[HN Gopher] U.S. chip revival plan chooses sites
___________________________________________________________________
U.S. chip revival plan chooses sites
Author : pseudolus
Score : 168 points
Date : 2024-11-05 20:14 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| throw0101a wrote:
| Well the revival may be halted depending on the election:
|
| > _The US CHIPS and Science Act 's future may depend on the
| outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election after House Speaker
| Mike Johnson suggested the GOP would likely move to repeal the
| $280 billion funding bill if the party wins a majority in
| Congress._
|
| * https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/chips_act_repeal/
|
| but a little while later:
|
| > _Johnson, who voted against the legislation, later said in a
| statement that the CHIPS Act, which poured $54 billion into the
| semiconductor manufacturing industry, "is not on the agenda for
| repeal."_
|
| * https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson-chips-act-d5504f76d3...
|
| so -\\_(tsu)_/-
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Partisan scare tactics? Which outcome would result in loss?
|
| Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip
| manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.
| standardUser wrote:
| Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but _not_
| chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing
| back into the US was entirely a Biden project.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Wasn 't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip
| manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons._
|
| And how's that Foxconn factory going?
|
| * https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-
| back...
| bitsage wrote:
| In the end they created jobs and invested money, but both
| were less than expected. The subsidies were also contingent
| on performance, and negotiated down, so Foxconn didn't the
| original amount. This also seems like purely a deal between
| the state and Foxconn, so it's interesting it became so
| prominent, as if it were contingent on control of the White
| House.
|
| https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/03/23/wh
| a...
| wavefunction wrote:
| Nah, it wasn't him.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| No
| wumeow wrote:
| I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only
| backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the
| congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy
| win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
| kurthr wrote:
| Here was his statement:
|
| https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| My hunch is something like NAFTA -> USMCA would happen with
| CHIPS. Repeal and replace with basically the same to make it
| look like a GOP win.
| tzs wrote:
| Here's what he said about it last month when interviewed by
| Joe Rogan:
|
| > We put up billions of dollars for rich companies to come
| in and borrow the money and build chip companies here, and
| they're not going to give us the good companies anyway.
|
| and
|
| > When I see us paying a lot of money to have people build
| chips, that's not the way. You didn't have to put up 10
| cents, you could have done it with a series of tariffs. In
| other words, you tariff it so high that they will come and
| build their chip companies for nothing.
|
| That really doesn't sound like it is something he'd just do
| some minor tweaks to and change the name like he did with
| NAFTA.
|
| If he does go through with the large tariff approach,
| something to keep in mind is that usually when you impose
| tariffs on imports there are retaliatory tariffs imposed on
| your exports. The US chip making industry makes 82% of its
| sales from exports.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Most of the factories are being built in Republican
| areas, so I'd be really surprised if they actually got
| rid of it. The rebranding seems more likely to me, but
| then the GOP have surprised me a lot in the last decade.
| alephnerd wrote:
| I wouldn't be too worried.
|
| Sen. Bill Hagerty is in the running for Commerce
| Secretary (Commerce is the department that runs the CHIPS
| Act), and he crossed the aisle on a number of
| semiconductor related legislation.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win
|
| I'm a huge fan of the CHIPS Act, but most Americans have not
| heard of it [0].
|
| That lack of noteriety is what protects it.
|
| Doesn't hurt that most deal flow is in purple districts, so
| most shit-slingers tend to be far removed and shut up pretty
| quickly after a quick rebuke from Party Chairs about how
| close the election is.
|
| [0] - https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018f-3fe4-dc61-adff-
| 7fe53...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Protects it? I think it makes it even more of a ripe target
| since nobody's heard of it and won't get up in arms about
| something they've not heard of. It's a low cost in
| political capital for them to undo it. Plus, if nobody has
| heard of it, they can definitely claim it as something they
| created and claim the victory in their echo chambers
| alephnerd wrote:
| It's too niche to be a wedge issue nationally, but most
| investment is primarily in purple districts which makes
| it dangerous for either party to oppose it without having
| a downstream impact in donations and even a primary
| challenge in 2 years.
