gets done. Just
| look at Walmart.[2] Internally, it's the largest planned
| economy ever invented. Many magnitudes larger than the Soviet
| Union ever was. Anybody who's sold a product at Walmart stores
| knows that once you make the deal you've basically given up all
| control to them. They decide what gets produced in what
| factories and when and how much
|
| Contrast that with something like Sears that tried the "free
| market" approach internally. They let their stores compete with
| each other and tried to have minimal centralized intervention
| in what each store does. Sears failed... And so did their Ayn
| Rand-obsessed CEO.
|
| [0] https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-
| state
|
| [1] https://anthempress.com/kicking-away-the-ladder-pb
|
| [2] https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-the-people-s-
| republic-...
| mhneu wrote:
| This was what Andy Grove wanted - more investment in chip
| manufacturing. Good news.
|
| Grove was a visionary in many ways and his writing on this back
| in 2010 or so impacted my thinking.
|
| https://prospect.org/environment/andy-grove-trade-globalizat...
|
| _In retirement, Grove became concerned about the decline of
| American manufacturing: When he was CEO, Intel not only performed
| its research and development in the United States, but its
| manufacturing as well. He was greatly disturbed that more and
| more American companies produced their products abroad. Concerned
| about the erosion of the American middle class, he also helped
| Service Employee International Union leaders Andy Stern and David
| Rolf conceptualize new ways that the American labor movement
| might once again flourish._
| nwiswell wrote:
| > This was what Andy Grove wanted - more investment in chip
| manufacturing.
|
| He was also the former CEO of Intel, so you know, not exactly
| impartial on the subject.
| jasondc wrote:
| The beginning of the undoing of globalization, countries will
| start bringing industries back home with bills like this.
| vkou wrote:
| This is the 23rd year in a row that people have been saying
| this, at the rate we're going, globalization will be undone any
| minute now.
|
| This is just a taxpayer gift to multinationals. If you want to
| undo globalization, handouts aren't the solution, tariffs are.
| trevorboaconstr wrote:
| No, I don't think so. The last few years have been no more than
| a speed bump in the 100 year trend of increased global
| interconnection.
| culi wrote:
| "Global interconnection" is not the same thing as
| "globalization". In many ways they're actually opposed. With
| globalization comes increased strength of patent and
| copyright laws and much more control over what crosses what
| borders
|
| There's a direct relationship between international trade
| agreements and border security
| pm90 wrote:
| Globalization is here to stay. The economics are just too sweet
| to "go back".
| upupandup wrote:
| I think so as well, in particular I believe that countries
| with a large population of young will be the biggest
| beneficiaries of companies exiting China.
|
| It's going to take some time to get back to scale but I
| believe India, Vietnam, Southeast Asia stands to be the
| biggest winners.
|
| I do not see China returning to status quo anytime soon. It's
| more likely that they will fall victim to nationalistic
| fervor and close its doors.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Such a monumental scam and a gross theft from taxpayers.
| Companies making billions of dollars in profits don't need free
| money. I could be onboard with a subsidized loan, but handouts
| are not needed.
|
| FWIW, I work at a company that stands to benefit from this bill.
|
| Does the US need to secure reliable semiconductor supply chains
| free of China? Sure. This is not the most cost effective way to
| do it.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| I'd like to see a matching consumer side tax. Basically forced
| on shoring and user pay taxation (instead of taxing my grandma
| who uses about 0 chips, lol more than amazon who uses
| millions/billions of chips but pays next to no taxes)
| sbf501 wrote:
| The reason why non-US cities manufacture so many semiconductors
| is that there is simply no profit. Capitalism has pushed
| manufacturing overseas. There are roughly 100-1000 more ARM
| chips than Intel chips in the world, but the profit margins are
| miniscule compared to Intel. If Intel made commodity chips,
| their shareholders would lose value. This bill basically
| subsidizes the already wealthy to get more wealth and probably
| won't do much since China will continue to expand while US fabs
| come online. Free hand of the market my ass.
| Drblessing wrote:
| It's as simple as this: If companies could manufacture chips
| profitably in America, they would be.
|
| American Laws & Regulations prohibit domestic semiconductor
| manufacturing without Government subsidies.
| jszymborski wrote:
| Another way of looking at this is that under regulation of
| competing industries in other countries requires intervention
| (be it via tariff or subsidy).
|
| I think people here have argued the strengths/weaknesses of
| each approach. The best solution is likely some nuanced mix
| of the two, but nuanced policy is hard to create and I rather
| we eat the costs of any of the two approaches that are more
| likely to be adopted today rather than continue to take no
| action.
| verdverm wrote:
| We don't need the most cost effective way, something that costs
| a bit more and will make it happen (faster) is preferable
| goatcode wrote:
| >This is not the most cost effective way to do it.
|
| What would you recommend?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Often times the people in any individual nation don't want to
| hear it, but nations are in competition with each other to
| attract business.
|
| This undermines any other function of what people think a
| government is there for and the system that government operates
| under. If people were told anything else, they were told a lie.
|
| There are different people operating under more effective set
| of rules, and they can pit countries against each other to
| sweeten the deal of operating within that country.
|
| Its just simply a more effective set of rules than whatever
| people were taught in their civics class, or by an animated
| sheet of paper singing about how bills are formed.
| WebbWeaver wrote:
| >This is not the most cost effective way to do it.
|
| Agreed. The alternatives should have been presented. Maybe
| include this in partnership with canada, mexico and others.
| Where the wonks at?
| qaq wrote:
| What would be a good way?
| frgtpsswrdlame wrote:
| United States Semiconductor - aka spinning up a nationalized
| firm.
| alldayeveryday wrote:
| Agreed with this. Has many benefits, including that the
| profits flow back to the taxpayers rather than to
| corporations and shareholders. Semiconductors are too
| important to national security to be controlled by profit
| seeking corporations whom have little allegiance to the
| nation or the people.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| And that's gonna be cheaper?
| dangrossman wrote:
| The goal isn't to be cheaper, it's to have a reliable
| domestic supply chain.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| Which the bill will provide for a fraction of the cost
| skywal_l wrote:
| Have the DOD force its suppliers to make their things in the
| US? Only allow them to import raw materials or low value
| manufactured elements. Just throwing ideas, might not be
| practical...
| Goronmon wrote:
| _Have the DOD force its suppliers to make their things in
| the US? Only allow them to import raw materials or low
| value manufactured elements. Just throwing ideas, might not
| be practical..._
|
| Are there controls on what suppliers charge? If not, what
| prevents them from charging as much or more than would be
| spent on subsidies? If so, what prevents suppliers from
| just choosing to opt out of the transaction entirely?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| There are already trusted foundries for sensitive silicon.
|
| https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf
| bushbaba wrote:
| *And force all US Federal spending to not purchase computer
| equipment made outside the US with non US made components.
| WebbWeaver wrote:
| Yes but without a foreign policy economic investment may be
| difficult.
| Alupis wrote:
| People already complain about the infamous "$5,000"
| wrenches and other silly ITAR compliance shenanigan's the
| DoD plays and drains their coffers... leading to increases
| in funding over the past many decades.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Pretty sure that's already the case.
| alldayeveryday wrote:
| Nationalization, imo. Nationalize semiconductor
| manufacturing, such that the profits flow back to the people.
| qaq wrote:
| Yep that always works out great
| tdhz77 wrote:
| Cost is not the only consideration. I fear for people who only
| focus on one issue and ignore the rest. Rarely do we see
| congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. I would say they
| find that reliance on China to be a threat to National
| Security. US and China communications is zero and even lower
| than it was during the Cold War. Pelosi story on visiting
| Taiwan should give you an idea of the stakes that are play.
| China siding with Russia should be the final consideration of
| the United States commitment to Democracy and people. Cost is
| really just one data point and should not be the only
| consideration. This concept can be applied to many more things,
| and I think you should rethink.
| 01100011 wrote:
| You can't wave the magic wand of national security and
| justify any inefficient or ineffective attempt at stealing
| from the future to goose the present.
|
| The short term goal should be to diversify critical US supply
| chains away from a country that is currently considered by
| the US to be an competitor. I'm sure you remember that US
| official policy since the 70s is the "One China Policy" which
| admits that Taiwan is a part of China and that only attempts
| to reunify by force will be responded to(*). So the US needs
| to move supply chains out of PRC/ROC, but moving them to S.
| Korea, Japan, or dozens of other friendly nations is an
| acceptable goal from a national security standpoint.
|
| * - I'm not a fan of this, but it is what it is. I didn't
| realize it until recently.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| One of the most pernicious myths about this situation out
| there is that there is a single "One China Policy" shared
| by everyone on earth. This is not the case. The One China
| Policy of the US is different to that of the PRC. And I
| quote:
|
| - The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign
| status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of
| 1972, 1979, and 1982.
