4 ms·
Good thing there are $200B worth of proof already. At what point would you be satisfied, if 100% of semi manufacturing took place in the US and 0 chips were man
by merman 3y ago
Good thing there are $200B worth of proof already. At what point would you be satisfied, if 100% of semi manufacturing took place in the US and 0 chips were manufactured elsewhere the instant the grants were handed out?
- javajosh 3y agoIt's odd but comments like yours would normally elicit something like anger, now elicit sadness. Why do you take this tone? Why do you willfully misunderstand my point? Why not take a charitable view? I'd be happy if even half of that money actually went into a fab, and only half was wasted on lawyers, fees, studies, and wherever else free money manages to go rather than to actually building things. The timeline doesn't matter, nor does the fraction of on-shore chips made. You created those measurements out of thin air.
- merman 3y agoI took a very charitable take of your comment, that at best can be interpreted as “this policy was completely useless” when the evidence is staring you in the face. TSMC was clearly motivated by CHIPS to build fabs in the US for dozens of billions and pocketed a fraction of that as a handout. The fact that I’m writing this obvious information down is charitable.
- crote 3y agoThe big question is what exactly is being built. The CHIPS Act was marketed as an "AI cold war", and needing to bring high-tech research and production back to the US. Is is actually doing that by incentivizing companies to build leading-edge fabs in the US, or are companies just using it as free money to expand the production capacity of their trailing-edge processes? Sure, having locally-sourced trailing-edge chips is still better than getting them from overseas, but it doesn't exactly do anything to reach the intended goals.