13 ms·

This is not just some pork-barrel politics of bribing a company to stay in a given country. S Korea will view this similarly to Taiwan - their chip fabs are ex

This is not just some pork-barrel politics of bribing a company to stay in a given country. S Korea will view this similarly to Taiwan - their chip fabs are existential to their country and state. The USA is becoming more isolationist - it is nearly oil-independent, so it's signalling pulling out of the middle east (deals with Iran etc). But it is not silicon-independent. So S Korea and Taiwan are totally dependent on massive US troop deployments (25,000 !! US troops by the DMZ, a whole fleet patrolling the straits by Taiwan). Ensuring chips flow in their country is a matter of national security - so the price is probably low.

baybal2 5y ago
> it is nearly oil-independent, Like as if it wasn't for the entire century. USA has ennormous, and largely unexplored oil reserves.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  They're unexplored for a reason. Fracking is immensely damaging to the ecosystem. Additionally, the US won't ever need to touch these again if it manages to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    It’s not as damaging as coal, which is fortunate for the clean energy transition. Solar is now the cheapest assuming we get grid scale storage(or, more likely, store excess solar as hydrogen fuel).
    - lazide 5y ago
      Most solar is now produced in China, at 71%+ as of 2019 (and only grown since then I imagine). If we’re talking national security, that is a concern too.
      - mensetmanusman 5y ago
        These panels might last 30 years, which is great! Also gives us time to consider strategies…
  - will4274 5y ago
    > Fracking is immensely damaging to the ecosystem. Not really. Energy is a dirty business, and also one filled with politics and propoganda. Fracking, much like nuclear, was targeted mostly for political, not technical reasons. It's damaging, but less so than coal and not all that much more than vanilla drilling and pipelines in general.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      Worth to mention that US reserves are enormous even without fracking. Tons of oil, and gas everywhere.
      - davidf18 5y ago
        We drill off the Gulf Coast, but not the East and West Coasts yet, for example.
ithkuil 5y ago
Did anybody do the math of whether it's more cost effective to pay for all that military to ensure you get cheap silicon made in countries with cheaper labor that in the US rather than just subsidizing the production of semiconductors domestically?
- baybal2 5y ago
  Modern fabs are nearly completely lights out. There are more people sitting in offices there than on the floor. I fact there is a huge oversupply of semiconductor engineers globally because of fabs becoming less, and less labour intensive. Companies take a big effort to reduce the number of people on the floor futher, but now not so much for labour cost readon, but security. The chance of somebody who shouldn't really be on the floor acidentally pressing the wrong button, and sending $10M worth of wafers down the drain is the risk they don't want to take.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    Two related questions: 1. Would it thus cost the same to operate such a fab in the US? 2. Why did the US outsourced the semiconductor fabrication in the first place? Was it more labour intensive in the past?
    - baybal2 5y ago
      1. Labour-wise probably 3-4 times the Taiwan, but labour cost of fabs is microscopic in comparison to everything else. Taiwan does not have dramatically lower taxes than US, but there is something particular to how working capital is accounted which will make for a double digit difference in the in TW vs. US. Third is supplies. Even before the semi moving to Asia, US fabs had to import a big portion of their supplies. 2. > Why did the US outsourced the semiconductor fabrication in the first place Why did US outsource almost everything, even when it makes no sense? It simply tough, tedious, problematic doing business in the US. I wrote about it many times before here. You mind your own business, very much literally. Few month down the line some trouble comes: lawsuit, taxmen, utilities, creditors, SEC, city hall, suppliers, random activists, labour union... pick any.
throwaway4good 5y ago
That is a very American perspective on things. Hundreds of thousands of US troops are stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea here 75 years after the end of the second world war. Do you think we would like them to stay for another decade? Our politicians may not be in a position to say so, but we would really like our land to be free of foreign troops. As would any other nation.
- csomar 5y ago
  I don't think so. > German Chancellor opposes US troop withdrawal plan https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-opposes-us-troop-withdrawal-plan/1930332 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-opposes-us... Without having a powerful army, Europe is just an order from being invaded by Russia.
  - kwere 5y ago
    thats silly
  - orbifold 5y ago
    Sure because Russia has a long history of attacking Western Europe unprovoked. Napoleon, WW1, UK US intervention in the Revolution, Polish Invasion and WW2 clearly had Russia as an Aggressor.
    - Paradigma11 5y ago
      Or more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring or those russian soldiers on holiday in the ukraine.
      - paganel 5y ago
        In all fairness OP was mentioning Western Europe. One could argue about the validity of ideologically partitioning Europe into an Eastern and Western part (I know I'm also guilty of that) but that's another discussion.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> it is nearly oil-independent This has never been how it works. Oil is a global commodity. Even if the US produced as much as it consumes, if something happened in the middle east, the global price would go up. Because when the price went up in Europe or Asia, American oil producers would sell to the highest bidder, which would force American consumers to bid higher. The real path to "independence" is to stop consuming oil, i.e. the electrification of transportation and heating. Which is starting but nowhere near finished. Because electricity generated from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro is not a global commodity. Nothing that happens in Iran is going to change the cost of power generated at Hoover Dam.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  The US can, and absolutely will, restrict oil exports if prices start to skyrocket. Gas prices are an enormous electoral cudgel. It wasn't even legal to export oil until 2015! https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-118#:~:text=With%20U.S.%20crude%20oil%20production,of%20U.S.%20crude%20oil%20worldwide https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-118#:~:text=With%20U.S.%....
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > The US can, and absolutely will, restrict oil exports if prices start to skyrocket. That would cost US oil producers billions of dollars -- more than the price increase would cost US consumers. Which would only happen if oil producers had dramatically less political influence than they do now, i.e. if we stopped producing so much oil. But then there would be no reason to do it. > It wasn't even legal to export oil until 2015! Crude oil. It was protectionism for US refineries, not the other thing. Which makes oil cost consumers more, because of the reduction in competition for refining.
    - lumost 5y ago
      On a temporary basis this is true as the market is restricted. On a long term time horizon you would simply expect consolidation of global refineries into a new, more powerful monopoly.
throwawaysea 5y ago
With that in mind I feel it is time for the US to take a much more aggressive stance in defending Taiwan. They should simply figure out a way for it to be an autonomous territory of the US. Hong Kong as well, since China is not following the requirements of the agreement forged some 20 years ago - we might as well consider those bill and void and forge an agreement with the HK government to bring them into the US fold formally. This would mean security for those territories and mutual economic prosperity.
- dzonga 5y ago
  that literally means war. I'm in Taiwan currently though I'm not Taiwanase or of chinese descent. Taiwan is a mono-ethnic country, where a good % of the population believe it or not identify with the mainland. Culturally their are similar, speak the same language. Mainland is Taiwan's biggest trading partner. & before the Japs was Chinese territory. and China has an iron will to bring Taiwan into the fold. What would the US gain again from making Taiwan it's territory - war and more debt. Chip fabs can easily be built in the US on a 3 year timeline. Whereas that same 3 year timeline, maybe the PRC would've taken Taiwan.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    I think the free world owes Taiwan that degree of protection of their sovereignty. It wouldn’t likely result in war - China wouldn’t risk that, since it is as much a burden to them as it would be to the US. This is just a big game of chicken, and on one side is the US and all its allies (NATO) after all. The US would gain a foothold in the region politically and militarily, and can rest assured that the capacity for semiconductor manufacturing, a specialized capability, doesn’t fall into the hands of mainland China.
    - otoburb 5y ago
      >>I think the free world owes Taiwan that degree of protection of their sovereignty. The rest of the free world would likely need to take the first step of officially recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign country[1] before deciding to officially commit to protecting Taiwan. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/en/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan https://worldpopulationreview.com/en/country-rankings/countr...