|
| - The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position
| of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
|
| - U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over
| Taiwan;
|
| - U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign
| country; and
|
| - U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled.
|
| Next time you read a news story about this issue, take note
| of the fact that PRC officials use the term " _the_ One
| China policy " while US officials use the term " _our_ 'One
| China' policy".
| lapcat wrote:
| > Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this
| scale.
|
| There has been widespread bipartisan support for the
| military-industrial complex for as long as Eisenhower
| (correctly) warned about the military-industrial complex.
|
| Partisan disagreements just tend to make the headlines more
| often.
| trasz wrote:
| >China siding with Russia should be the final consideration
|
| If it happened, which it didn't.
| colechristensen wrote:
| The opposite direction of motivation is to tariff semiconductor
| imports and still I doubt a quarter of a trillion dollars would
| be invested so fast.
|
| Geopolitical issues forcing this aren't the fault of the
| semiconductor providers, decades of policy are at fault for
| letting the situation get this bad.
|
| And to be fair future taxes will recoup some of this, as will
| the value provided to the state of an increased reliability of
| sourcing semiconductors.
|
| It may not be the most cost-effective solution but it's the
| solution we _need_ at this point because China isn 't our
| friend and increasingly seems like won't be.
| Alupis wrote:
| Clearly, handouts are needed to force/incentivize these
| companies to build new fabs in the continental US. Otherwise
| they would have built them under their own gumption by now.
|
| When there is no clear benefit for the company to fab chips in
| the continental US, and a lot of clear negatives (cost,
| regulations, etc) - you have to do something to outweigh the
| cons. If the US had been an amazing place to fab chips already,
| hand-outs would be completely unnecessary and we would already
| have a bustling chip fabbing industry. But... we don't.
|
| Perhaps after handing out all this "free" money, lawmakers need
| to take a long hard look at why our chip fabbing industry has
| nearly vanished.
| lettergram wrote:
| Alternatively, you add a 20% tax on CPUs made outside the US.
| That would incentivize the fans manufactured in the US even
| if it's a foreign company.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| How significant is the US market to foreign manufacturers?
| Alupis wrote:
| Or, chips just become 20% more expensive in the US and the
| consumer loses... and the US still doesn't gain supply
| chain security.
|
| I don't think tariffs will work when the alternative
| requires _massive_ outlay of capital and decades to recoup.
|
| Not to mention, there is no reality where manufacturing
| these chips in the US costs less than Taiwan, for example.
| There is no reason to build a fab in the US with the
| current economic and regulatory climate. So... we have to
| _force_ it to happen... which is what this bill does.
| ZetaZero wrote:
| Intel had profits of $20B last year. They could easily
| build a new modern fab every year if they wanted to. But
| it makes more sense for them to spend tax payers money
| instead.
| thfuran wrote:
| Easily as in "if they feel like wiping out all their
| profits", which is not really how public companies tend
| to feel.
| 01100011 wrote:
| Amazon went years basically making no money because they
| were reinvesting and in a growth stage. Intel could do
| the same. They just need to convince investors of the new
| narrative. Wall Street doesn't demand profits if you
| deliver promises.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > They could easily build a new modern fab every year if
| they wanted to.
|
| And they are, and have always been.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> Or, chips just become 20% more expensive in the US and
| the consumer loses... and the US still doesn't gain
| supply chain security.
|
| Push it up 50 percent. This quarter trillion dollars is
| going straight on the debt pile so it will hurt a lot,
| just not today.
| Alupis wrote:
| Without getting political - does it even matter anymore?
| Trillions of dollars were just thrown out the window to
| whoever could catch some... and few if anyone has any
| idea where most of it actually went.
|
| At least this money will have a tangible, appreciable
| outcome. Supply chain security for such critical things
| such as chips is really hard to overstate the importance
| of for the US.
| gscott wrote:
| We inflate away our national debt anyway so in future
| dollars that is a few hundred billion at most.
| StillBored wrote:
| I think in this case the US is different than say Chile
| because its such a large market. AKA its large enough to
| support home grown manufacturing if the incentives aren't
| out of wack.
|
| The chicken tax, as been an incredibly efficient way to
| assure that car's are manufactured in the USA, so much so
| that the cost difference between a Ford manufactured in
| Mexico and a Toyota manufactured in TX is basically 0.
| Alupis wrote:
| How is this not the consumer still losing, though?
|
| There is no reality where manufacturing a car in Mexico
| costs the same as in Michigan. We've artificially
| increased the cost of the Mexico product... that is what
| will happen if you try that approach with chips - they
| will be more expensive for no real good reason.
|
| It also appears to cost many multiples more capital to
| build a chip fab than a car plant according to these
| sources[1][2].
|
| [1] https://www.exacthowmuch.com/how-much-does-it-cost-
| to-build-...
|
| [2] https://builtin.com/hardware/american-made-
| semiconductor-cos...
| StillBored wrote:
| Well its MX, vs TX, so maybe that is part of it, but I
| suspect there are other more significant differences,
| like for example ford sells ~7x the number of F-150's as
| Toyota sells Tundra's and that is only reflected in a ~3K
| difference in base price.
|
| Its hard to have an exact 1:1 comparison, but I think
| most people would agree they are roughly the same price
| for roughly the same product. And yet one is largely
| designed and manufactured in the USA (the Toyota).
|
| So, maybe they it costs more to employ someone in San
| Antonio, but maybe that doesn't really matter in the
| grand scheme of things vs flying engineers to MX to work
| out kinks in the assembly line.
|
| And its probably the same with semiconductor
| manufacturing. Intel isn't behind because it costs more
| to manufacture things in the US, they are behind because
| they didn't invest in EUV, and made some technical
| mistakes, as well as business mistakes around contract
| manufacturing and refusing low margin deals.
|
| I think if you look at the results of the IBM/Lenovo
| deals its abundantly clear that where the manufacturing
| was located had nothing to do with the success of the
| products (It was outsourced to Lenovo long before it
| became their business). The American management was the
| problem, and kicking it to the curb allowed them to grow
| the business 10X+.
|
| And lets not ignore Samsung which has a large fab just
| down the road from me. So it can't be a terrible
| environment for USA based semiconductors if a Korean
| company is willing to fab things here.
| kube-system wrote:
| Depends on how much money the other countries are handing
| out to build CPUs there.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| > Clearly, handouts are needed to force/incentivize these
| companies to build new fabs in the continental US. Otherwise
| they would have built them under their own gumption by now.
|
| I don't have a problem with government subsidy for
| jumpstarting industry, but it's absurd to give the money to
| Intel and AMD. They profited massively from offshoring their
| production. If we are going to spend money (and I agree we
| must), it should be invested in new competition so that Intel
| and AMD have to spend their largess on fixing their business
| model to compete.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| Fabs are only a small part of the supply chain. Any one of
| the thousands of critical components that go into maintenance
| or manufacturing put the whole thing at risk. Just dumping
| money on industry will not solve this. Having a dirt to
| package solution with everything domestically produced would
| and it doesn't need to be the latest process node, that is
| ridiculous and folks that advocate for that don't see the
| forest for the trees.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| So what is the most cost effective way to do so? China's
| pouring hundreds of billions in subsidies into fabs. South
| Korea is pouring hundreds of billions in subsidies.
|
| Tariffs alone would only allow for domestic balancing of those
| subsidies but lose you the global market. So again, what would
| you recommend instead.
| notlukesky wrote:
| The headline is wrong and deceiving. The semiconductor part is 52
| billion. Still a lot of graft and corruption for negligent
| management. They could have given them tax subsidies for capex
| investment for example instead of corporate handouts and payoffs
| to the Pelosi stock positions.
| shadowpho wrote:
| >Pelosi stock positions
|
| Pelosi isn't even the worst offender...
| ziddoap wrote:
| Putting aside the fact the HN title is completely different
| from the article title, I don't even see where $280B (in the HN
| title) comes from... There's a $250B mentioned in the article
| body, not a $280B.
| trhway wrote:
| Couple senators walking to lunch just had a small talk with a
| lobbyist, and the number got adjusted a bit.
| lettergram wrote:
| Lol I updated it? But there's a lot of articles with
| different values (interesting ...)