|
| Same reason why Brandon Williams quickly shut up Mike
| Johnson even though Mike Johnson could make his life in
| the GOP and the House hell (not all offices in the CBO
| have air conditioning despite hellish humidity) - he'd
| rather keep his seat (NY-22) even if it meant undermining
| his boss.
| Loughla wrote:
| >The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the
| GOP will want to repeal it.
|
| It does seem like politics at the presidency now is less
| about what you'll do and more about undoing everything the
| other side did during their time in office, regardless of
| utility or popularity of what it is.
|
| Is it me or is this worse now? Had it always been like that
| and I'm just now seeing it?
| dboreham wrote:
| Everything is worse now.
| shigawire wrote:
| It is mostly that way for the GOP since the Newt Gingrich
| era.
|
| Not that the Dems don't undo things... But they add to
| policy as well.
|
| GOP does culture war, tear stuff down mostly.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > Well the revival may be halted depending on the election
|
| Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the
| assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin
| will continue to remain.
|
| There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this
| front for over a year at this point [0]
|
| Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have
| benefited from these industrial policies as well.
|
| Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce
| has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking
| (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness,
| CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor
| fights)
|
| That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of
| deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that
| reason.
|
| Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy
| in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening
| factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc.
|
| [0] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-
| industrial-p...
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Which CPC affiliates?
| alephnerd wrote:
| Pramila Jayapal most notably.
|
| Donald Norcross in the Labor Caucus has been a major
| blocker as well because most of these CHIPS projects are
| being built independent of AFL-CIO in a lot of cases.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| According to Mark Warner Elon Musk should be on this list
| as well.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Elon Musk didn't have a say in disbursement -
| congressmembers do.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Micron is a defense critical company. They're getting their new
| fab no matter what because China can more readily target Boise.
| j2bax wrote:
| What makes Boise a more readily available target for China?
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Their medium range ICBMs, which they have greater inventory
| of, can reach the northwest.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because
| China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are
| you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that
| bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard
| militarily relevant?
| jhj wrote:
| If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs then you
| will likely prefer more directly military targets rather
| than a manufacturing facility which would likely only
| start to matter for a conflict months into combat, which
| itself is a scenario (drawn out conventional war) that is
| likely precluded by exchange of nuclear weapons in the
| first place.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs_
|
| China has hundreds going on thousands of ICBMs. Nobody is
| creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to
| increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange
| between America and China.
| dgfitz wrote:
| > Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and
| Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear
| exchange between America and China.
|
| Uh, lol?
| redmajor12 wrote:
| FUD!.The total including SLBM is 442.
|
| https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-01/chinese-nuclear-
| weap...
| wbl wrote:
| Ooh if we go first we'd barely get our hair mussed!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _FUD!.The total including SLBM is 442_
|
| Sorry, I should have said hundreds going on _a_ thousand.
| Glad we put that fab in Sunnyvale!
|
| (442 is hundreds. Your own source says the "Pentagon also
| estimates that China's arsenal will increase to about
| 1,000 warheads by 2030, many of which will probably be
| 'deployed at higher readiness levels' and most 'fielded
| on systems capable of ranging the [continental United
| States]'." By 2035 that could grow up to 1,500. These are
| MAD figures.)
| ericmay wrote:
| You realize if China is launching ICBMs on US cities we
| are simultaneously deploying nuclear weapons against
| China and it's the end of the world... right?
| pitaj wrote:
| My understanding is that Micron only does R&D in Boise, they
| don't run any production manufacturing there.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| They are building a new fab in Boise to return production
| to the US. That's in addition to the new fab in Syracuse.
| Any guesses why they need _two_ new facilities in the
| mainland US when the bulk of their output is just going to
| be shipped to SEA? DRAM is a fully commoditized, low margin
| product. Kryptonite to MBAs, but someone convinced them to
| make the move to reverse their successful offshoring with a
| lot of promised benefits.
| kragen wrote:
| DRAM is expensive enough per kilogram that most of it has
| been shipped by air for decades.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Rebuilding our microchip manufacturing base is critical part of
| US national defense. Why in the world would Donald Trump and
| Speaker Mike Johnson want to repeal the CHIPS act?
|
| https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-on-earth-does-trump-want-t...
