3 ms·

> 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 mil

> 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.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Why should taxpayer money be used to fund private ventures though? It's obviously not economically viable to make chips in America, otherwise it would already be happening. Taiwan is not a low cost-of-labor country; it excels in chipmaking because of various factors like education and the industry there, just like America excels in some other industries for various reasons, such as software (e.g. Google and Apple). Hiring consultants and teachers (from where?) isn't going to help with the complete lack of engineers. It takes many, many years to build a workforce of engineers needed for what's being discussed here, and even then it's not guaranteed because it relies on getting young people to go to engineering school and get degrees in relevant specialties, and then work in industry for a while to gain relevant experience. This isn't something you can just throw some money at to acquire or develop.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      > It's obviously not economically viable to make chips in America, otherwise it would already be happening. Path dependence is a thing. It might be perfectly economical once you get there, it was just simpler to establish in Taiwan for whatever historical reasons.
- mcphage 4y ago
  > There simply aren't enough skilled workers available to do what the leaders want here. Given how long it takes foundries to get up and running, this seems like something you can solve in parallel.

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.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Why should taxpayer money be used to fund private ventures though? It's obviously not economically viable to make chips in America, otherwise it would already be happening. Taiwan is not a low cost-of-labor country; it excels in chipmaking because of various factors like education and the industry there, just like America excels in some other industries for various reasons, such as software (e.g. Google and Apple). Hiring consultants and teachers (from where?) isn't going to help with the complete lack of engineers. It takes many, many years to build a workforce of engineers needed for what's being discussed here, and even then it's not guaranteed because it relies on getting young people to go to engineering school and get degrees in relevant specialties, and then work in industry for a while to gain relevant experience. This isn't something you can just throw some money at to acquire or develop.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    > It's obviously not economically viable to make chips in America, otherwise it would already be happening. Path dependence is a thing. It might be perfectly economical once you get there, it was just simpler to establish in Taiwan for whatever historical reasons.
mcphage 4y ago
> There simply aren't enough skilled workers available to do what the leaders want here. Given how long it takes foundries to get up and running, this seems like something you can solve in parallel.