4 ms·

> To that end, while I am encouraged by and fully support this bill by Congress to appropriate $22.8 billion in aid to semiconductor manufacturers I fully don'

by acqq 6y ago

> To that end, while I am encouraged by and fully support this bill by Congress to appropriate $22.8 billion in aid to semiconductor manufacturers I fully don't agree. It appears as the exact opposite of what the rational use of market forces should be.

rswail 6y ago
Semiconductors are not just about the market for electronics, they are a national defense issue. As the article talked about, relying on chips that can only be sourced from allies that are not defensible from your primary potential adversary is a major risk. Why do you think Boeing et al are on the government defense teat? It's not just as a disguised socialist job program and Congressional slush fund. There are some legitimate reasons for government funding. It's not "aid", it's government spending on national defense infrastructure and manufacturing capability.
- acqq 6y ago
  > It's not "aid" I don't see that claim supported by the text: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-lawmakers-propose-22-8-billion-in-aid-to-semiconductor-industry-idUSKBN23H39M https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-la... "A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill to provide more than $22.8 billion in aid for semiconductor manufacturers, aiming to spur the construction of chip factories in America" Do you have some quote to support your claim?
  - tharne 6y ago
    It's a bad choice of words on the part of the journalist, but that's journalists for you. "Aid" implies an economic motive, whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. We don't give "aid" to the Marines or the Air Force. We spend public dollars on things are are important to national defense and security. Semiconductors fall into that category.
    - acqq 6y ago
      > whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that. The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.
tosers4 6y ago
It's also about national defense, not just economy. Republic of China is a big target of People's Republic of China. Sure, there shouldn't be a war, but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their chip manufacturing there. Notice that the new TSMC factory is with big emphasis on military contracts.
- acqq 6y ago
  > but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their chip manufacturing there. Nobody should have any illusion: "in the worst case scenario" this "where" any chips are manufactured will be simply totally irrelevant. It's obviously a wrong model to plan for anything. The realistic model is the scenario which is not the "worst case." And then, the question is just is the "aid" reasonable or is it better compared to other existing or possible market forces. Why giving away money "to spur the construction of chip factories in America" when 1) the U.S. is anyway an immensely big customer and simply deciding on how it buys what it needs can already influence the markets 2) the existing companies already have "chip factories" in America.
  - 3JPLW 6y ago
    It's not just about blowing up factories with missiles. There's a much greater persistent security threat.
tharne 6y ago
We're not talking about good economic policy here, we're talking about what makes sense from a national security standpoint.

by acqq 6y ago

rswail 6y ago

Semiconductors are not just about the market for electronics, they are a national defense issue. As the article talked about, relying on chips that can only be sourced from allies that are not defensible from your primary potential adversary is a major risk. Why do you think Boeing et al are on the government defense teat? It's not just as a disguised socialist job program and Congressional slush fund. There are some legitimate reasons for government funding. It's not "aid", it's government spending on national defense infrastructure and manufacturing capability.

acqq 6y ago
> It's not "aid" I don't see that claim supported by the text: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-lawmakers-propose-22-8-billion-in-aid-to-semiconductor-industry-idUSKBN23H39M https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-la... "A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill to provide more than $22.8 billion in aid for semiconductor manufacturers, aiming to spur the construction of chip factories in America" Do you have some quote to support your claim?
- tharne 6y ago
  It's a bad choice of words on the part of the journalist, but that's journalists for you. "Aid" implies an economic motive, whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. We don't give "aid" to the Marines or the Air Force. We spend public dollars on things are are important to national defense and security. Semiconductors fall into that category.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that. The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.

tosers4 6y ago

It's also about national defense, not just economy. Republic of China is a big target of People's Republic of China. Sure, there shouldn't be a war, but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their chip manufacturing there. Notice that the new TSMC factory is with big emphasis on military contracts.

acqq 6y ago
> but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their chip manufacturing there. Nobody should have any illusion: "in the worst case scenario" this "where" any chips are manufactured will be simply totally irrelevant. It's obviously a wrong model to plan for anything. The realistic model is the scenario which is not the "worst case." And then, the question is just is the "aid" reasonable or is it better compared to other existing or possible market forces. Why giving away money "to spur the construction of chip factories in America" when 1) the U.S. is anyway an immensely big customer and simply deciding on how it buys what it needs can already influence the markets 2) the existing companies already have "chip factories" in America.
- 3JPLW 6y ago
  It's not just about blowing up factories with missiles. There's a much greater persistent security threat.

tharne 6y ago

We're not talking about good economic policy here, we're talking about what makes sense from a national security standpoint.