5 ms·

Disagreeing is easy. Coming up with reasonable alternatives is not. Two steps ahead is bringing critical manufacturing back under one's control. Guess who want

Disagreeing is easy. Coming up with reasonable alternatives is not. Two steps ahead is bringing critical manufacturing back under one's control. Guess who wanted that?

eru 5y ago
Why does manufacturing need to be under government control?
- fmajid 5y ago
  He meant on your own shores where critical supplies are not at the mercy of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Meanwhile, the status quo worked well for almost everyone including Taiwan.
  - eru 5y ago
    Funny enough during the pandemic, it was better for manufacturing to be off-shore. That's because American price-controls and anti-price-gouging laws (and chilling effects from fear of them) don't really apply to foreign importers to the US, only to domestic companies. US lawmakers haven't quite gotten around to legislating world market prices yet after all. So the prices of imported goods could rise to clear the markets. For domestically produced goods you were more likely to see empty shelves, lines and (informal) rationing; like super markets only selling you limited quantities.
N1H1L 5y ago
Countries with manufacturing under government control haven't fared that well. The US has led a lot of fab investments over the past 1-2 years, with at least seven new fabs under construction from Intel and TSMC. The America Competes Act, if passed will be a great fillip, and the chances are that it will be passed looks high at the moment. The previous president, (not naming him just to keep things a bit apolitical) also had tons of bad ideas. A huge amount of the US advanced tech industry (such as semiconductors or EVs) depends on foreign talent, and publishing a Stephen Miller drafted Executive Order (No. 13940 - August 2020) with the stated purpose of disallowing any visa holders to work in a government contractor (which includes almost every tech company from Intel to Nvidia to Google) is a stupid move, and would have been suicidal.
- the-dude 5y ago
  If you wanted to keep it apolitical, why are you dragging a completely separate issue related to a certain, unnamed, but very well know person into the thread?
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    The overwhelming lesson of the preceding four-year administration is that everything is political. You may ignore politics, but rest assured, politics doesn't ignore you. Bad things tend to happen when you try.
    - N1H1L 5y ago
      Hiring people, which was honestly the most routine thing, has become insanely political. If an organization's employee list becomes a political point, then how are you going to escape that?
  - N1H1L 5y ago
    This is not an unrelated issue. You want chip fabs in the US. Great. Who is going to run them if Executive Orders prevent you from hiring fab scientists? Why is that "unrelated"? Chip fabs don't run themselves.

Disagreeing is easy. Coming up with reasonable alternatives is not. Two steps ahead is bringing critical manufacturing back under one's control. Guess who wanted that?

eru 5y ago

Why does manufacturing need to be under government control?

fmajid 5y ago
He meant on your own shores where critical supplies are not at the mercy of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  Meanwhile, the status quo worked well for almost everyone including Taiwan.
- eru 5y ago
  Funny enough during the pandemic, it was better for manufacturing to be off-shore. That's because American price-controls and anti-price-gouging laws (and chilling effects from fear of them) don't really apply to foreign importers to the US, only to domestic companies. US lawmakers haven't quite gotten around to legislating world market prices yet after all. So the prices of imported goods could rise to clear the markets. For domestically produced goods you were more likely to see empty shelves, lines and (informal) rationing; like super markets only selling you limited quantities.

N1H1L 5y ago

Countries with manufacturing under government control haven't fared that well. The US has led a lot of fab investments over the past 1-2 years, with at least seven new fabs under construction from Intel and TSMC. The America Competes Act, if passed will be a great fillip, and the chances are that it will be passed looks high at the moment. The previous president, (not naming him just to keep things a bit apolitical) also had tons of bad ideas. A huge amount of the US advanced tech industry (such as semiconductors or EVs) depends on foreign talent, and publishing a Stephen Miller drafted Executive Order (No. 13940 - August 2020) with the stated purpose of disallowing any visa holders to work in a government contractor (which includes almost every tech company from Intel to Nvidia to Google) is a stupid move, and would have been suicidal.

the-dude 5y ago
If you wanted to keep it apolitical, why are you dragging a completely separate issue related to a certain, unnamed, but very well know person into the thread?
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The overwhelming lesson of the preceding four-year administration is that everything is political. You may ignore politics, but rest assured, politics doesn't ignore you. Bad things tend to happen when you try.
  - N1H1L 5y ago
    Hiring people, which was honestly the most routine thing, has become insanely political. If an organization's employee list becomes a political point, then how are you going to escape that?
- N1H1L 5y ago
  This is not an unrelated issue. You want chip fabs in the US. Great. Who is going to run them if Executive Orders prevent you from hiring fab scientists? Why is that "unrelated"? Chip fabs don't run themselves.