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-
| passes-280b-s...
|
| It's also interesting because it appears the title on the fox
| article changed so idk man
| StillBored wrote:
| Oh, joy more money to monopolistic companies.
|
| This is completely the wrong way to go about it (tax individuals
| and give the money to big corps). If you want a protectionist
| measure then implement a protectionist measure, like I don't
| know, tariffs.
|
| Yet another bill that follows at least the last 40 years of
| congress doing exactly the wrong thing. (and to be clear this
| isn't a rant against the Democrats).
| ParksNet wrote:
| Banning Proof of Work cryptocurrencies from being traded on
| licensed exchanges would achieve the same improvement of chip
| availability, as well as saving a huge amount of electricity, for
| $0.
|
| I guess sensible measures like this don't boost the share
| portfolios of politicians' spouses though.
| lkbm wrote:
| If the goal is to increase available supply, this might work.
| If the goal is to increase domestic production, I don't see how
| it would help.
| smoldesu wrote:
| "Sensible measures" like that don't get picked because
| ultimately all cryptocurrency is a zero-sum game, and getting
| rid of _all_ of them would save us a lot of time, manhours and
| wasted Internet conversations. But ideas like that are too
| sensible, so we give people the freedom to build whatever
| blockchain-garbage they want, because that 's their sovereign
| choice.
| cowtools wrote:
| banning cryptocurrency is easier said than done.
| thfuran wrote:
| No, it should be pretty easy to effectively end them. Just
| make it illegal to possess, buy, or sell them and suddenly
| all the corporate interest vanishes, the exchanges
| disappear, and all the crypto bros quiet down.
|
| Sure, some people would still use them but it'd be a
| rounding error compared to current adoption.
| cowtools wrote:
| >Just make it illegal to possess, buy, or sell them
|
| How do you enforce that? This would just drive everyone
| to KYC-less exchanges.
|
| >corporate interest vanishes
|
| I welcome the abolishment of corporate investment. This
| wave of corporate dollars have only served to distract,
| hijack, and pevert the true purpose of cryptocurrency.
|
| >the exchanges disappear
|
| The exchanges disappear? It seems like it would be pretty
| simple to set up an exchange as an onion service.
|
| So long as there is a easy route to a single
| cryptocurrency (be it PoS or otherwise) then there is an
| easy route to any other cryptocurrency via Crypto-to-
| Crypto pr P2P exchanges.
|
| >Sure, some people would still use them but it'd be a
| rounding error compared to current adoption.
|
| Rounding error? I think you'll find that we're actually
| the majority, despite what the mob of custodial money-
| chasers would have impressed upon you.
|
| Besides, those investors are bound to leave after they
| lose enough money on the shell game. It's inevitable.
| dangrossman wrote:
| Are the kind of chips being used to mine crypto the same kind
| that are keeping Ford from building trucks?
| _fizz_buzz_ wrote:
| They are not, but they are made in the same fabs.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Nope. Sour grapes reaction.
|
| US should use the demand to fund an effective semiconductor
| industry, not shrink the pie to account for its
| ineffectiveness.
| jscipione wrote:
| No wonder the economy has been destroyed, our "leaders" are
| spending us into oblivion.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| What's important here is that, like all other funding and
| stimulus bills, we know that less than 25% of it will go towards
| the actual thing.
| yababa_y wrote:
| Is now a good time to enter the industry? Who is doing the most
| innovative work?
| dmitrygr wrote:
| We knew it would pass cause Paul Pelosi bought a lot of stocks
| that would benefit. Dude has amazing outcomes trading stocks! We
| really should look into how he magically does that...
| theplumber wrote:
| What stocks? Intel & AMD dont seem to have moved much. Asking
| for a friend.
| camjohnson26 wrote:
| nvidia, which they sold today at a large loss.
| cbsks wrote:
| Has Nvidia announced they are building a fab? I haven't
| heard anything about it.
| Alupis wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Nvidia is a fabless design house (like
| AMD these days). Perhaps they are looking to change that.
| braingenious wrote:
| By "they" are you talking about Paul Pelosi?
|
| Can somebody explain how buying stock for $100(1) and
| selling at $165 causes a loss? I'm not being flippant,
| it'sa serious question.
|
| 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-stock-
| trades-pa...
| [deleted]
| faet wrote:
| >In a periodic transaction report, the senior Democrat
| disclosed that her husband, financier Paul Pelosi, sold
| 25,000 shares of Nvidia for about $4.1 million, ending up
| with a loss of $341,365.
|
| He bought options in July 2021. Basically, he said he'd
| buy 20k shares stock for X price regardless of the price
| in the next year. If the stock goes up he can sell the
| options without having to buy said stock (for a profit).
| He can also give up what he paid for the options and
| choose not to buy the shares and they'd expire worthless.
|
| As the stock was below what he bet it would be within a
| years time he decided to exercise his right to buy the
| 20k shares rather than lose his initial investment. He
| then sold, for a loss, but possibly a smaller one than if
| he just let them expire worthless.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| > Paul Pelosi purchased on June 17, 20,000 shares of
| Nvidia, a top semiconductor company, worth between $1
| million and $5 million, the Daily Caller reported, citing
| disclosure reports filed by the House speaker.
|
| Price on June 17 was $158, right now it's $178
| faet wrote:
| He bought the options back in summer of 2021. He decided
| to exercise them rather than let them expire worthless.
| His price was probably around 180/share.
|
| >In a periodic transaction report, the senior Democrat
| disclosed that her husband, financier Paul Pelosi, sold
| 25,000 shares of Nvidia for about $4.1 million, ending up
| with a loss of $341,365.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| That makes no difference, he could have sold the options
| for their intrinsic value on expiration (Friday June 17)
| he doesn't have to let them expire worthless. Instead he
| exercised them, committing $4m in capital prior to the
| bill passing and made $20 per share
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Pelosi bought a lot of Nvidia. It's unclear to me why they
| would benefit more than Intel.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Nvidia isn't getting shit from this bill. It's basically
| all going to intel with global foundries and other boutique
| fabs fighting for the scraps TSMC and Samsung leave behind.
| 01100011 wrote:
| There were some versions of the bill which had subsidies
| for chip designers as well. Not sure where that ended up.
| spraveenitpro wrote:
| pm90 wrote:
| WaPo article, which has more details about the bill and less
| details about what different "personalities" are saying:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/27/senate-ch....
|
| Overall, it looks great. We absolutely need to fund more
| semiconductor manufacturing. Losing that ability to China/Taiwan
| was just a terrible strategic mistake.
|
| The US hasn't lost this battle (over semiconductors) just yet.
| While current manufacturing is indeed dominated by East Asian
| countries, the vast majority of research still happens in US
| universities. This legislation allocates more funding for that
| research, fantastic.
|
| Theres some political gamesmanship over some silly stock options
| of congresspeople... my response is, who gives a single shit. The
| country needs this bill.
| [deleted]
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Manchin objected to reversing the cancellation of state and
| local tax deductions was my understanding. The piece is not
| clear on this.
| C-x_C-f wrote:
| This is always framed in terms of USA vs. China/Taiwan but what
| about Europe?
|
| AFAIK (I might know wrong) the consensus among macroeconomists
| is that "social market economies" like European ones are better
| suited (compared to "liberal market economies" like the USA) to
| investing in large scale manufacturing (see e.g. _Varieties of
| Capitalism_ [0]--though it is a bit controversial).
|
| Though I do wonder if chip manufacturing might just be too
| large for the EU to handle. Many people in Europe keeps saying
| that e.g. Ericsson could start a fab but I'd be curious to see
| if a bill like this would succeed in the EU.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Capitalism
| sct202 wrote:
| The EU passed their own Chips Act earlier this year. It was a
| point of contention since Intel's CEO has kept threatening to
| expand in Europe instead of the US if the US CHIPS act isn't
| passed.
| imhoguy wrote:
| Europe has ASML
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| > Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible
| strategic mistake.
|
| More like losing that ability to Taiwan's TSMC and South
| Korea's Samsung. China's SMIC is very far behind and has
| insignificant market share. Additionally, it's rather insulting
| to non-communists when you mishmash together China and Taiwan.
| bagacrap wrote:
| yes, although the subsidies supply to anyone who builds fabs
| in the US, including TSMC.
| WebbWeaver wrote:
| Can we not frame this as a battle or even a war? The US lost
| this capability a long time ago due to labor costs and natural
| resource consumption.
|
| From the labor cost and natural resource consumption a
| operation of this size can easily fail. We need more partners
| in this not just a handout.
|
| This action should have little to no input on any globalized
| leverage system.
|
| For this to be successful we need more partners
| onepointsixC wrote:
| >We need more partners in this not just a handout.
|
| This rings hollow when all of America's major partners are
| pumping massive subsidies to their domestic companies to win.
| Case and point SK is subsidizing their Fabs to the tune of
| $450 Bn.[1]
|
| [1]:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-
| unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q
| WebbWeaver wrote:
| I did not mean to strike a hollow note. I do not see such
| vision being applied outside of lets increase competition
| and spend locally.
|
| How much further will their their money go locally than
| ours? I want us to spend our money on the next generation
| but what economic window are we planning to occupy?
| mbostleman wrote:
| >>While current manufacturing is indeed dominated by East Asian
| countries, the vast majority of research still happens in US
| universities. This legislation allocates more funding for that
| research...>>
|
| I suspect there's more to it than this, but to the extent
| there's not, this doesn't make much sense. If the monetization
| of our research ends up in China's control, how does it help to
| fund more research. Apparently research is not the problem,
| manufacturing is.
