4 ms·

This feels a mistake. On the whole, I think the US should have strong, positive relations with China, and that's not a broader point about "tough on China" or

This feels a mistake. On the whole, I think the US should have strong, positive relations with China, and that's not a broader point about "tough on China" or any nonsense like that. This specific decision seems like a mistake, though. Hundreds of more aggressive, confrontational, less productive actions have been taken by the US. The US should protect the IC industry specifically. If it falls behind China here, it's f*cked.

dirtyid 4y ago
US likely didn't have the leverage. US couldn't convince other CHIP4 partners (TW/SKR/JP) to seppuku their semi industry by losing ~1/3 of revenue from cutting off PRC, especially with coming semi crash. Ergo US had to do these unilateral export controls trying to coerce everyone to cooperate, but as long as East Asia makes 90%+ of chips that US high tech depends on, other actors have some leverage to push back, because they don't want to cripple their own semi industry. Samsung also got 1-year waiver. I'd expect more companies to get waivers going forward once lawyers/lobbyist look at the spreadsheet. Also expect non US companies to de-americanize US origin tech from equipment to get piece of 400B PRC semi pie. And good chance those TSMC/Samsung fabs in Arizona will likely be delayed / dragged out to negotiate future waivers. And a bunch of layoffs in western semi from companies that's going to lose ~1/3 revenue which will impact R&D (which may make it easier for PRC to close parity). Ontop of the US / green card / residents working in PRC semi that just became unemployed. Maybe it's worth it, but plenty ways this could backfire. One thing is for sure, going forward, every node PRC closes in, they're going to absolutely crank up industrial policy to cut into US margins and try to cripple US semi in retaliation.
- frognumber 4y ago
  Cutting off chips? Probably not. Cutting off chip manufacturing equipment? I think they would. A lot of the chip bans, for example, seem problematic to me. NVidia ought to be able to ship to China. Those just encourage growth of competitors. On the other hand, things like lithography equipment ought to stay the ---- out of China.

dirtyid 4y ago

US likely didn't have the leverage. US couldn't convince other CHIP4 partners (TW/SKR/JP) to seppuku their semi industry by losing ~1/3 of revenue from cutting off PRC, especially with coming semi crash. Ergo US had to do these unilateral export controls trying to coerce everyone to cooperate, but as long as East Asia makes 90%+ of chips that US high tech depends on, other actors have some leverage to push back, because they don't want to cripple their own semi industry. Samsung also got 1-year waiver. I'd expect more companies to get waivers going forward once lawyers/lobbyist look at the spreadsheet. Also expect non US companies to de-americanize US origin tech from equipment to get piece of 400B PRC semi pie. And good chance those TSMC/Samsung fabs in Arizona will likely be delayed / dragged out to negotiate future waivers. And a bunch of layoffs in western semi from companies that's going to lose ~1/3 revenue which will impact R&D (which may make it easier for PRC to close parity). Ontop of the US / green card / residents working in PRC semi that just became unemployed. Maybe it's worth it, but plenty ways this could backfire. One thing is for sure, going forward, every node PRC closes in, they're going to absolutely crank up industrial policy to cut into US margins and try to cripple US semi in retaliation.

frognumber 4y ago
Cutting off chips? Probably not. Cutting off chip manufacturing equipment? I think they would. A lot of the chip bans, for example, seem problematic to me. NVidia ought to be able to ship to China. Those just encourage growth of competitors. On the other hand, things like lithography equipment ought to stay the ---- out of China.