4 ms·

It's debatable if it'll be much of a boom anywhere in the US. Most uses of chips are in cheap consumer junk overwhelmingly made overseas for bottom dollar. Se

It's debatable if it'll be much of a boom anywhere in the US. Most uses of chips are in cheap consumer junk overwhelmingly made overseas for bottom dollar. Second after that is actual serious uses for cars, not $1 electronics and more. And once you get into that category you have a finite market that is pretty much mature in terms of consumer reach. For all intensive purposes, the "EV demand surge" is over and existing semiconductors have caught up. There's also a real fear that US sanctions have caused China and other countries to intensify investment in their own semiconductor manufacturing (the EU definitely is), which will ultimately hamper the demand for US fabs.

edgyquant 3y ago
It may be debatable but the idea the chip surge is “basically over” is laughable. By your logic no nation should ever try to do anything economically because the economy is already done forming, the end of history is here.
- baz00 3y ago
  Yup the chip surge isn't anywhere over due to geopolitics and demand, both of which are serious driving forces now.
- EricE 3y ago
  Hey - no poking holes in this line of reasoning allowed. It’s a major tent pole of the global boiling religion - pesky human innovation blows too many holes on the “we are doomed - sacrifice your rights to fix it” narratives.
  - diputsmonro 3y ago
    I'm not really sure how these are related at all. Technical innovations for electric vehicles are totally different than the technical innovations required for fighting climate change. We can be poised to make progress in one sector and skeptical about progress in another. Blindly hoping that some breakthrough will happen to fix all our problems and just barreling along carelessly is worse than what you're describing.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  The primary motive is to have redundant fabs for defense critical infrastructure that is vulnerable to Chinese attack. That's why Micron is being gifted a new fab for DRAM production on the other side of the country in the midst of ongoing layoffs. Boosting production isn't the goal and CHIPS act will be a net money loser.
- User23 3y ago
  That was the ruling ethos of the United States Government from the fall of the Berlin wall on. Look how that worked out for us.
- corethree 3y ago
  History has plenty of examples of nations and economies completely ending. In fact it's so consistent that it's basically a guarantee that the current economy you're living in will be "done" eventually. Therefore it's not a laughable conclusion but a valid possibility. We've seen two major economies descend into this "done" zone with no hope for recovery: Russia and Japan. Additionally no one is saying to "not to do anything". Try all you want he is simply predicting the outcome of trying.
justrealist 3y ago
The point is economic industrial independence for the US once Taiwan lights up. You're kind of missing the point.
- bsaul 3y ago
  not sure why you got downvoted, that seemed like a pretty reasonable thing to consider.
  - User23 3y ago
    I can assure you that the Chinese strategists are. Wang Huning is way to smart not to have and he's just one that's somehow famous enough to be known in the West. I'm sure there are many more strategists of if not equal at least similar caliber working on furthering China's (hopefully) peaceful rise.
    - corethree 3y ago
      It's too chaotic. There are many who want peace but there are many who want war and there are many who will flip their opinion and this is on both sides of the line, the US and China. Anything can occur.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        What we saw in Ukraine is that arguments about geopolitics, economy, military readiness etc can be completely negated by the person in charge acting on a strategic or emotional whim. Like all the experts in the world can concur that China is better off with peace in the Pacific, but if Xi wants a war, he's getting a war.
        User23 3y ago
        Xi already believes he has a war, it’s just in the early stages. See this[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
adamc 3y ago
Just an idiom note: It's "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes". Easy to mis-hear, but something you want to remember before it makes you look ill-educated in a work memo.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  This really jives with me.
- retSava 3y ago
  It's also exactly the kind of humor I love. Intentional misuse of idioms, homonyms, intentional dangling modifiers, and the like. It's ok if people think I'm stupid, I can always prove them right!
  - robmsmt 3y ago
    reminds me when a friend said "escape goat" rather than "scapegoat"
nwiswell 3y ago
> Most uses of chips are in cheap consumer junk overwhelmingly made overseas for bottom dollar I don't understand your point. While true, those chips are made at historical process nodes using antiquated equipment. The plan isn't to buy antiquated equipment and try to compete. Friendly nations with low cost of labor and low geopolitical risk (ie., other than Taiwan) are perfectly capable of meeting our demands for old chips, given sufficient ramp time. The lion's share of the value in semiconductors is at the leading edge. These are the chips that are used in phones, laptops, PCs, servers, GPUs, et cetera. The United States has never been interested in competing on volume. We already are the world leader in producing (including manufacturing!) the cutting edge equipment that makes leading edge chips -- that is what we have denied China access to. The open question is whether we can "onshore" the actual manufacturing of leading edge chips again. Strictly speaking, Intel has always kept their most cutting edge manufacturing onshore (Oregon), but I understand that has more to do with IP and cycle time reasons than cost. An additional note: it is not necessary that a leading edge fab built today becomes a trailing edge fab in 5 or 10 years. There is a lively secondary market for used equipment specifically because of demand for the commodity chips you mentioned, so given that US labor costs are high, the old equipment would likely be sold and shipped to a low cost nation, and the US fabs repopulated with new equipment.
corethree 3y ago
You realize the top of the line chips are coming from Asia right now? The US right now does not have the ability to fab top of the line chips. Only Asia does. I mention this because it's basically one of the biggest hurdles for a boom other than cost which you didn't mention. The US has to exceed Asia in terms of cost AND raw technological prowess if it wants a boom because it is currently behind by a huge margin.