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| China has a history of buying out its critics, and I do not
| doubt for a second that Donald Trump is for sale (notice how he
| changed his tune on TikTok?)
| wavefunction wrote:
| He changed his tune on electric vehicles after Musk started
| backing him.
| t-3 wrote:
| There's been many complaints about DEI requirements in the
| CHIPS Act. Given that DEI is a favorite right-wing talking
| point, amendment or repeal+replace might be likely, but I doubt
| it would be scrapped altogether.
| jerlam wrote:
| It's associated with a member of the opposing party, so it must
| be opposed. Especially since it has a chance to be successful.
|
| Similar situation with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)
| - it was opposed not on its merits, but because it was from the
| opposing side.
| nickff wrote:
| The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage (as
| similar plans had been advocated for decades by various
| proponents), and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive
| of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could
| take a back seat). CHIPS seems much less divisive, though it
| seems stalled (at least based on recent statements by Intel
| and other CEOs).
| throw0101d wrote:
| > [...] _and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of
| any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could
| take a back seat)._
|
| That is not accurate:
|
| > _Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the
| process up until its conclusion, but it 's a cinch that the
| ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats,
| hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time
| and effort wooing GOP senators -- only to find themselves
| gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike
| Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings
| that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues,
| Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to
| public scrutiny._
|
| * https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/01/set-
| health...
| nickff wrote:
| President Obama literally said the Republicans had to sit
| in the back seat:
| https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4748375/user-clip-obama-
| tells...
| Sabinus wrote:
| "If you want, you can ride with us, but you gotta sit in
| the back seat."
|
| As in, "we have a majority so we drive the political
| clown-car. "
| throw0101d wrote:
| Entire transcript of the clip:
|
| > _We feel a tap on our shoulder and we look back, and
| who is it? It 's the Republicans. And they say "Huh,
| excuse me, we'd like the keys back." And we have to tell
| them "I'm sorry, you can't have the keys back if you
| don't know how to drive". If you want you can ride with
| us but you have to ride in the back seat._
|
| Further context: Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of
| Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.
|
| As a sibling comment notes: the Democrats had the
| majority at the time and were in charge of setting the
| agenda ("had the keys").
|
| Further, Obama was willing to give the GOP a (figurative)
| ride if they wanted and were heading in the same
| direction.
| knorthfield wrote:
| Trump didn't seem to disagree with the premise just the
| funding. His argument is that the US shouldn't be funding it.
| His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip
| manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own
| dime.
| newprint wrote:
| Lol, yeah. They will not do that.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign
| chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on
| their own dime._
|
| The counter-argument (FWIW):
|
| > _Tariffs are paid by the importer and not the exporter. The
| Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) claims that tariffs
| would not cause fabs to be built in the US, due to the cost
| of the factories, which can run from $18bn to $27bn._
|
| > _" No tariff amount will equal the costs of ripping apart
| these investments and efficient supply chains that have
| enabled current US industry leadership," SIA said._
|
| > _It added: "Moreover, chip tariffs will drive away
| manufacturing in advanced sectors that rely on semiconductor
| technology, such as aerospace, AI, robotics, next-generation
| networks, and autonomous vehicles. If the cost of key inputs
| like semiconductors is too high, tech manufacturers will
| relocate out of the US, costing jobs and further eroding US
| manufacturing and technological competitiveness."_
|
| * https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/trump-bashes-
| chip...
|
| Foreign chipmakers would not pay the tariff (contrary to what
| Trump thinks) but their US customers, and what incentive to
| the foreign chipmakers to make changes? They're getting the
| same money and it's not costing them a dime. And where else
| are US businesses going to go for the product?
| thehappypm wrote:
| Even if the exporters are not directly paying the tariffs,
| their chips will cost consumers more, reducing the demand.
| So no; they're not getting the same money.
| dylan604 wrote:
| your premise is that nobody else would by chips from them
| if the US demand lowered. I don't buy into that premise.
| bruce511 wrote:
| If you were talking about some discretionary thing, like
| magazines, I'd agree with you.
|
| But customers don't buy chips, they buy stuff, and chips
| are in _everything_. There 's the obvious (phones,
| tablets etc), but also everything else, like cars,
| washing machines, tvs, air fryers, plus more.
|
| Clearly tarrifs drive (domestic) prices up, which will
| cause some level of inflation, but it will be across the
| board (not on "chips"). And clearly that will weaken
| demand.