| Nowado wrote:
| Location of manufacturing doesn't determine location of
| monetization.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> We absolutely need to fund more semiconductor manufacturing.
| Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible
| strategic mistake.
|
| The correct solution to that is tariffs. That would hurt us
| short term and should have been done long ago before it would
| have been a problem. This will add to the debt pile, so it will
| be with us for a long time.
| jen20 wrote:
| Who do you think pays the cost of tariffs?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The debt pile won't notice an extra $50 billion. To make a
| meaningful dent in it, spending on entitlements needs to get
| cut or taxes on the middle class need to dramatically
| increase. Neither of those things are going to happen.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| > and less details about what different "personalities" are
| saying
|
| What are these? Can you quote them?
|
| Pompeo could qualify I suppose? Though he was Secretary of
| State, which seems to be more than a "personality".
|
| The rest of the "details" are about the opinions of
| congressmen, not "personalities".
| crmd wrote:
| I'm only interested in the hard facts - the provisions in the
| bill, and not in horseshit PR statements from politicians.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we'll change to that from
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-passes-china-
| semicon.... Thanks!
| ren_engineer wrote:
| main problem is that we are rewarding companies for being
| disloyal and offshoring in the first place, now they win again
| with free money after raking in profits for decades. We should
| have some funding for smaller companies and R&D but also
| massive tariffs to force companies to bring manufacturing back
| parentheses wrote:
| That would slow an already injured economy.
| mechagodzilla wrote:
| There are basically only 3 close-to-cutting edge foundries
| left - Intel (American), Samsung (South Korean) and TSMC
| (Taiwanese), and TSMC is in the lead by quite a bit. We're
| getting extremely close to the end-game of moore's law, so
| the lifetime of a <7nm fab is likely to be long, and there
| are likely to only ever be a handful built because they are
| absurdly expensive (20+ Billion dollars), particularly if you
| can't keep them fully utilized. There are no 'smaller
| companies' with cutting edge fabs, and these aren't really
| American companies who outsourced and are no bringing them
| back - Intel has always had a large manufacturing presence in
| the US, and a large part of this is trying to get foreign
| companies to 'offshore' fabs to the US rather than continuing
| to concentrate in south korea / taiwan.
| mhneu wrote:
| This is true for large digital integrated circuits.
|
| There's also analog fabs, MEMS fabs, LED/photo/laser fabs.
|
| Places like Analog still have smaller fabs like that. Those
| fabs also seem likely to create technological progress into
| the future, and so the US should be funding those too.
| bejelentkezni wrote:
| Unless I'm mistaken, Micron and Texas Instruments have
| their own foundries as well.
| verall wrote:
| They do but they have explicitly given up the game of
| competing to be the first to the next fastest smallest
| digital logic (i.e. cutting edge nodes).
|
| Micron is still pushing DRAM and NAND tech but it's more
| for cost cutting since they are strictly commodities. The
| work it takes to be a pure-play fab like TSMC is pretty
| different - lots of working with fabless vendors to bring
| up their chips. Even Intel isn't any good at this (yet).
| It's a collaborative process.
| ravenstine wrote:
| I can't help but conclude that this is too little too late. R&D
| isn't the problem, which is what this bill seems more focused on.
| The ability to produce affordable chips domestically at
| affordable prices is the actual problem. North America's first
| priority isn't access to bleeding edge tech.
|
| > The bill also includes about $100 billion in authorizations
| over five years for programs such as expanding the National
| Science Foundation's work and establishing regional technology
| hubs to support start-ups in areas of the country that haven't
| traditionally drawn big funding for tech.
|
| I can only imagine how bureaucratic the process for accessing
| those funds will be. More likely, Medium Tech and even Big Tech
| will be the ones who feed from that trough because they're the
| only ones willing or able to cut through the red tape.
| dwiel wrote:
| I've received money from the NSF SBIR grant program and know
| another half a dozen others who have as well, and while there
| is certainly a process, it isn't too bad. All the people I know
| who have received them are at startups and small companies.
| That said, the NSF does more than just SBIR and I can't speak
| to any of that.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Even worse, it'll be some senator's niece and nephew who all of
| a sudden create a startup that "is just crushing it on the
| funding!"
| Someone1234 wrote:
| It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the
| universal free school meals program, because it was "too
| expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early
| payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to
| poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas
| prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too
| expensive," and we can afford _that_.
|
| Unfortunately 52 senators get to control the agenda, and they get
| to decide what is "affordable" and "too expensive."
| sytelus wrote:
| I would wager that a lot of these senators were available for
| purchase.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the
| universal free school meals program, because it was "too
| expensive" at $11B.
|
| Tragic, yes, but note that you can't compare the price tags
| directly on bills like this because the headline number tends
| to be a mix of tax breaks combined with spending authorization
| stretch out over many years.
|
| For example, $100 billion of the bill goes to domestic funding
| scientific research and fostering technology hubs. It's spread
| out over 5 years.
|
| I need to read the fine print of how this is all spread out,
| but it's incorrect to read the headline and assume that
| chipmakers are getting $280B of checks next year.
|
| For comparison, a bill authorizing the domestic lunch program
| over a similar 5 year term would likely be said to cost $65-70
| billion due to the 5-year term and the inevitable rising prices
| over that term. (Note I'm not making any moral judgments about
| this, just putting it in context. I also didn't verify any cost
| numbers from the parent comment, so don't take my example as a
| fact)
| guelo wrote:
| Actually thanks to the filibuster the agenda is controlled by
| 40 senators who are able to block anything they don't like.
| mattnewton wrote:
| 51 senators could change that rule any time though, it's just
| an accidental convention that hasn't had the best track
| record imo
| listless wrote:
| Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need
| it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to
| take one for the team and pull the plug on it, but I have
| little faith in our government ever doing the "principled"
| thing.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges
| (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell
| told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal
| judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In
| 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool
| appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been
| overturned.
|
| It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to
| the 2013 decision of Harry Reid to invoke the "nuclear
| option." It appears to have led to an era of
| unprecedented judicial activism.
|
| I doubt that getting a few extra progressive federal
| judicial nominees through was worth those supreme court
| seats. For now, it seems that enough of the Senate has
| learned their lesson about removing the filibuster.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| You're missing a piece of the puzzle actually - this goes
| back to George Walker Bush's presidency.
|
| Democrats were being extremely obstructionist in GWB's
| federal judges. Republicans were considering throwing out
| the filibuster in response. Moderates from both parties
| got together and convinced their respective sides to back
| down and let judges get through while maintaining the
| filibuster.
|
| In 2013, the tactic was pulled out by Republicans, and
| the Democrats used the - given the history of this tactic
| - unsurprising response after some time. Which, of
| course, led to 2017.
| Clubber wrote:
| >In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges
| (and not supreme court judges).
|
| Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted
| thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story
| though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass.
|
| Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013.
|
| https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-
| mcco...
|
| >It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented
| judicial activism.
|
| _Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that
| the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to
| consider broader societal implications of its decisions._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
|
| Based on recent decisions, we seem to be currently in an
| era of judicial restraint, not activism. Again, the
| SCOTUS doesn't create laws, congress does. That's the way
| the system was designed. I hope the Citizens United
| decision will get overturned.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint
| rat87 wrote:
| No it was a wise and practical decision. And the
| fillibuster has always been a stupid accident of the
| rules. It delayed civil rights bills by over a decade
|
| Everyone knew that McConnell was lying and would have
| overturned the fillibuster on judges the second a supreme
| court fillibuster started. And we would have gotten the
| same extremist supreme court that laughs at restaint and
| takes away fundamental rights
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Apparently he had the option to do it under Bush when
| Democrats were obstructing Bush's nominees to the federal
| courts, and he chose not to, so the evidence suggests
| that he would not have just removed the filibuster for
| the fun of it.
| Clubber wrote:
| >No it was a wise and practical decision.
|
| Well the Democrats just lost all chance of any new gun
| control and will probably have some gun control repealed.
| Not only that, they lost the power of Democrat controlled
| states to enact gun control at the state level and will
| have much of state gun control repealed. They completely
| lost the right to abortion at the federal/constitutional
| level as well. What did they gain for that immense cost?
| Some federal judges back in 2013. If you think that was
| wise and in no way short sighted, I really don't know
| what to say.
| anjbe wrote:
| The Democrats could have been smarter tactically. Trump's
| first SC nominee was Gorsuch, certainly conservative but
| a stellar jurist, and an uncharacteristically good pick
| from Trump (compare to the other names on his 2016
| shortlist). The Democrats had no cards besides
| obstruction, which would certainly lead McConnell to kill
| the filibuster. If they had made the reasonable guess
| that Trump's next pick would be easier to beat, saved
| their powder, and reluctantly let Gorsuch through,
| McConnell would have had to kill the filibuster for
| Kavanaugh. For Kavanaugh, a far more controversial pick
| than Gorsuch, he wouldn't have had the votes.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing
| right now except the concern of some democrats right?
