7 ms·

If the US tax payer gets a significant stake in the chip fab venture, I would be OK with this. We want to secure national security via chip manufacturing and yo

by ohashi 5y ago

If the US tax payer gets a significant stake in the chip fab venture, I would be OK with this. We want to secure national security via chip manufacturing and you want billions of dollars? Give us some upside. I don't want to hear it creates jobs, it generates blah blah blah, a real equity stake and possibly repayment of the capital. Creating jobs should be a happy by-product of subsidizing an industry that is probably more well capitalized than any other in existence. According to (https://startupanz.com/5-tech-giants-hold-588b-cash-reserves-apple-records-highest-decline-6-8-yoy/ https://startupanz.com/5-tech-giants-hold-588b-cash-reserves...) Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft had 526 billion dollars between the four of them in cash reserves. They have over half a TRILLION dollars in cash. If this were life or death, they could afford anything. But the calculus is offload risk onto the tax payer (despite being a shareholder directly in all those companies or indirectly via mutual funds/etfs), I don't want to be left holding the bag with no upside beyond the general sentiment of 'national security was secured' while private companies reap all the benefits.

lostlogin 5y ago
> Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft had 526 billion dollars between the four of them in cash reserves. Presumably they would cooperate and do something about it if they saw the current situation as too risky?
- jedberg 5y ago
  They are doing something -- forming a lobby group to get the government to pay for it. That's much cheaper than actually paying for it themselves.
  - TakuYam 5y ago
    It also gets the actual foundry a pretty sharp knife to cut through the pesky red tape/law when they do start looking for prospective sites.
azinman2 5y ago
Government subsidies protecting industries rarely pay off in a peaceful world to the entire country. I personally get nothing out of Chevron getting tax breaks. However, if those incentives meant supply was harder to disrupt, and in a war time the country has better access to fuel, then it does seem like a worthwhile trade off. In this case, the risk is that China literally takes over (one way or another) the vast majority of supply of semiconductors to specifically harm western companies (or countries in a war setting). In that scenario, are you still worried about unequal kick backs or are you happy that the nation has access to the chips it needs for industry and defense?
- coliveira 5y ago
  The ones who should be very worried and willing to pay for this "protection" are exactly the huge companies that have a lot in stake. It is completely absurd that they still want to reach for the taxpayer to pay for protecting their monopolies.
  - esyir 5y ago
    The country too has a stake here, and one that's perhaps even larger.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  In a war scenario with China it doesn't matter since no chips produced under the war will be used.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    The risk isn’t war between China and the US, but China and Taiwan, which China has 100% chance of winning. That then makes the the US extremely dependent on China for semiconductor supply.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      China only has 100% chance of winning in a war with Taiwan if the west and allies do not join.
Justsignedup 5y ago
up side is similar to what we see with vaccine manufacturing. When we need it, we have access to it. When we don't need it, we can sell it. With good regulation and unionization this can lead to great wealth distribution in the US along with worldwide economic power.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
eecc 5y ago
Good point, see: https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state
Meandering 5y ago
This is what I was thinking... These corporations are the ones whom benefited from exporting the production infrastructure at the expense of the labor market. Now, they want the labor market to fund the redevelopment of the infrastructure for their benefit. I'm confused as to why the US government needs to be involved capital investment when these companies are boasting historic profit margins.
- hashmymustache 5y ago
  I emotionally agree as you are correct and it is infuriating, but on the other hand it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect (subsidize, trade policy), and regulate domestic production of vital goods. Companies exported manufacturing because the government, elected by its citizens, did nothing to stop them. On some level it is very much the tax payer responsible for recalibrating the imbalance even if they aren’t to blame.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"Companies exported manufacturing because the government, elected by its citizens, did nothing to stop them." Another way to look at this is to say that other countries are now more appealing places to manufacture certain goods than the USA is. Everything is relative, and other countries have agency too.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
alexc05 5y ago
I mean, in theory taxes are that significant stake, but of course in practice it doesn't really work like that.
narrator 5y ago
The subsidizing of this should be limited to speeding regulatory reviews. It should at least be economically viable with private capital to have this plant. If not, why not? What's so expensive that you can't open a plant profitably where there is a shortage?
hellbannedguy 5y ago
The tax payers need to start demanding something in return for tax money gifts, and bailouts. These companies move manufacturing overseas because they don't want to pay family members/neighbors a decent wage, or other business incentives like lax polution standards. Now they want struggling Americas to build them a new cozy home in the country they abandoned. (You know what I mean by abandoned. The last thing the wealthy boys will ever do is move these wealthy executives to these cheaper countries completely.) I'm at the point---go ahead and give them billions. Give them land. Take off any tariffs. Yes--a complete 180 from my opening sentence. I feel computer chips are very important, and we do need factories here. It seems like every few years a big prospering industry takes tax payer money. I'm always hoping they might show a bit of gratitude, but no. We bailed out "big stupid banks" (quote by Jamie Diamond), and the banks just turned around raised fees for everything. I don't want a lot. Just some compassion with prices. If you sell drugs (Pharmacutical jab) to another counties at a huge discount; give poor/middle class Americas the same deal? Johnson & Johnson were the only drug company that didn't take millions in grants for Covid research. You would think by taking millions in gifts, the manufactoring information would be freely available to any American? (I am so glad they found a vaccine. I am still angry over my prescription price dole out each month.) Oh yea, I'm not one sided. I felt AOC, and others, took demands to far with Amazon a few years ago. It's almost like when we do get a say in a private business decision, we go overboard? We are so used to big businesses stepping on us, we over demand? But yea, I'm completely disenfranchised. Give them money, and incentives. It will be interesting to see what our inflation rate will be in a few years. I heard a big wig stock guy say today he is worrying the dollar might not be used as a bench mark in other countries in a few years if we don't stop spending like drunken sailors. I'm all for spending when it benefits the poor, and middle class. It doesn't seem to ever trickle down. The homeless encampments are just getting bigger in my county. I see too many frantic people filling up moving vans. Instead of happiness over the opening, I'm seeing a lot of misplaced anger when I go out. (Sorry about rambling.)