|
| But given global demand that will likely not be all that
| noticeable. Indeed it'll likely just result in US
| manufacturing being less competitive. Certainly it'll
| make US manufactured products more expensive on the world
| market.
|
| Which likely leads to more American plants moving
| offshore, not onshore.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Even if the exporters are not directly paying the
| tariffs, their chips will cost consumers more, reducing
| the demand. So no; they're not getting the same money._
|
| So the higher cost of cars--because they have chips in
| them that cost more and that is passed onto drivers--will
| stop people from buying cars?
|
| The higher cost of microwaves will stop people from
| buying microwaves? And stop buying stoves? And
| refrigerators?
|
| People will buy fewer smartphones? Businesses will buy
| fewer laptops and servers?
| Spivak wrote:
| Depending on how bad the hike is, maybe? You're
| essentially arguing that consumers are unresponsive to
| price increases which just isn't true.
|
| If the hike is bad enough we might see a return to
| kitchen electrics that don't use microcontrollers at all.
| Unironically good news if you want physical buttons
| again.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _Depending on how bad the hike is, maybe? You 're
| essentially arguing that consumers are unresponsive to
| price increases which just isn't true._
|
| I'm arguing there are items that are less elastic when it
| comes to prices:
|
| *
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/priceelasticity.asp
|
| Someone lives in the US, which is addicted to sprawling,
| car-centric suburbs. Car prices go up. What are they
| going to do? Walk? Bike? Take public transit? (Which is
| one of the arguments for (so-called) 15 minutes cities:
| it gives people more freedom to choose their mode of
| transportation instead of forcing one particular mode.)
|
| Are you not going to buy a refrigerator when yours break
| down and food starts going bad?
|
| While they can stretch out the depreciation/lifespan
| schedule, are business going to stop buying laptops and
| servers? If their (capex) costs go up, are the businesses
| going to eat that cost or pass it on to their customers?
| lesuorac wrote:
| As much as I don't think Trump thinks things out longer
| than it takes to say.
|
| You can't be using the trade association's comment at face-
| value. Tariffs have absolutely caused factories to be build
| elsewhere (see car manufacturing) although where a chip
| site appears in the US or Mexico/Canada (NAFTA) is very
| arguable.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Surely HN of all spaces would understand why giving free money
| to Intel is a massive waste? Also if they genuinely need the
| money, they should be offering ownership in return.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yes, we should be giving that money to Boeing instead!
| the5avage wrote:
| That is not fair. They did not actively kill hundreds of
| people.
|
| They just waste some energy on suboptimal chips and
| business decisions.
| vel0city wrote:
| Surely HN of all spaces would understand there are far more
| chip manufacturers than just Intel.
| the5avage wrote:
| Do you have some secret intel? They make the best chips in
| the USA.
| astrange wrote:
| TSMC makes the best chips in the USA now that they've
| started production.
| ChrisRR wrote:
| The same reason he does half of the insane shit he does.
| Because it serves his own interests
|
| He doesn't want to actually improve america, he just wants fox
| news to pay attention to him 24 hours a day
| chiph wrote:
| Wolfspeed is building a fab in North Carolina that will make SiC
| based chips. They are receiving $750 million from the CHIPS and
| Science Act and will likely receive another $1 billion in tax
| credits.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
|
| SiC transistors and diodes are used in high power applications
| like locomotives, EV chargers and industrial motor controls. In
| their catalog they have a half-bridge power module rated for
| 1200V and 760A, which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can
| handle that much.
|
| https://www.wolfspeed.com/products/power/sic-power-modules/h...
| dylan604 wrote:
| > which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that
| much.
|
| i'm also equally amazed at how much <5v can accomplish. 3.3v is
| common, but I also think back to the old NTSC video signal was
| 1v peak-to-peak. Of course, that was just the signal and not
| the voltage driving the CRT, but still impressive. I've done my
| own hobby electronics ala Arduino type stuff, and detecting
| voltage drops in analog of <1v can be challenging to do
| accurately.
| rcxdude wrote:
| The drive voltage of a modern desktop or server CPU is about
| 1V. Which means there's up to 300-400A flowing through
| through the motherboard and the pin sockets from the VRM to
| the CPU. Pretty crazy numbers!