edgyquant 3y ago

It may be debatable but the idea the chip surge is “basically over” is laughable. By your logic no nation should ever try to do anything economically because the economy is already done forming, the end of history is here.

baz00 3y ago
Yup the chip surge isn't anywhere over due to geopolitics and demand, both of which are serious driving forces now.
EricE 3y ago
Hey - no poking holes in this line of reasoning allowed. It’s a major tent pole of the global boiling religion - pesky human innovation blows too many holes on the “we are doomed - sacrifice your rights to fix it” narratives.
- diputsmonro 3y ago
  I'm not really sure how these are related at all. Technical innovations for electric vehicles are totally different than the technical innovations required for fighting climate change. We can be poised to make progress in one sector and skeptical about progress in another. Blindly hoping that some breakthrough will happen to fix all our problems and just barreling along carelessly is worse than what you're describing.
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
The primary motive is to have redundant fabs for defense critical infrastructure that is vulnerable to Chinese attack. That's why Micron is being gifted a new fab for DRAM production on the other side of the country in the midst of ongoing layoffs. Boosting production isn't the goal and CHIPS act will be a net money loser.
User23 3y ago
That was the ruling ethos of the United States Government from the fall of the Berlin wall on. Look how that worked out for us.
corethree 3y ago
History has plenty of examples of nations and economies completely ending. In fact it's so consistent that it's basically a guarantee that the current economy you're living in will be "done" eventually. Therefore it's not a laughable conclusion but a valid possibility. We've seen two major economies descend into this "done" zone with no hope for recovery: Russia and Japan. Additionally no one is saying to "not to do anything". Try all you want he is simply predicting the outcome of trying.

justrealist 3y ago

The point is economic industrial independence for the US once Taiwan lights up. You're kind of missing the point.

bsaul 3y ago
not sure why you got downvoted, that seemed like a pretty reasonable thing to consider.
- User23 3y ago
  I can assure you that the Chinese strategists are. Wang Huning is way to smart not to have and he's just one that's somehow famous enough to be known in the West. I'm sure there are many more strategists of if not equal at least similar caliber working on furthering China's (hopefully) peaceful rise.
  - corethree 3y ago
    It's too chaotic. There are many who want peace but there are many who want war and there are many who will flip their opinion and this is on both sides of the line, the US and China. Anything can occur.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      What we saw in Ukraine is that arguments about geopolitics, economy, military readiness etc can be completely negated by the person in charge acting on a strategic or emotional whim. Like all the experts in the world can concur that China is better off with peace in the Pacific, but if Xi wants a war, he's getting a war.
      - User23 3y ago
        Xi already believes he has a war, it’s just in the early stages. See this[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

adamc 3y ago

Just an idiom note: It's "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes". Easy to mis-hear, but something you want to remember before it makes you look ill-educated in a work memo.

anonuser123456 3y ago
This really jives with me.
retSava 3y ago
It's also exactly the kind of humor I love. Intentional misuse of idioms, homonyms, intentional dangling modifiers, and the like. It's ok if people think I'm stupid, I can always prove them right!
- robmsmt 3y ago
  reminds me when a friend said "escape goat" rather than "scapegoat"

nwiswell 3y ago

> Most uses of chips are in cheap consumer junk overwhelmingly made overseas for bottom dollar I don't understand your point. While true, those chips are made at historical process nodes using antiquated equipment. The plan isn't to buy antiquated equipment and try to compete. Friendly nations with low cost of labor and low geopolitical risk (ie., other than Taiwan) are perfectly capable of meeting our demands for old chips, given sufficient ramp time. The lion's share of the value in semiconductors is at the leading edge. These are the chips that are used in phones, laptops, PCs, servers, GPUs, et cetera. The United States has never been interested in competing on volume. We already are the world leader in producing (including manufacturing!) the cutting edge equipment that makes leading edge chips -- that is what we have denied China access to. The open question is whether we can "onshore" the actual manufacturing of leading edge chips again. Strictly speaking, Intel has always kept their most cutting edge manufacturing onshore (Oregon), but I understand that has more to do with IP and cycle time reasons than cost. An additional note: it is not necessary that a leading edge fab built today becomes a trailing edge fab in 5 or 10 years. There is a lively secondary market for used equipment specifically because of demand for the commodity chips you mentioned, so given that US labor costs are high, the old equipment would likely be sold and shipped to a low cost nation, and the US fabs repopulated with new equipment.

corethree 3y ago

You realize the top of the line chips are coming from Asia right now? The US right now does not have the ability to fab top of the line chips. Only Asia does. I mention this because it's basically one of the biggest hurdles for a boom other than cost which you didn't mention. The US has to exceed Asia in terms of cost AND raw technological prowess if it wants a boom because it is currently behind by a huge margin.