baybal2 5y ago

> it is nearly oil-independent, Like as if it wasn't for the entire century. USA has ennormous, and largely unexplored oil reserves.

mschuster91 5y ago
They're unexplored for a reason. Fracking is immensely damaging to the ecosystem. Additionally, the US won't ever need to touch these again if it manages to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  It’s not as damaging as coal, which is fortunate for the clean energy transition. Solar is now the cheapest assuming we get grid scale storage(or, more likely, store excess solar as hydrogen fuel).
  - lazide 5y ago
    Most solar is now produced in China, at 71%+ as of 2019 (and only grown since then I imagine). If we’re talking national security, that is a concern too.
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      These panels might last 30 years, which is great! Also gives us time to consider strategies…
- will4274 5y ago
  > Fracking is immensely damaging to the ecosystem. Not really. Energy is a dirty business, and also one filled with politics and propoganda. Fracking, much like nuclear, was targeted mostly for political, not technical reasons. It's damaging, but less so than coal and not all that much more than vanilla drilling and pipelines in general.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Worth to mention that US reserves are enormous even without fracking. Tons of oil, and gas everywhere.
    - davidf18 5y ago
      We drill off the Gulf Coast, but not the East and West Coasts yet, for example.

ithkuil 5y ago

Did anybody do the math of whether it's more cost effective to pay for all that military to ensure you get cheap silicon made in countries with cheaper labor that in the US rather than just subsidizing the production of semiconductors domestically?

baybal2 5y ago
Modern fabs are nearly completely lights out. There are more people sitting in offices there than on the floor. I fact there is a huge oversupply of semiconductor engineers globally because of fabs becoming less, and less labour intensive. Companies take a big effort to reduce the number of people on the floor futher, but now not so much for labour cost readon, but security. The chance of somebody who shouldn't really be on the floor acidentally pressing the wrong button, and sending $10M worth of wafers down the drain is the risk they don't want to take.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  Two related questions: 1. Would it thus cost the same to operate such a fab in the US? 2. Why did the US outsourced the semiconductor fabrication in the first place? Was it more labour intensive in the past?
  - baybal2 5y ago
    1. Labour-wise probably 3-4 times the Taiwan, but labour cost of fabs is microscopic in comparison to everything else. Taiwan does not have dramatically lower taxes than US, but there is something particular to how working capital is accounted which will make for a double digit difference in the in TW vs. US. Third is supplies. Even before the semi moving to Asia, US fabs had to import a big portion of their supplies. 2. > Why did the US outsourced the semiconductor fabrication in the first place Why did US outsource almost everything, even when it makes no sense? It simply tough, tedious, problematic doing business in the US. I wrote about it many times before here. You mind your own business, very much literally. Few month down the line some trouble comes: lawsuit, taxmen, utilities, creditors, SEC, city hall, suppliers, random activists, labour union... pick any.