|
| (1V drop, though should be easy to measure. A badly noisy ADC
| would be at about 10mV. High-precision in analog starts at
| 10s of uV)
| kragen wrote:
| Basically any electroplating tank uses <5V, no matter how
| large it is. So are basically all line-level audio and most
| dynamic speaker drive signals: 5V at 4O is 6 watts, which is
| a fairly loud speaker.
|
| Detecting 1-volt voltage drops is not at all difficult;
| that's enough to turn on any BJT, and any random opamp can
| measure voltage differences down to millivolts, often
| nanovolts. https://www.diodes.com/assets/Datasheets/AS321.pdf
| is a 50C/ random opamp, the one Digi-Key has the most in
| stock of at the moment; its offset voltage is specified as 5
| millivolts max, but of course it can measure much smaller
| voltages than that if you null out the offset with a trimpot,
| or if you just don't care about it.
|
| This is not Arduino's strong point, but it doesn't have any
| difficulty with that task either. The ADC in the ATMega328P
| used in most Arduinos has a resolution of about a millivolt
| when referenced to its internal bandgap https://ww1.microchip
| .com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/Atmel-7810-..., and it also has
| an analog comparator with a maximum offset voltage specified
| as 40 millivolts. And any random cheap-shit multimeter can
| measure down to a millivolt or so. And, from the discussion
| above about audio line levels, it should be obvious that just
| about any dynamic speaker, and most headphones, can easily
| make millivolt-level signals audible.
|
| Maybe you meant "detecting voltage drops in analog of <1
| _microvolt_ can be challenging ".
| highcountess wrote:
| It really bugs the hell out of me that we are constantly forced
| against our will to fund these companies for basically nothing.
| It's an utterly insane model. Sure, we get to then give them
| yet more money to use those critical chips after the same
| people squandered the time and gutted the American economy and
| shipped it all overseas for decades prior; but can't there be a
| rate of return and not just give, essentially executives huge
| bonuses forever?
|
| There should be no such thing as free grants, if anything they
| should be ownership stakes by the U.S. people by way of the
| government if, e.g., we are handing them 700 Million dollars
| and then basically deferring on 1 Billion dollars which also
| has an additional opportunity cost and a cost of the money,
| i.e., inflation and interest.
|
| I can't tell you how many people have become extremely wealthy
| from nothing by getting government grants and contracts that
| built and funded their companies, paid for by you, with your
| tax money and inflation you pay at the grocery store.
| creer wrote:
| > against our will
|
| Let's not push that one too far, there is no "little guy" in
| these deals.
|
| What does surprise me more is that we don't see "tax credits"
| in "pay your tax in shares". The amount would be higher then,
| probably - but many of these deals would in the end be
| profitable.
| astrange wrote:
| The whole point of an income tax is that it's paid in USD -
| basically this is what gives the USD its value, it has
| mandatory demand. (For sales taxes, it has a double effect
| where it encourages transactions being in USD.)
|
| Public ownership of shares can be good too. That's a social
| wealth fund, but we have Vanguard and mutual funds instead.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > The whole point of an income tax is that it's paid in
| USD - basically this is what gives the USD its value
|
| I'm not understanding correctly (not kidding): what gave
| the USD its value before the income tax in 1914 or
| thereabout?
| cen4 wrote:
| Whats your solution then, when Taiwan falls to China tomorrow
| and the chips stop flowing in? The parasite execs are a
| problem, but a much smaller problem than if the Chinese
| blocks flow of essential chips. It will cause all kinds of
| cascading issues. Which we saw when supply chains from there,
| all shutdown during Covid.
| distortionfield wrote:
| Absolutely agree. We need chip supremacy as a home-soil
| tech asap. Jet engines are no longer the challenge they
| previously were for China, we can't afford to let the same
| happen with chips.
| trhway wrote:
| > The parasite execs are a problem, but a much smaller
| problem than if the Chinese blocks flow of essential chips
|
| how dumping money onto those parasites solves the problem
| of the Chinese blocking the chips? So far it looks like :
|
| 1. dump the [boatload of uncountable government] money onto
| the parasites
|
| 2. ...
|
| 3. chips!