| They could assign 8 more, then next time there is a swap
| the gop would add 16 etc. You have to go exponential by
| nature of the vote to account for deaths. So in as little
| as 116 years the whole population might be on the bench!
| I don't like that the macro level policy of our nation is
| getting decided based on rules of order and who is
| willing to change them. I'm not a historian, but it seems
| like the filibuster was already a hack around intended
| operation of the legislature. Time limiting it would
| still serve the purpose of preventing the minority from
| getting shut down with no chance to speak, but also
| prevent its abuse to require 60 votes on absolutely
| everything.
| Clubber wrote:
| >But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing
| right now except the concern of some democrats right?
|
| Right. FDR threatened this during his administration and
| bullied the SCOTUS into deciding his way. He was quite
| Machiavellian. For me, doing something like this would
| neuter one of the tiers of the check and balance system.
|
| https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-
| packin...
|
| >I'm not a historian, but it seems like the filibuster
| was already a hack around intended operation of the
| legislature.
|
| Yes, but it's procedure that the senate had agreed on for
| quite some time. There's nothing in the constitution that
| says how many votes are needed to pass, the senate
| decides that, and for most things, it's 60.
|
| >require 60 votes on absolutely everything.
|
| Depends on how you look at it. Do you want a political
| party to make laws of the land with only 25+ states
| supporting it? It sounds good when it's something you
| support, but doesn't sound great when it isn't. The idea
| of the 60 vote rule is the federal government can't enact
| legislation that a supermajority of the country isn't in
| favor of. Regardless of your party affiliation, you can
| imagine what horrible legislation would be passed if the
| opposing party was allowed to pass anything with just
| 50+1 votes in the senate.
| rat87 wrote:
| It would be absolutely insane to link overturning Roe to
| Reid's decision. Everyone already knew McConnell would
| have gotten rid of it anyway the second a supreme court
| justice was fillibustered. Look at his actions in the
| Garland and Barrett nominations, compared to that getting
| rid of the fillibuster for judges is peanuts.
|
| The only mistake Reid made was not to do away with the
| fillibuster fully
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| If you threaten to do something and don't follow through
| on your threats, they have no more meaning.
|
| McConnell and his party apparently had a similar
| situation 10 years before and did not throw out the
| filibuster.
| Pulcinella wrote:
| The filibuster isn't even dead. Senators can still get up
| there and talk for as long as they want (aka what the
| filibustering actually is). The current filibuster rule
| is basically a senator just saying "yeah I want to
| filibuster this" and for some reason everyone just goes
| along with it.
| staticman2 wrote:
| I assume they won't change it because they are afraid of
| what the other side will do when they are in power.
| throwaway_4ever wrote:
| History won't look fondly on us for the absolute
| laughingstock of a policy it is at the highest levels of
| power. "Look even back in 2025, people were a bunch of
| monkeys with nuclear weapons. Look how they would decide on
| policy."
| ryathal wrote:
| They only killed universal free lunch, not the means tested
| part. Poorer kids are still getting free lunches and now the
| richer families have to pay for school lunches. They ended
| welfare for the wealthy.
| boomchinolo78 wrote:
| Not that anyone with wealth and some sense was letting their
| kids eat that goop.
| htuahisusi wrote:
| I went to a public elementary school in New York state in the
| early 2000s, and only kids who needed free or reduced school
| lunch prices got it. The rest of us paid $1.75.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| I had the same experience in semi-rural Iowa, and I believe
| there was also a small morning program for kids who didn't
| get breakfast at home.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| > But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too
| expensive," and we can afford that.
|
| The US cannot afford losing its technological edge. It is an
| issue of national security. CHIPS is quite a modest bill
| compared to foreign competitors such as the South Korean $450Bn
| bill[1]. And that's not even going into how much subsidies
| China is pumping into their fabs.
|
| [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-
| unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q
| yieldcrv wrote:
| You just need an external enemy. in this case China.
|
| You can bridge consensus on all sides when there is a boogeyman
| that isn't another American.
| carabiner wrote:
| In the US, there is basically one party - the business party.
| It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which
| are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same
| policies.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > because it was "too expensive" at $11B
|
| Schools meals are pure cost, they don't bring anything back.
| It's not like we have mass starvation going on at the moment
| either.
|
| Also, why "free meals" when parents can afford to pay for it?
| If you have parents who are under a certain threshold of
| revenues, give their kids free meals, but let's not do a one-
| size fits all policy, this is not 1950 anymore.
| jedberg wrote:
| Keep in mind that this isn't just a handout to business, but
| also a national security issue. Having 90% of our chips made in
| Taiwan means we have to spend a bunch of resources protecting
| Taiwan.
|
| The long term plan here is to bring this manufacturing back
| into the US so that we don't have to protect Taiwan anymore.
|
| (Please note I'm not stating my opinion on if this is good or
| bad, simply stating the end game they are going for).
| ipsin wrote:
| If this were true, there would be a reduction in US military
| spending, but I'm... _very_ much not buying that.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| It's not about military might. Look at the pain the west is
| feeling with divestment from Russia, and then imagine doing
| that with China.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| Your points are very good, I would have said the same thing.
|
| The cynic in me thinks it is not just the Senate. How much
| money has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's family invested in US
| chip makers in the last few months? Quite a lot of money...
|
| I remember when the US government stopped the $50 million/year
| breakfast for poor kids program - too much money. That is when
| we were attacking Iraq, and spending $50M every 20 minutes of
| so in order to pump money into political donors like the
| 'defense' industry and energy industries.
|
| Off topic, but I laugh when I hear democrats or republicans
| talk like their political party cares for them. Absurd. The DNC
| and RNC are themselves profit driven entities.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the
| universal free school meals program, because it was "too
| expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early
| payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to
| poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas
| prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too
| expensive," and we can afford that.
|
| That's misleading framing, that's derailing discussion about
| this.
|
| More accurately: there's more consensus around national
| security spending than social spending. The government has
| decided it would rather have the economy depend on large
| _American_ companies for these critical components than on
| large _Chinese_ companies.
|
| And that might have follow-on effects that mean more jobs for
| Americans so fewer kids are poor and need subsidized school
| lunches.
|
| I suppose if you're unhappy with that write your senators, and
| ask them to pass laws requiring purchases from the lowest-cost
| global supplier (e.g. not American), and use the money saved
| for welfare subsidies.
| cft wrote:
| seandoe wrote:
| It was in direct response to the comment. What are you
| talking about?
| memonkey wrote:
| Ah, yes, the ol' write your congresspeople. Part of the
| problem is that for years they are running on these platforms
| saying they will help the people but end up not doing any of
| the things they say they are going to do.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Democracy doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. You
| are not the only constituent with a voice.
| runarberg wrote:
| Then it should be pretty easy to undermine your
| democracy. Just increase the number of people per
| representative such that each representative has plenty
| of constituents that align with whomever pays most into
| your campaign.
|
| And alas, USA is one of the least represented democracies
| in the world at 596,060 constituents per legislator.
| Compared to China's 454,930, Brazil's 353,783, South
| Africa's 98,726 or France's 71,631 constituent per
| legislator.
| diordiderot wrote:
| Median earners and top 1% disagree on 11% of legislation.
|
| Of that 11%, there is a 1% chance the resulting vote
| aligns with the preferences of the median earner
| hanniabu wrote:
| In today's democracy you only get what you want if what
| you want is coincidentally the same as what their donors
| want.
| jobgh wrote:
| What are some examples of legislation that has broad
| support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and
| is ignored by our representatives?
| lu5t wrote:
| Federal legalization of cannabis
| pessimizer wrote:
| I hate to refer you to a search engine, look for any
| major issue where the population differs in opinion to
| the donor class. An obvious place to start is with
| healthcare, where even slight majorities of Republicans
| wanted it socialized (at least before 2016) but picking
| out issues is a waste of time. The vast majority of the
| public has _no_ influence on public policy. The elite
| consensus becomes policy 100% of the time. If there isn
| 't an elite consensus (on around 11% of studied issues),
| the median public preference is chosen 1% of the time;
| instead one of the elite factions not aligned with public
| opinion usually carries the day.
|
| https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-
| poli...
|
| People's opinions are highly correlated with elite
| opinions, of course (because elites control what they
| hear, read, and see, and whether they'll progress in
| their careers or be employed at all), but when there's a
| divergence, public opinion is followed 0% of the time.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-
| bill/2187
|
| Would have allowed for professionals in a given field to
| be accredited to make investments related to their
| profession. Or to put it another way, you would no longer
| need to already be rich to use the tools that the rich
| use to get richer.
|
| The bill was passed unanimously in the house, and then
| quietly killed in the senate.
|
| 5 years later, we got a neutered version. Now you can
| make investments if you get a series 7 license, etc. But
| from what I understand you can't just take the test and
| get the license, you need to be sponsored by an
| institution, but that misses the point of the original
| bill that represented the actual will of the people.
