5 ms·

While it's good that the CHIPS act is being passed, it's far too modest of a bill considering how important semiconductors are to the US. Just compare it to the

While it's good that the CHIPS act is being passed, it's far too modest of a bill considering how important semiconductors are to the US. Just compare it to the South Korean $450Bn bill[1]. In the 80's enormous foreign subsidization of commercial ship building by South Korea, Japan, and others, saw the near total loss of that key industry in America. Semiconductors must not be allowed to suffer a similar fate. [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unveils-450-billion-push-to-seize-global-chipmaking-crown https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q https://archive.ph/9Gs8q

remarkEon 4y ago
The loss of commercial ship building in the US is something I want to learn more about. Did it happen simply because other countries subsidized their own industries and the US couldn’t compete? Would love a long form history of that industry going back a few centuries.
- samstave 4y ago
  Im sure environmental aspects play a role - the shipyards in asia are unbelievably huge. Plus the chinese shipyards build literal battleships/aircraft-carriers and cruise ships and cargo ships sitting right next to eachother - and its said they steal/share technologies from the various contracts/products. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6520357/Satellite-images-reveal-major-Chinese-military-shipyard-expanded-rapidly.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6520357/Satellite-i... --- And there is this: China builds mock-US ships in what seems to be for battle scenario training ops.. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/08/satellite-china-us-warships-520271 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/08/satellite-china-us-...
- donthellbanme 4y ago
scottcodie 4y ago
US consumers got a lot of cheap chips from their subsidy. US businesses had to close because they couldn't compete but US consumers still won in the end. I wondering if the US government will have to subsidize this industry in perpetuity if the subsidized fabs can't become competitive.
- samstave 4y ago
  >but US consumers still won in the end Sure, but the point is that an entire industry which added employment and other positives to the economy evaporated. By saying "customers won, because they could still buy stuff through sending money to companies and industry in other countries" -- could be argued as a loss. The US is so myopically built around consumption its sickening.
  - scottcodie 4y ago
    Your argument falls under the lump of labour fallacy, a lot of new jobs were created when we had cheaper chips. If it was a loss then it wouldn't have been an economic loss :)
    - samstave 4y ago
      Sure, but unless we didnt actually move those industries/services/jobs off-shore - we would never truly know what would have resulted. We can only look at the outcome as being satisfactory to the statistics of politicians and economists - rather than the effect upon the actual families, towns, and cottage support undustries around those enterprises which left the USA... Good to see that "well, it looks good on paper" -- because the labour fallacy also suffers from thinking that all the new shit we do in the US would not have happened. Further - the new jobs that have been created (aside from the tech industry are things like massive fastfood, and consuption-capital-growth... If I an wrong, I would like to learn... but this appears to be the emgergent reality of the US, as evidenced by the ridiculous situation this country is in economically. (No, Oligarch level wealth creation and stock market actions for the 1% and corporate/hedge funds profits are not the indicators of a truly strong economy: The health, happiness, prosperity of the populous and the quality of both the countries infrastructure and of life is. And in these regard, imo, USA is flailing horrifically. --- Also, and when we look at the strength of the pretty much every industry in the US, such as tech, pharma, healthcare, finance, etc... Every single one of them is 100% dependent on the brain-importation from other countries. Yet, we can't even service the needs of the overall citizenry.
pfisherman 4y ago
Agreed. If you consider chips to be a strategic resource - like the food supply - then the government will need to step in and set a subsidy / price floor to ensure over production. Fyi, the US government subsidizes the overproduction of food so that we do not experience famine in the event that a significant portion of the food supply gets taken out (e.g. bad harvest, drought, etc).
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > the US government subsidizes the overproduction of food so that we do not experience famine in the event that a significant portion of the food supply gets taken out (e.g. bad harvest, drought, etc). That's the first time I've heard that reasoning, and not that the farm lobby had enough power to obtain subsidies. What evidence is there that the subsidies (from taxpayers to the farms, many run by large companies) are driven by some kind of famine protection?

remarkEon 4y ago

The loss of commercial ship building in the US is something I want to learn more about. Did it happen simply because other countries subsidized their own industries and the US couldn’t compete? Would love a long form history of that industry going back a few centuries.

samstave 4y ago
Im sure environmental aspects play a role - the shipyards in asia are unbelievably huge. Plus the chinese shipyards build literal battleships/aircraft-carriers and cruise ships and cargo ships sitting right next to eachother - and its said they steal/share technologies from the various contracts/products. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6520357/Satellite-images-reveal-major-Chinese-military-shipyard-expanded-rapidly.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6520357/Satellite-i... --- And there is this: China builds mock-US ships in what seems to be for battle scenario training ops.. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/08/satellite-china-us-warships-520271 https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/08/satellite-china-us-...
donthellbanme 4y ago

scottcodie 4y ago

US consumers got a lot of cheap chips from their subsidy. US businesses had to close because they couldn't compete but US consumers still won in the end. I wondering if the US government will have to subsidize this industry in perpetuity if the subsidized fabs can't become competitive.

samstave 4y ago
>but US consumers still won in the end Sure, but the point is that an entire industry which added employment and other positives to the economy evaporated. By saying "customers won, because they could still buy stuff through sending money to companies and industry in other countries" -- could be argued as a loss. The US is so myopically built around consumption its sickening.
- scottcodie 4y ago
  Your argument falls under the lump of labour fallacy, a lot of new jobs were created when we had cheaper chips. If it was a loss then it wouldn't have been an economic loss :)
  - samstave 4y ago
    Sure, but unless we didnt actually move those industries/services/jobs off-shore - we would never truly know what would have resulted. We can only look at the outcome as being satisfactory to the statistics of politicians and economists - rather than the effect upon the actual families, towns, and cottage support undustries around those enterprises which left the USA... Good to see that "well, it looks good on paper" -- because the labour fallacy also suffers from thinking that all the new shit we do in the US would not have happened. Further - the new jobs that have been created (aside from the tech industry are things like massive fastfood, and consuption-capital-growth... If I an wrong, I would like to learn... but this appears to be the emgergent reality of the US, as evidenced by the ridiculous situation this country is in economically. (No, Oligarch level wealth creation and stock market actions for the 1% and corporate/hedge funds profits are not the indicators of a truly strong economy: The health, happiness, prosperity of the populous and the quality of both the countries infrastructure and of life is. And in these regard, imo, USA is flailing horrifically. --- Also, and when we look at the strength of the pretty much every industry in the US, such as tech, pharma, healthcare, finance, etc... Every single one of them is 100% dependent on the brain-importation from other countries. Yet, we can't even service the needs of the overall citizenry.

pfisherman 4y ago

Agreed. If you consider chips to be a strategic resource - like the food supply - then the government will need to step in and set a subsidy / price floor to ensure over production. Fyi, the US government subsidizes the overproduction of food so that we do not experience famine in the event that a significant portion of the food supply gets taken out (e.g. bad harvest, drought, etc).

wolverine876 4y ago
> the US government subsidizes the overproduction of food so that we do not experience famine in the event that a significant portion of the food supply gets taken out (e.g. bad harvest, drought, etc). That's the first time I've heard that reasoning, and not that the farm lobby had enough power to obtain subsidies. What evidence is there that the subsidies (from taxpayers to the farms, many run by large companies) are driven by some kind of famine protection?