| cen4 wrote:
| Nature hasn't been able to get rid of parasites for
| billions of years. Why? The reason they exist is, there
| are always parts of ever changing complex systems that
| can be exploited, faster than any reaction is possible.
| Same story with people in large orgs. If you hire 1000
| people tomorrow to run a factory, there is no 100%
| guarantee a few parasites won't enter the system. Add to
| that fact, our culture is built around people worshiping
| Status accumulation, Wealth accumulation, Consumption etc
| (with Media signalling it 24x7) it sets the Environment
| up for parasitic/exploitative activities. Some of it can
| be minimized by strong/respected leaders setting up a
| better environment, changing what signals people are
| getting etc but its never 100% perfect cause of rate of
| change. There is always a dance going on where balance is
| shifting back and forth. Covid appears. Causes Chaos. It
| gets beaten down. Then something else appears. Thats the
| nature of parasites.
| simgt wrote:
| They are not arguing for not funding these companies, they
| are arguing for not doing it without counterparts:
|
| > There should be no such thing as free grants, if anything
| they should be ownership stakes by the U.S. people by way
| of the government
| photochemsyn wrote:
| It's entirely possible for the government to pressure the
| corporations in the chip industry to move resources into
| research, development and manufacturing capacity.
|
| What the government would have to do is increase corporate
| taxes and capital gains taxes but give various writeoffs and
| rebates for R & D and new factories. Essentially the
| government tells the corporation, "you can pay us this tax
| money, or you can put the money back into R & D and
| production starts, it's up to you."
|
| This would probably upset the Milton Friedman neoliberalism
| proponents, but they've made a mess of things IMO. Regardless
| the shareholders and executives would have to take
| significant losses relative to their present situation under
| such new conditions. The money has to come from somewhere and
| fabs are expensive complicated beasts with demanding supply
| chain issues.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| the other option would be cash for shares
| astrange wrote:
| > after the same people squandered the time and gutted the
| American economy and shipped it all overseas for decades
| prior
|
| What same people? The ones who messed up US chips are Intel
| and the article doesn't show them getting any money.
| Theoretical neoliberals aren't really relevant here. China
| did not take the chip fab business - this isn't a
| deindustrialization issue.
|
| (I believe deindustrialization was mostly Volcker and the 70s
| oil shock though, not the neoliberals.)
|
| > I can't tell you how many people have become extremely
| wealthy from nothing
|
| Not to be rude, but you haven't told us that, that is true.
| The most important thing to remember here is that economic
| populism is wrong and you should never believe anything you
| hear like this because it's probably just made up.
|
| Also, grocery prices are fine.
| ta20240528 wrote:
| "... after the same people squandered ... decades prior"
|
| The same people? Decades later?
|
| OR perhaps is new, younger people with better ideas who just
| happen to work at the same company?
| freilanzer wrote:
| And apparently they cancelled their fab in Germany.
| patricklovesoj wrote:
| So they spent $13B + existing $25B in Albany = $38B
|
| For scale comparison I checked TSMC and they will spend ~$35B in
| R&D and capex in 2024 and it will only grow.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| It seems that the world is dividing into two camps- the ones who
| want to hunker down and bunker down into mini-empires, shunning
| globalisation. Expecting great rewards, by turning economics into
| trapdoor functions with loads of export and zero imports and
| tarifs as shield.
|
| And the others, who don't want - because they can't. For some
| globalisation is a navel, a lifeline without which there
| countries economies would wither and die. The exact same layout
| pre-WW2.
| Maxion wrote:
| The writing is starting to become quite stark on the wall, soon
| the only ones who don't see it are the ones intentionally
| turning their head away.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I'm just stupid, what's on the wall?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Arguably the next world war. The vibes are very 1913.
| Maxion wrote:
| Not necessarily a new world war, though the probabilities
| of that is definitely increasing.
|
| This will be a big shift in power, and become a more
| inward focus globally.
|
| If Trump starts more trade wars, we will all be worse
| off.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Did Biden start or continue any?