| Spivak wrote:
| Or the tl;dr, there's always money available for things that
| directly make money and when it comes to government repayment
| is in the form of jobs and GDP growth.
|
| "But free school lunches also provide a positive ROI!" I
| agree with you, now convince your representative of it.
| stirfish wrote:
| Maybe we need a different spin on it: instead of a positive
| ROI, free school lunches provide a strong security posture
| by making stronger and smarter future-soldiers?
| InvisibleCities wrote:
| This has nothing do with people's civic engagement levels,
| and everything to do with money. The semiconductor industry
| gets a massive subsidy because they spend tens of millions of
| dollars on lobbying - impoverished schoolchildren get left to
| starve because they don't.
| jobgh wrote:
| You honestly think tens of millions in lobbying efforts
| cause a tens of billions return on investment? Why is it so
| insanely cheap?
|
| Maybe our elected representatives simply agree that
| national security is a priority just like the people who
| voted them into office?
| jacobreg wrote:
| The point isn't that its one or the other, the point is that
| spending on social programs is much cheaper than national
| security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in
| more peoples lives. The point is that either-or is a false
| dichotomy, we can have good social safety nets and still have
| robust national security. The reason we don't have both isn't
| that we can't afford both, its that much of this country
| views poverty as a moral failing and intentionally neglects
| the poor because "they deserve it".
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| > More accurately: there's more consensus around national
| security spending than social spending.
|
| Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and
| Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and
| policy?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I mean, these people are voted in.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| True, the natsec Republican your polity elected did have
| to overcome a natsec Democrat or visa-versa.
|
| I encourage you to attend some meetings of your local
| party Republican or Democrat (whichever is dominant) and
| see how the people you get to elect are chosen. What
| you'll find is the folks controlling that process are
| deeply under the influence of a status quo and that most
| unorthodoxy there is very quickly marginalized.
| notyourwork wrote:
| What answer do you expect to get to your argumentative
| question?
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| I'm open to debate. But I think the OP is erroneous in
| presuming popular will is expressed in American National
| Security and Foreign policy and therefore using that to
| lend credence to this turn of events.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm not them, but it's an invitation for a different
| answer than the one that seems obviously true. I don't
| think that it's constructive or less "argumentative" to
| work to come up with a framing for a question that makes
| it seem less one sided; making the answer less obvious is
| the job of people who have a different opinion.
| goatlover wrote:
| And what do the voters think?
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| That's a good question. Seems like a good place to start
| though.
| djur wrote:
| A substantial number of those 52 senators oppose free school
| meals not because they're "too expensive" but because the
| policy itself (the government giving free food to children) is
| something they object to on ideological grounds. A much smaller
| subset of that group also oppose the government giving free
| stuff to industry, but in either case the cost is not what
| they're concerned about.
| runarberg wrote:
| I've stopped believing in the ideology of the average
| legislator. There are some high profile congresspeople or
| senators who are deeply ideological, and act according to
| their ideology, but I feel like that is the exception rather
| then the rule (hence the high profile).
|
| Rather then ideology most legislators rule by the most
| persuasive lobbying, this includes people and PACs that pay
| for their very very expensive campaign funds. And in this
| case semiconductor monopolies simply has a better performing
| lobbying campaign then social advocacy groups, so the former
| gets passed but not the latter.
|
| Note. I don't believe this listing of democracy is unique to
| the USA. You see it in Europe as well. However USA is
| especially prone to this because of lax lobbying laws, lax
| campaign financing laws while also being one of the least
| represented democracy in the world (even less represented
| then non-democracies like China).
| mathattack wrote:
| I'm all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really
| necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids
| independent of financial status?
| https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-
| uni...
| gene91 wrote:
| "Free lunch" isn't free if one pays enough tax to cover its
| cost and other free things that they receive. Given there's
| already progressive taxes, what's the benefit of having
| income threshold for free lunch programs (or similar
| assistance programs)?
|
| Universal "free lunch" is cheaper to manage, avoids
| filtering out children who needs it (but is filtered out
| due to administrative error or rigid rules), prevents
| children's embarrassment, etc.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| I'm all for free public education for poor kids. Is it
| really necessary to give free public education to all Palo
| Alto kids independent of financial status?
|
| Snark aside, the answer is: it's much simpler to manage a
| program that offers the same thing to everyone regardless
| of income than it is to manage a program that has to work
| out who deserves it. And offering it to all avoids stigma.
| jancsika wrote:
| I keep asking the same thing about why it's necessary for
| malloc to give so much memory to Electron, but they are way
| less friendly on the glibc mailing list to that argument
| for some reason.
| fipar wrote:
| Most likely only those who need it will take it, and making
| it available to everyone makes it simpler to manage.
|
| I went to a public school in Uruguay and we had a daily
| free meal (not really lunch, it was more of a snack, school
| ran 13 to 17 for me) and I never went to get mine, but I
| always had a couple of classmates who didn't get a square
| lunch at home and they went to get that.
| jprd wrote:
| Yes!
|
| Why would a human being feel that feeding children is NOT
| their responsibility?
|
| Clearly you have never had to be the "free lunch kid", or
| idealize your childhood independent of the cruelty of
| "different". You are extremely privileged.
|
| The idea that we'd limit what kids we fund for meals,
| education, etc. is just gross and bifurcates any moralistic
| or democratic ideals.
|
| The US has a serious problem with "bootstraps" and whatnot.
| Which really means, survival of the sh1tt1est.
|
| If you feel that investing in the future of your community
| is BS, stop living in a community.
|
| You don't have kids? Cool!
|
| Meanwhile, you don't feel like you need to contribute to
| the future you wish you had secured for yourself without
| struggle? F*ck you. Your community is an investment in the
| continued existence of a people with similar DNA as
| yourself.
|
| It is beyond my understanding to fathom how in 2022 we're
| all still trying to deal with false scarcity as some sort
| of reality.
|
| There is MORE than enough for everyone, but we don't really
| care about that beyond a family or clan directive. That's a
| shame for any culture.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| > Why would a human being feel that feeding children is
| NOT their responsibility?
|
| Perhaps we should ask the parents who are encouraged to
| not feed their own children because of the existence of
| these programs.
| tacotacotaco wrote:
| I was at the house of the owner of a company I worked
| for. I mentioned my amusement at seeing a school bus in
| this very rural area on the way to his house. He
| complained that he didn't have kids so he didn't see why
| he should have to pay for that. I replied that, as my
| employer, he was benefiting from my public school
| education. That ended that conversation.
| jpdaigle wrote:
| The Palo Alto school meals are by no means healthy. At
| least at my kindergartner's school last year, nothing's
| really prepared onsite, it's mostly microwave-in-a-bag fast
| food (factory made burritos, pizza, 2-ingredient
| sandwiches). Often this would come with a side of fruit
| (canned and sweetened) and crackers.
|
| My kid would always bring a lunch from home but often
| return with it uneaten, because when you pit healthy home
| cooked food against microwaved pizza and crackers, for a
| six year old, it's no contest.
|
| I'm still supportive of the program - if there are starving
| kids in our community, of course having free options is
| great, I just wish they'd managed to have a cook onsite so
| it wouldn't be so factory-made and artificial.
| kergonath wrote:
| It is not necessarily a problem with progressive income
| taxes: the wealthier still pay more.
|
| Also, giving every kid the same treatment is a good idea in
| general as it reinforces the idea that they should be
| treated equally.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>Also, giving every kid the same treatment is a good
| idea in general as it reinforces the idea that they
| should be treated equally.
|
| Actually what it does is teach kids they should depend on
| the government for handouts - even if there families can
| easily afford to pay their own way. Not a message I would
| choose to send.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Kids depend on adults. Those adults are primarily their
| parents, but it need not be.
| catawbasam wrote:
| My experience is that the rich kids mostly bring food,
| because the cafeteria food is terrible.
| Clubber wrote:
| The idea behind it is not to embarrass the poor kids who
| need the free lunch by making lunch just free.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| And then the government gets to decide what the lunches
| are for everyone.
| Clubber wrote:
| >And then the government gets to decide what the lunches
| are for everyone.
|
| Well, no. You always have the option to bring your lunch
| if you can afford it. So the government gets to decide
| what the lunches are for poor people who don't have
| another option. Take that for what it is, but shit lunch
| is better than no lunch, ask any hungry person.
