5 ms·

Such a monumental scam and a gross theft from taxpayers. Companies making billions of dollars in profits don't need free money. I could be onboard with a subs

• qaq 4y ago
  What would be a good way?
  • frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
    United States Semiconductor - aka spinning up a nationalized firm.
    • drexlspivey 4y ago
      And that’s gonna be cheaper?
      • dangrossman 4y ago
        The goal isn't to be cheaper, it's to have a reliable domestic supply chain.
        • drexlspivey 4y ago
          Which the bill will provide for a fraction of the cost
    • alldayeveryday 4y ago
      Agreed with this. Has many benefits, including that the profits flow back to the taxpayers rather than to corporations and shareholders. Semiconductors are too important to national security to be controlled by profit seeking corporations whom have little allegiance to the nation or the people.
  • skywal_l 4y ago
    Have the DOD force its suppliers to make their things in the US? Only allow them to import raw materials or low value manufactured elements. Just throwing ideas, might not be practical...
    • Alupis 4y ago
      People already complain about the infamous "$5,000" wrenches and other silly ITAR compliance shenanigan's the DoD plays and drains their coffers... leading to increases in funding over the past many decades.
    • bushbaba 4y ago
      *And force all US Federal spending to not purchase computer equipment made outside the US with non US made components.
    • WebbWeaver 4y ago
      Yes but without a foreign policy economic investment may be difficult.
    • colinmhayes 4y ago
      Pretty sure that’s already the case.
    • Goronmon 4y ago
      Have the DOD force its suppliers to make their things in the US? Only allow them to import raw materials or low value manufactured elements. Just throwing ideas, might not be practical... Are there controls on what suppliers charge? If not, what prevents them from charging as much or more than would be spent on subsidies? If so, what prevents suppliers from just choosing to opt out of the transaction entirely?
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      There are already trusted foundries for sensitive silicon. https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf https://www.dmea.osd.mil/otherdocs/AccreditedSuppliers.pdf
  • alldayeveryday 4y ago
    Nationalization, imo. Nationalize semiconductor manufacturing, such that the profits flow back to the people.
    • qaq 4y ago
      Yep that always works out great
• tdhz77 4y ago
  Cost is not the only consideration. I fear for people who only focus on one issue and ignore the rest. Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. I would say they find that reliance on China to be a threat to National Security. US and China communications is zero and even lower than it was during the Cold War. Pelosi story on visiting Taiwan should give you an idea of the stakes that are play. China siding with Russia should be the final consideration of the United States commitment to Democracy and people. Cost is really just one data point and should not be the only consideration. This concept can be applied to many more things, and I think you should rethink.
  • 01100011 4y ago
    You can't wave the magic wand of national security and justify any inefficient or ineffective attempt at stealing from the future to goose the present. The short term goal should be to diversify critical US supply chains away from a country that is currently considered by the US to be an competitor. I'm sure you remember that US official policy since the 70s is the "One China Policy" which admits that Taiwan is a part of China and that only attempts to reunify by force will be responded to(*). So the US needs to move supply chains out of PRC/ROC, but moving them to S. Korea, Japan, or dozens of other friendly nations is an acceptable goal from a national security standpoint. * - I'm not a fan of this, but it is what it is. I didn't realize it until recently.
    • LAC-Tech 4y ago
      One of the most pernicious myths about this situation out there is that there is a single "One China Policy" shared by everyone on earth. This is not the case. The One China Policy of the US is different to that of the PRC. And I quote: - The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. - The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. - U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; - U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and - U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. Next time you read a news story about this issue, take note of the fact that PRC officials use the term "the One China policy" while US officials use the term "our 'One China' policy".
• colechristensen 4y ago
  The opposite direction of motivation is to tariff semiconductor imports and still I doubt a quarter of a trillion dollars would be invested so fast. Geopolitical issues forcing this aren't the fault of the semiconductor providers, decades of policy are at fault for letting the situation get this bad. And to be fair future taxes will recoup some of this, as will the value provided to the state of an increased reliability of sourcing semiconductors. It may not be the most cost-effective solution but it's the solution we need at this point because China isn't our friend and increasingly seems like won't be.
• Alupis 4y ago
  Clearly, handouts are needed to force/incentivize these companies to build new fabs in the continental US. Otherwise they would have built them under their own gumption by now. When there is no clear benefit for the company to fab chips in the continental US, and a lot of clear negatives (cost, regulations, etc) - you have to do something to outweigh the cons. If the US had been an amazing place to fab chips already, hand-outs would be completely unnecessary and we would already have a bustling chip fabbing industry. But... we don't. Perhaps after handing out all this "free" money, lawmakers need to take a long hard look at why our chip fabbing industry has nearly vanished.