|
| The fueling of war in Ukraine and Middle East (Israel vs
| other countries) is already as bad as it gets.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| The idea that a king or monarch or president has the
| ability to alter any physical setting and circumstance is
| ridiculous. The us has been reacting more or less to the
| middle east turmoil ever since the cold war. And in syria
| in the end not even that. Events can happen outside the
| influence and outside of control of the most powerful
| nation on the planet. This paranoid "a power must be
| behind" it - is limiting the perception- that there is
| nothing there, just running out resources, human
| overpopulation and war and chaos and players stirring the
| pot of indigestible soups in the hopes that useful float
| some may come up with the bodies.
| kragen wrote:
| The current world war. It started ten years ago.
| drooby wrote:
| Without trade, war becomes more easy to justify as cost-
| effective.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Rebalanced local production isn't necessarily a rejection of
| globalization.
|
| It is ridiculous to have a military, for example, depend upon
| supplies which may be cut off during conflict.
|
| It is also ridiculous to have your entire economy dependent
| upon foreign powers which seek to subvert and destabilize
| you.
|
| The US and most of the West undertook plans to "uplift"
| countries such as China in the 70s. The thought was that by
| opening up trade, prosperity would follow, a middle class
| would follow, an upper class, and democratic principles might
| follow.
|
| This had not entirely failed, but at the same time that
| experiment has been taken too far, especially during the
| current climate.
|
| Most specifically, China's refusal to sign on to a key,
| pivotal aspect of access to western markets, IP, eg copyright
| and patent law, means that their access to these markets is
| slowly being withdrawn.
|
| What we granted 50 years ago, open, mostly tariff free access
| to our markets is being taken away, removed as conditions for
| that access are not being respected.
|
| Only China is to blame for this. The rampant IP theft, the
| lack of respect for the collective market's rules, the
| flagrant and egregious espionage, have resulted in this fate.
|
| The West will still trade with anyone that follows such
| common market principles. The West is not closing down
| international trade. The West is instead ensuring that when
| we completely cut off China, and its lack of regard for our
| common market rules, that we are not harmed.
|
| Thinking this is all about a reduction in trade is wrong.
|
| None of this new, or a surprise to anyone paying attention to
| geopolitical issues during the last 50 years. When the
| markets opened, when tariffs were dropped, China was told the
| rules for that access.
|
| In the ensuing decades, attempts to negotiate and work with
| China over IP issues have seen zero progress.
|
| We offer access with open hands under specific terms. We
| happily wanted to engage in profitable business ventures.
| China, its leadership perhaps thinking it is clever and
| somehow tricking us, did not realize that the West is very
| open, forgiving, and willing to discuss a lot prior to
| hitting an impasse. We believe in democratic principles after
| all, and try to negotiate.
|
| But now that this next segment of the process has started,
| China has effectively shot itself in the foot. Like a noisy
| person repeatedly warned in a movie theater, it is being
| shown the door.
|
| Access to our market is being withdrawn for China.
|
| Expect this to hit the next level in perhaps 5 years, where
| all imports hit heavy tariffs... after we've ensured our
| stability in key areas.
|
| Gradual increases in Chinese import tariffs will ensure local
| businesses spring up, replacing what will become more
| expensive Chinese alternatives.
|
| It will be an economic boom for the West.
| Prbeek wrote:
| Does the US' engage with the repressive monarchies of the
| Middle East in the hope that they will democratize ?
| dukeyukey wrote:
| It worked for (most of) Eastern Europe, South Korea,
| Taiwan, arguably Mexico.
| corimaith wrote:
| No, they engage because they aren't omnipotent and
| surging oil prices can cause more damage elsewhere.
| corimaith wrote:
| Mercantalism begets more mercantalism. Many of those who don't
| want the "end" of globalism are the same ones pursuing
| mercantilist policies despite decades of calls of reform from
| the developed import markets.
|
| You can't run a massive trade surplus against USA, gouging
| their industries while simultaneously calling for the "fall of
| Westen hegemony" forever. "The Global South" had a chance for
| the last 20 years to peacefully rise up into the Liberal
| International Order, they blew it all for the sake their own
| pride and greed. When any sort of adherence of rules or
| frameworks is labelled as "imperialism" then unfortunately
| we'll all have to go back and suffer the 1920s to understand
| why those rules exist again.
| ToDougie wrote:
| The trade wars never stopped, some countries just took a break.
| neves wrote:
| Are them swing states?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-06 23:02 UTC)