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Doing it for everyone makes management simpler. I suspect
| it leads to better academic performance, too.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Also, it doesn't stigmatize the kids that do receive the
| free meals.
| danenania wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| It's not about the kid in Palo Alto who doesn't need it,
| but gets it anyway.
|
| It's about the kid who lives in poverty and _should_ get
| it, but doesn 't, because their family didn't properly
| submit forms A65, B39, and F12 proving their annual
| income meets the ever-changing requirements.
|
| Giving a benefit to everyone is by far the simplest and
| most effective way to be sure no one falls through the
| bureaucratic cracks (though it's probably more accurate
| to call them gaping chasms than 'cracks').
| diordiderot wrote:
| earn more > you pay more tax > kids 'free meal' isn't free
| klodolph wrote:
| There's an added cost if you want to sort through which
| kids qualify and which kids don't. Trying to filter kids
| out also reduces the program's reach for kids which do
| qualify for various reasons.
| thereare5lights wrote:
| Necessary is a bad way to evaluate because it often
| devolves into whether or not it is "absolutely necessary".
| Of course the answer is often times no.
|
| Rather than embrace minimalism, the better question is if
| it is more efficient to run the program that way and often
| times, universal programs are indeed more efficient.
| beachtaxidriver wrote:
| When middle class people use a government service, the
| quality goes up.
| feet wrote:
| It's wild that some people are opposed to helping poor people
| but throw boatloads of cash at rich monopolistic
| corporations. What a shitty ideology
| kortilla wrote:
| It's almost as if that's not the ideology at all!
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Yep.
|
| In the US, a lot of the time support for one program or
| another is given not on the basis of ideology, but rather
| on the basis of whether or not the beneficiaries of a
| program provided commensurate, um, "campaign
| contributions".
|
| Pretty sure impoverished school kids contribute pretty
| much zero to political campaigns.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Increasingly campaigns are funded almost entirely by
| small dollar donations raised through social media. This
| is about to make US politics really weird, and I'm not
| sure what to think of it.
|
| Also basically all legislation that passes which is very
| little, is written by the staffers of House and Senate
| leadership without going through committee. It's then
| handed to members to rubber stamp on the floor if the
| votes are already secured. Buying some random senator or
| rep is basically worthless these days unless they hold
| swing vote and can't be primaried for some reason.
| feet wrote:
| There's a ton of legislation written by think tanks like
| ALECS
|
| It would be nice if _all_ campaigns were funded by small
| donations. We should get large corporate donors out of
| politics
| feet wrote:
| So the ideology is pure greed, lust for power and money.
| Awesome
| jorblumesea wrote:
| It's not that crazy if you think about the fact that most
| senators never went to public schools, are from wealthy
| families, went ivy league, mostly hang around other wealthy
| people.
|
| Completely out of touch is probably the right mental
| framework.
| pram wrote:
| Corporations need to eat too!
| chmod600 wrote:
| Or, perhaps feel that state governments are better suited to
| those kinds of assistance programs.
| mhneu wrote:
| Unlikely, because many states then cut those assistance
| programs when given the opportunity. It's more likely that
| the 'state' argument is a way to achieve their ideological
| ends (cutting the program.)
|
| That said, this bill is a very positive development.
| Investing in local manufacturing and R&D is a great idea,
| and it will help the economy. Hopefully it will efficient
| and money will not be captured by rent-seekers or cronyism.
| Grim-444 wrote:
| Isn't that how it's supposed to work? The state is
| supposed to pass laws that represent the will of its
| constituents. If the majority of the people living in the
| state are opposed to such a program, then they shouldn't
| have such a program. The scope of the federal government
| is supposed to be for coordinating cross-state stuff that
| states alone can't decide for themselves.
| jonathanlb wrote:
| > The state is supposed to pass laws that represent the
| will of its constituents. If the majority of the people
| living in the state are opposed to such a program, then
| they shouldn't have such a program.
|
| You're ignoring that gerrymandering districts allow
| politicians to enact policies that don't reflect the will
| of the people.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > gerrymandering districts
|
| But that would be even worse at a federal level because
| there are so many more districts to gerrymander, wouldn't
| it?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| The federal government is a lot less likely to be one-
| party than a state. We haven't had a same-party trifecta
| for over a decade.
|
| Also, states draw the federal district lines, so
| generally the Dems and Repubs both do it and the end
| result is less lopsided.
| Retric wrote:
| If we wanted local control then local towns/cities and
| counties would have the most power in our system. Instead
| things are reversed so smaller units of government have
| progressively less power.
|
| This makes sense because we want people to freely move
| around the country without encountering wildly different
| systems in every small town.
| munk-a wrote:
| Also, when education funding happens on the county level
| we end up having wildly different standards of education
| depending on if your county is where rich people live or
| not - everyone wants to demand the best for their own
| children, but I think it's pretty settled that children,
| who don't have freedom of movement and aren't viewed as
| fully rationale agents, should have access to good
| education regardless of who their parents are and where
| they choose to live.
|
| Differing county education funding was a real and evident
| problem when I was growing up in Massachuesettes in the
| 90s - some areas (like Wellesley) had extremely well
| funded schools due to local taxes while other areas had
| far too many students for the funds they collected. This,
| in part, lead to a whole big thing involving student
| busing[1] which was honestly pretty awful for the
| students that rode several hours to attend suburban
| schools - even if they did end up in a better funded
| district it was a cheap patch that avoided the real
| issue.
|
| 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/04/
| boston...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| County level would be an improvement in some places,
| because school districts can actually be balkanized even
| smaller than that.
| chmod600 wrote:
| The name of our country is the United _States_. The state
| was intended as the primary unit of general government.
|
| Lots of land is outside of cities, and that can't be left
| ungoverned. And many counties have very few people, which
| make a lot of government functions impractical or
| insufficient.
|
| So states are still a reasonable unit after 250 years.
| Retric wrote:
| Over 4 million Americans aren't living in States. United
| States is a name, but it consists of more than just
| States.
| chmod600 wrote:
| Good point.
|
| Not enough to claim that the federal government must take
| responsibility for all assistance programs, however.
| munk-a wrote:
| Alternatively the name of our country (well my former
| country but whatever) is the United States because
| existing colonial governments held significant power and
| weren't willing to unite if it meant they could be
| unseated from their cushy political appointments.
|
| I don't think going by names is the best approach when
| we've got legal documents and statements to go by which
| are far less vague.
| maxerickson wrote:
| How big of a majority needs to decide that the federal
| government should be what they want and not what you
| think it is supposed to be before it can change?
| Clent wrote:
| States Government don't have the taxing power of the
| Federal Government.
|
| The only way to solve this equation is to drop Federal
| Government taxing power to as close to zero as possible
| and zero may not be enough as states power is likely to
| drop.
|
| If economics was a harder science, it would be about
| mathematically proofs of these possibilities.
| yuliyp wrote:
| > States Government don't have the taxing power of the
| Federal Government.
|
| Sure they do (except stuff like tariffs). They just face
| competition from other states on how much they tax their
| citizens.
| lvspiff wrote:
| Thats the abortion ruling in a nutshell - return it to
| the states and let the voters decide. However at the same
| time we have rulings saying gun rights are a federal
| issue and a state cannot regulate how permits are given
| out the way they want (although there are many nuances
| there), essentially making it a constitutional issue due
| to the 2nd amendment.
|
| So in other words if it's the will of the country we need
| to pass an amendment, and if not then move to a state
| where your ideals are embraced. I know I've heard this
| story somewhere before...i think back in 1860's...
| cal5k wrote:
| > essentially making it a constitutional issue due to the
| 2nd amendment.
|
| Yes, because that's how the American constitution works.
| If you think something else should have similar
| protections - or if you don't like the second amendment
| and think it should be repealed - lobby for a new
| amendment.
|
| Until then, it's the highest law in the land and is on
| equal footing with any constitutional protection,
| regardless of your personal policy preferences.
| rurp wrote:
| Oh to live in such a world... Unfortunately the Supreme
| Court is not a compiler that returns rulings from some
| objective process. The justices have massive leeway to
| decide how to interpret every part of the constitution,
| and they do so to align their rulings with their own
| personal and political goals. If we swapped this court
| with 9 other judges they would return very different
| rulings on the exact same cases.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| golemiprague wrote:
| pastor_bob wrote:
| For more clarification:
|
| The US spends $19 billion a year on free lunches for low income
| American children.
|
| Universal free lunch for all would cost $30 billion a year.
| theptip wrote:
| This is a shallow analysis. You can't just look at the price
| tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the
| ROI).
|
| A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is
| really cheap.
|
| I'm not making any particular claims about the free school
| meals program, just noting that this argument doesn't hold
| water as it stands.
|
| Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical
| significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is
| willing to spend big here.
| thereare5lights wrote:
| > Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical
| significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government
| is willing to spend big here.
|
| You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't
| on the value of feeding children that would go hungry
| otherwise.
|
| This is why saying
|
| > This is a shallow analysis.
|
| rings hollow.
|
| The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and
| ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a
| matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not
| because the poor are viewed as expendable.