throwaway4good 5y ago

That is a very American perspective on things. Hundreds of thousands of US troops are stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea here 75 years after the end of the second world war. Do you think we would like them to stay for another decade? Our politicians may not be in a position to say so, but we would really like our land to be free of foreign troops. As would any other nation.

csomar 5y ago
I don't think so. > German Chancellor opposes US troop withdrawal plan https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-opposes-us-troop-withdrawal-plan/1930332 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-chancellor-opposes-us... Without having a powerful army, Europe is just an order from being invaded by Russia.
- kwere 5y ago
  thats silly
- orbifold 5y ago
  Sure because Russia has a long history of attacking Western Europe unprovoked. Napoleon, WW1, UK US intervention in the Revolution, Polish Invasion and WW2 clearly had Russia as an Aggressor.
  - Paradigma11 5y ago
    Or more recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring or those russian soldiers on holiday in the ukraine.
    - paganel 5y ago
      In all fairness OP was mentioning Western Europe. One could argue about the validity of ideologically partitioning Europe into an Eastern and Western part (I know I'm also guilty of that) but that's another discussion.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> it is nearly oil-independent This has never been how it works. Oil is a global commodity. Even if the US produced as much as it consumes, if something happened in the middle east, the global price would go up. Because when the price went up in Europe or Asia, American oil producers would sell to the highest bidder, which would force American consumers to bid higher. The real path to "independence" is to stop consuming oil, i.e. the electrification of transportation and heating. Which is starting but nowhere near finished. Because electricity generated from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro is not a global commodity. Nothing that happens in Iran is going to change the cost of power generated at Hoover Dam.

bpodgursky 5y ago
The US can, and absolutely will, restrict oil exports if prices start to skyrocket. Gas prices are an enormous electoral cudgel. It wasn't even legal to export oil until 2015! https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-118#:~:text=With%20U.S.%20crude%20oil%20production,of%20U.S.%20crude%20oil%20worldwide https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-118#:~:text=With%20U.S.%....
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > The US can, and absolutely will, restrict oil exports if prices start to skyrocket. That would cost US oil producers billions of dollars -- more than the price increase would cost US consumers. Which would only happen if oil producers had dramatically less political influence than they do now, i.e. if we stopped producing so much oil. But then there would be no reason to do it. > It wasn't even legal to export oil until 2015! Crude oil. It was protectionism for US refineries, not the other thing. Which makes oil cost consumers more, because of the reduction in competition for refining.
  - lumost 5y ago
    On a temporary basis this is true as the market is restricted. On a long term time horizon you would simply expect consolidation of global refineries into a new, more powerful monopoly.

throwawaysea 5y ago

With that in mind I feel it is time for the US to take a much more aggressive stance in defending Taiwan. They should simply figure out a way for it to be an autonomous territory of the US. Hong Kong as well, since China is not following the requirements of the agreement forged some 20 years ago - we might as well consider those bill and void and forge an agreement with the HK government to bring them into the US fold formally. This would mean security for those territories and mutual economic prosperity.

dzonga 5y ago
that literally means war. I'm in Taiwan currently though I'm not Taiwanase or of chinese descent. Taiwan is a mono-ethnic country, where a good % of the population believe it or not identify with the mainland. Culturally their are similar, speak the same language. Mainland is Taiwan's biggest trading partner. & before the Japs was Chinese territory. and China has an iron will to bring Taiwan into the fold. What would the US gain again from making Taiwan it's territory - war and more debt. Chip fabs can easily be built in the US on a 3 year timeline. Whereas that same 3 year timeline, maybe the PRC would've taken Taiwan.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I think the free world owes Taiwan that degree of protection of their sovereignty. It wouldn’t likely result in war - China wouldn’t risk that, since it is as much a burden to them as it would be to the US. This is just a big game of chicken, and on one side is the US and all its allies (NATO) after all. The US would gain a foothold in the region politically and militarily, and can rest assured that the capacity for semiconductor manufacturing, a specialized capability, doesn’t fall into the hands of mainland China.
  - otoburb 5y ago
    >>I think the free world owes Taiwan that degree of protection of their sovereignty. The rest of the free world would likely need to take the first step of officially recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign country[1] before deciding to officially commit to protecting Taiwan. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/en/country-rankings/countries-that-recognize-taiwan https://worldpopulationreview.com/en/country-rankings/countr...