  • lettergram 4y ago
    Alternatively, you add a 20% tax on CPUs made outside the US. That would incentivize the fans manufactured in the US even if it’s a foreign company.
    • kube-system 4y ago
      Depends on how much money the other countries are handing out to build CPUs there.
    • Alupis 4y ago
      Or, chips just become 20% more expensive in the US and the consumer loses... and the US still doesn't gain supply chain security. I don't think tariffs will work when the alternative requires massive outlay of capital and decades to recoup. Not to mention, there is no reality where manufacturing these chips in the US costs less than Taiwan, for example. There is no reason to build a fab in the US with the current economic and regulatory climate. So... we have to force it to happen... which is what this bill does.
      • StillBored 4y ago
        I think in this case the US is different than say Chile because its such a large market. AKA its large enough to support home grown manufacturing if the incentives aren't out of wack. The chicken tax, as been an incredibly efficient way to assure that car's are manufactured in the USA, so much so that the cost difference between a Ford manufactured in Mexico and a Toyota manufactured in TX is basically 0.
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  Often times the people in any individual nation don't want to hear it, but nations are in competition with each other to attract business. This undermines any other function of what people think a government is there for and the system that government operates under. If people were told anything else, they were told a lie. There are different people operating under more effective set of rules, and they can pit countries against each other to sweeten the deal of operating within that country. Its just simply a more effective set of rules than whatever people were taught in their civics class, or by an animated sheet of paper singing about how bills are formed.
• WebbWeaver 4y ago
  >This is not the most cost effective way to do it. Agreed. The alternatives should have been presented. Maybe include this in partnership with canada, mexico and others. Where the wonks at?
• Drblessing 4y ago
  It's as simple as this: If companies could manufacture chips profitably in America, they would be. American Laws & Regulations prohibit domestic semiconductor manufacturing without Government subsidies.
  • jszymborski 4y ago
    Another way of looking at this is that under regulation of competing industries in other countries requires intervention (be it via tariff or subsidy). I think people here have argued the strengths/weaknesses of each approach. The best solution is likely some nuanced mix of the two, but nuanced policy is hard to create and I rather we eat the costs of any of the two approaches that are more likely to be adopted today rather than continue to take no action.
• goatcode 4y ago
  >This is not the most cost effective way to do it. What would you recommend?
  • 01100011 4y ago
    Opening up the possibility that other countries, friendly to the US, could also produce some of our semiconductors. We can work to expand S. Korean capacity, for instance. We also don't need to dump money on a problem that would respond to more gentle incentives like low interest rate loans, laws favoring government purchasing of chips from aligned nations, and incentives to boost the infrastructure needed to manufacture chips. One big piece of bringing back mfg to the US is considering expedited environmental review in limited economic zones and commitments to improving our energy and chemical industries which feed into semis. You could write a book on ways to do it, but stealing money from the future and raining it onto companies that already make billions in profits is comically short sighted.
    • goatcode 4y ago
      Would there be a domestic target for the same ideas that you'd propose a foreign one(s), or do you believe there to be something more virtuous about South Korea et. al that'd make them better recipients of such things?
• sbf501 4y ago
  The reason why non-US cities manufacture so many semiconductors is that there is simply no profit. Capitalism has pushed manufacturing overseas. There are roughly 100-1000 more ARM chips than Intel chips in the world, but the profit margins are miniscule compared to Intel. If Intel made commodity chips, their shareholders would lose value. This bill basically subsidizes the already wealthy to get more wealth and probably won't do much since China will continue to expand while US fabs come online. Free hand of the market my ass.
• maerF0x0 4y ago
  I'd like to see a matching consumer side tax. Basically forced on shoring and user pay taxation (instead of taxing my grandma who uses about 0 chips, lol more than amazon who uses millions/billions of chips but pays next to no taxes)
• verdverm 4y ago
  We don't need the most cost effective way, something that costs a bit more and will make it happen (faster) is preferable
• onepointsixC 4y ago
  So what is the most cost effective way to do so? China's pouring hundreds of billions in subsidies into fabs. South Korea is pouring hundreds of billions in subsidies. Tariffs alone would only allow for domestic balancing of those subsidies but lose you the global market. So again, what would you recommend instead.
  • pessimizer 4y ago
    China is going to insist on a lot of control over the companies that it subsidizes, and South Korea is just hopelessly corrupt. If we went the China route, that's fine, but instead we do welfare for billionaires again.