4 ms·

Honestly? The world's chipmaking should be more decentralized simply from a national security perspective. One needs to only look at the effects of sanctions o

Honestly? The world's chipmaking should be more decentralized simply from a national security perspective. One needs to only look at the effects of sanctions on russia, once one of the world's preeminent superpowers, now lacks access to chips to such a degree that they're repurposing hugely expensive surface to air (s3-400) missiles for ground attack and relying on iranian drones for precision attacks. The fact that china could reduce 63% of the world's chip making capacity to rubble at a whim is a strategic threat to the global economy. This is one area where we could absolutely use some redundant supply, even at the cost of taxpayer dollars.

boxed 4y ago
Automatic car speed cameras are being raided here in Sweden to be sold on the black market to Russia for use in military components. That speaks to their level of need!
nostromo 4y ago
It's notable that this is the primary argument for farm subsidies -- often pilloried on HN. When it comes to food, energy, water and critical tech, it makes sense to control your supply, even if it comes at a premium.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > this is the primary argument for farm subsidies -- often pilloried on HN I don't think there's a strong objection to farm subsidies on their own. The complaints mostly revolve around (a) the food that gets subsidized is food that makes us unhealthy, and (b) the politicians pushing farm subsidies are also against other forms of government assistance, and refuse to recognize the inconsistency in these attitudes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
zamalek 4y ago
> even at the cost of taxpayer dollars. And not even a major cost. 50bn sounds like a lot to a layperson (and makes for great clickbait). We spend 700bn on military every year. It's more jobs, especially different jobs. It's fewer imports (possibly not more exports with this isolationist trend we're seeing globally). There's more trust in the supply chain. Ths article/propaganda is very short-sighted, as per usual.
- uoaei 4y ago
  The Economist is not especially known for long-term thinking, despite the many self-aggrandizing ways economists describe their own field. The more cynical among us believe this to be a feature, not a bug, for those whose lives revolve around shuffling capital to and fro, as it makes for interesting and exploitable market conditions to enrich oneself.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >It's more jobs, especially different jobs. It's jobs that Americans can't do (or at least not in sufficient volume). These are high-skill jobs; you can't just grab some uneducated person and expect them to do the work necessary to keep a place like TSMC running. That's why these chips are made in Taiwan, and not in places like Cambodia, El Salvador, or Rwanda. America also doesn't have the skill necessary to replace TSMC. What chipmaking capacity it has is already tied up with Intel (which doesn't make chips for most things outside of PCs and servers). America doesn't have an excess of engineers that could be trained for this work; they're already busy doing other stuff (usually software), and there's already a shortage of them anyway. This isn't a problem you can just throw money at to solve. There simply aren't enough skilled workers available to do what the leaders want here.
  - Serenacula 4y ago
    This is true, but the only way you're going to fix that problem is to start trying. Expertise can be built, even rebuilt, it's just difficult. Plus, money DOES allow you to hire outside consultants and teachers. Decentralising the chip foundries is a necessary step, arguably one that should've been made long ago.

boxed 4y ago

Automatic car speed cameras are being raided here in Sweden to be sold on the black market to Russia for use in military components. That speaks to their level of need!

nostromo 4y ago

It's notable that this is the primary argument for farm subsidies -- often pilloried on HN. When it comes to food, energy, water and critical tech, it makes sense to control your supply, even if it comes at a premium.

mcphage 4y ago
> this is the primary argument for farm subsidies -- often pilloried on HN I don't think there's a strong objection to farm subsidies on their own. The complaints mostly revolve around (a) the food that gets subsidized is food that makes us unhealthy, and (b) the politicians pushing farm subsidies are also against other forms of government assistance, and refuse to recognize the inconsistency in these attitudes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

zamalek 4y ago

> even at the cost of taxpayer dollars. And not even a major cost. 50bn sounds like a lot to a layperson (and makes for great clickbait). We spend 700bn on military every year. It's more jobs, especially different jobs. It's fewer imports (possibly not more exports with this isolationist trend we're seeing globally). There's more trust in the supply chain. Ths article/propaganda is very short-sighted, as per usual.

uoaei 4y ago
The Economist is not especially known for long-term thinking, despite the many self-aggrandizing ways economists describe their own field. The more cynical among us believe this to be a feature, not a bug, for those whose lives revolve around shuffling capital to and fro, as it makes for interesting and exploitable market conditions to enrich oneself.
midoridensha 4y ago
>It's more jobs, especially different jobs. It's jobs that Americans can't do (or at least not in sufficient volume). These are high-skill jobs; you can't just grab some uneducated person and expect them to do the work necessary to keep a place like TSMC running. That's why these chips are made in Taiwan, and not in places like Cambodia, El Salvador, or Rwanda. America also doesn't have the skill necessary to replace TSMC. What chipmaking capacity it has is already tied up with Intel (which doesn't make chips for most things outside of PCs and servers). America doesn't have an excess of engineers that could be trained for this work; they're already busy doing other stuff (usually software), and there's already a shortage of them anyway. This isn't a problem you can just throw money at to solve. There simply aren't enough skilled workers available to do what the leaders want here.
- Serenacula 4y ago
  This is true, but the only way you're going to fix that problem is to start trying. Expertise can be built, even rebuilt, it's just difficult. Plus, money DOES allow you to hire outside consultants and teachers. Decentralising the chip foundries is a necessary step, arguably one that should've been made long ago.