| listenman wrote:
| The next generation of Americans will grow up hungry if we
| cede the security of the very item at the heart of all of
| our infrastructure. The next generation won't have any
| equivalent electronic equipment from the post-WWII era,
| whilst living in a world that is based exclusively on
| semiconductors (consider the usage of semiconductors in
| medical equipment as well). This is certain death, and this
| kind of short-sighted belly aching is a problematic
| position to take when we're staring down the prospect of
| losing the entirety of our ability to sustain the
| infrastructure needed to keep anyone alive in the first
| place.
| californical wrote:
| Poor children are still eligible? Nobody is going hungry
| toolz wrote:
| so many "think of the children" arguments without even
| addressing the fact that literally no one starves in the
| U.S. for lack of food availability (mental issues can and
| do lead to starvation though, unfortunately).
|
| I for one don't think the federal government should have
| anything to do with our school systems. That is not their
| expertise, not their domain and they don't need any
| temptations or distractions to use their funding or
| powers on schools. I want the federal government focused
| on federal issues.
|
| It seems quite reasonable that schools should serve the
| local community and be largely funded and ran by locals.
| evo_9 wrote:
| It is always about money. I guarantee you both sides of the
| aisle stand to make a shit ton of money otherwise they would
| not have all gotten together and push this through. It's just
| one big boys club and the meme going around that government is
| just another form of organize crime seems more and more true
| every day.
| twawaaay wrote:
| This is flawed logic.
|
| Security is what allows everything else to exist. You can't
| just say "Let's liquidate military and spend all that money on
| children". This would last only shortly until China or somebody
| else invades US.
|
| Now, I am not saying to not pay for meals. Investing directly
| in children is probably one of the better ways to improve
| future outlook of a country.
|
| I am just saying your logic is flawed and there is no easy way
| to compare the two.
| Splendor wrote:
| The military is full of young people who grew up in poverty.
| It might be good for national security if more of them didn't
| have nutritional deficiencies. They aren't separate issues.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| The _environment_ is what allows everything else to exist. By
| your logic, that should be the #1 spending priority. And
| that's only the lowest hanging of the rotten fruit of this
| argument.
| twawaaay wrote:
| Security is at the top of all needs.
|
| A country that can't defend itself will be pray to
| everybody else and will not be able to do anything about
| environment or education.
|
| You can bitch and moan all you want. Go visit Ukraine and
| see what happens when you live in a country that can't
| defend itself. Everything else is being put to side. Do you
| think they are discussing how much they should be spending
| to help with the effort to control global warming?
| spicymaki wrote:
| It is despicable that we don't do enough for the poor, but the
| government can do two things at once. It does not need to be
| either or.
|
| For the US this is a chip manufacturing is a key strategic
| asset. South Korea, China, and Taiwan governments are
| essentially funding their chip manufacturing. It is not a fair
| playing field. The fact that they are only spending $52B on
| grants and incentives out of $280B is actually too little.
| South Korea is spending $450B for local chip manufacturing over
| 10 years and that started last year.
| sct202 wrote:
| While South Korea is throwing out giant numbers, the number
| of South Korean and Taiwanese companies who are announcing
| plants contingent on the CHIPS Act recently makes it seem
| like what the US is doing is very favorable (these companies
| have announced plans of SK Group $22b, Samsung $200b,
| Globalwafers $5b).
| laxatives wrote:
| So who is the primary benefactor of this Pork? Seems like this
| hasn't already been done is because it isn't profitable or
| scaleable like software is. It's not like there is a shortage of
| investors in technology.
| [deleted]
| mberning wrote:
| More pork for their cronies and donor class buddies. Much like
| the pandemic aid such as the PPP I'm sure fractions of a dollar
| actually make it into anything of use.
| gdsdfe wrote:
| Let see how fast they're going to waste a quarter of a trillion
| dollars
| alexpotato wrote:
| Didn't get a ton of points when it was last posted but this
| "Taiwan is now Arrakis" post seems even more timely now:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24576242
| abrichr wrote:
| Unpaywalled: https://archive.ph/DISce
| jmyeet wrote:
| Anyone remember how the capital-owning class and their pet
| politicans were blaming inflation on Covid stimulus checks (eg
| [1])?
|
| I want you to remember that when you see bills like this one.
|
| Why? Because most of the Covid relief didn't go to individuals.
| It went to companies. In many cases, the stimulus was to avoid
| layoffs. Companies laid people off anyway (eg [2]) and used the
| money for share buybacks. Some governments used the money to
| build prisons (eg [3]). Biden, before testing positive for Covid,
| was intending to announce the use of Covid money for _increased
| police funding_ [4].
|
| My point is that very little of that Covid stimulus made it to
| consumers but it had a dramatic impact on temporarily eliminating
| or reducing poverty [5].
|
| Yet giving _people_ money is often viewed as a moral hazard.
|
| Yet we're so willing to give away hundreds of billions to
| companies while not expecting them to take any sort of haircut on
| record profits in an era of massive inflation.
|
| Also, let's not forget what happened to Wisconsin and Foxconn
| [6].
|
| [1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-bezos-joe-biden-
| inflation-...
|
| [2]: https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-
| opportunity/c...
|
| [3]: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/07/01/alabama-
| diverts-40...
|
| [4]: https://apnews.com/article/biden-police-pennsylvania-
| wilkes-...
|
| [5]: https://www.vox.com/22600143/poverty-us-covid-19-pandemic-
| st...
|
| [6]: https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-
| sun/...
| maskil wrote:
| For some reason, I have a feeling that handouts would only make
| these giant corps only more bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient
| beambot wrote:
| > In a 64-33 vote, the Senate passed the $280 billion "Chips and
| Science Act," the final iteration of a bill that was years in the
| making. About $52 billion would go to microchip manufacturers to
| incentivize construction of domestic semiconductor fabrication
| plants
|
| And the remaining $228B...?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Socialism for the rich
| Jerry2 wrote:
| This is the biggest theft of taxpayer money since the inception
| of the US!
| dang wrote:
| Related. I'm sure there have been others?
|
| _H. R. 4346: The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32250207 - July 2022 (77
| comments)
|
| _House Bill Funds CHIPS Act, Stresses R &D_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31560844 - May 2022 (111
| comments)
| asg101 wrote:
| Let the congressional insider trading begin!
| treeman79 wrote:
| Already done. Speaker of houses husband bought 5 million
| dollars of Nvidia stock right before this bill.
|
| https://nypost.com/2022/07/23/nancy-and-paul-pelosi-are-trad...
| fleddr wrote:
| Fairly cynical comments on this thread, many trying to uphold
| American values like "free market", "protectionism is bad", "what
| about the consumer", "not from my tax money".
|
| I find those remarks pretty naive. Every major power block
| heavily subsidizes strategic industries, now and forever. It's in
| no way new or remarkable, nor does it violate some principle.
| Most of the above concepts are pure fiction.
|
| Semiconductors are not a "free market" in any ordinary sense. It
| costs tens of billions to enter the market and you'll buy an ASML
| machine, speaking of dependencies.
|
| It's pretty obvious that this is in response to geopolitical
| instability. Being geo locked and this not really being a free
| market at all justify the "unusual" decision.
|
| As is stands, food, energy, and yes...also semiconductors are
| foundational to a modern digital society. And they're
| interconnected, without semiconductors you won't have food
| either.
|
| If you want to know what happens when semiconductors dry up,
| watch modern Russia. Arguably it's hard to do because of all the
| propaganda, but pretty much every domestic industry is falling
| apart, and therefore society falls apart.
|
| Bottom line, don't be naive. Sure it sucks to give rich companies
| even more money but if that's what it takes, so be it. Also, rich
| is just one side of the coin, the other is that they spear-headed
| the information revolution.
| tootie wrote:
| Here's my cynical take: This bill will subsidize a lot of jobs
| when we already have zero slack in our labor market. I think
| it's an excellent target for spending and would have a positive
| multiplier in normal times but in 2022 this seems likely to
| just goose inflation another inch.
|
| Unless we actually start seeing cyclical job losses finally hit
| right when this money starts being spent. Which is entirely
| possible.
| andrekandre wrote:
| any way to stop inflation without a needing job losses?
| fleddr wrote:
| Still missing the point. You concerns mean absolutely nothing
| when the essentials in your society break down.
| jeffwask wrote:
| Yey for Corporate Welfare
| butterfly771 wrote:
| As a Chinese, I would like to say that as far as I know, China is
| investing heavily in semiconductors, but without high-end
| production equipment, it is difficult to produce high-precision
| chips
| upupandup wrote:
| There's a good reason these litography machines and other CNC
| equipment have GPS sensitive tracking. Even a slight deviation
| renders the equipment non-operable and dials home immediately
| if they lose connectivity.
| Bloating wrote:
| What would happen is congress subsidized last mile internet
| access?
| madengr wrote:
| balozi wrote:
| Just more public money to develop private intellectual property.
| In a few years we'll be paying more for chips and IP that was
| developed using tax payer coin.
| ab_testing wrote:
| Let the stock buybacks begin!!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-27 23:01 UTC)