by ohashi 5y ago

lostlogin 5y ago

> Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft had 526 billion dollars between the four of them in cash reserves. Presumably they would cooperate and do something about it if they saw the current situation as too risky?

jedberg 5y ago
They are doing something -- forming a lobby group to get the government to pay for it. That's much cheaper than actually paying for it themselves.
- TakuYam 5y ago
  It also gets the actual foundry a pretty sharp knife to cut through the pesky red tape/law when they do start looking for prospective sites.

azinman2 5y ago

Government subsidies protecting industries rarely pay off in a peaceful world to the entire country. I personally get nothing out of Chevron getting tax breaks. However, if those incentives meant supply was harder to disrupt, and in a war time the country has better access to fuel, then it does seem like a worthwhile trade off. In this case, the risk is that China literally takes over (one way or another) the vast majority of supply of semiconductors to specifically harm western companies (or countries in a war setting). In that scenario, are you still worried about unequal kick backs or are you happy that the nation has access to the chips it needs for industry and defense?

coliveira 5y ago
The ones who should be very worried and willing to pay for this "protection" are exactly the huge companies that have a lot in stake. It is completely absurd that they still want to reach for the taxpayer to pay for protecting their monopolies.
- esyir 5y ago
  The country too has a stake here, and one that's perhaps even larger.
Dah00n 5y ago
In a war scenario with China it doesn't matter since no chips produced under the war will be used.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  The risk isn’t war between China and the US, but China and Taiwan, which China has 100% chance of winning. That then makes the the US extremely dependent on China for semiconductor supply.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    China only has 100% chance of winning in a war with Taiwan if the west and allies do not join.

Justsignedup 5y ago

up side is similar to what we see with vaccine manufacturing. When we need it, we have access to it. When we don't need it, we can sell it. With good regulation and unionization this can lead to great wealth distribution in the US along with worldwide economic power.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

eecc 5y ago

Good point, see: https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state

Meandering 5y ago

This is what I was thinking... These corporations are the ones whom benefited from exporting the production infrastructure at the expense of the labor market. Now, they want the labor market to fund the redevelopment of the infrastructure for their benefit. I'm confused as to why the US government needs to be involved capital investment when these companies are boasting historic profit margins.

hashmymustache 5y ago
I emotionally agree as you are correct and it is infuriating, but on the other hand it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect (subsidize, trade policy), and regulate domestic production of vital goods. Companies exported manufacturing because the government, elected by its citizens, did nothing to stop them. On some level it is very much the tax payer responsible for recalibrating the imbalance even if they aren’t to blame.
- nickff 5y ago
  >"Companies exported manufacturing because the government, elected by its citizens, did nothing to stop them." Another way to look at this is to say that other countries are now more appealing places to manufacture certain goods than the USA is. Everything is relative, and other countries have agency too.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

alexc05 5y ago

I mean, in theory taxes are that significant stake, but of course in practice it doesn't really work like that.

narrator 5y ago

The subsidizing of this should be limited to speeding regulatory reviews. It should at least be economically viable with private capital to have this plant. If not, why not? What's so expensive that you can't open a plant profitably where there is a shortage?

hellbannedguy 5y ago

The tax payers need to start demanding something in return for tax money gifts, and bailouts. These companies move manufacturing overseas because they don't want to pay family members/neighbors a decent wage, or other business incentives like lax polution standards. Now they want struggling Americas to build them a new cozy home in the country they abandoned. (You know what I mean by abandoned. The last thing the wealthy boys will ever do is move these wealthy executives to these cheaper countries completely.) I'm at the point---go ahead and give them billions. Give them land. Take off any tariffs. Yes--a complete 180 from my opening sentence. I feel computer chips are very important, and we do need factories here. It seems like every few years a big prospering industry takes tax payer money. I'm always hoping they might show a bit of gratitude, but no. We bailed out "big stupid banks" (quote by Jamie Diamond), and the banks just turned around raised fees for everything. I don't want a lot. Just some compassion with prices. If you sell drugs (Pharmacutical jab) to another counties at a huge discount; give poor/middle class Americas the same deal? Johnson & Johnson were the only drug company that didn't take millions in grants for Covid research. You would think by taking millions in gifts, the manufactoring information would be freely available to any American? (I am so glad they found a vaccine. I am still angry over my prescription price dole out each month.) Oh yea, I'm not one sided. I felt AOC, and others, took demands to far with Amazon a few years ago. It's almost like when we do get a say in a private business decision, we go overboard? We are so used to big businesses stepping on us, we over demand? But yea, I'm completely disenfranchised. Give them money, and incentives. It will be interesting to see what our inflation rate will be in a few years. I heard a big wig stock guy say today he is worrying the dollar might not be used as a bench mark in other countries in a few years if we don't stop spending like drunken sailors. I'm all for spending when it benefits the poor, and middle class. It doesn't seem to ever trickle down. The homeless encampments are just getting bigger in my county. I see too many frantic people filling up moving vans. Instead of happiness over the opening, I'm seeing a lot of misplaced anger when I go out. (Sorry about rambling.)