5 ms·

The CHIPs act is a very important piece of legislation for American national security. We really are in an untenable situation where certain key resources are a

The CHIPs act is a very important piece of legislation for American national security. We really are in an untenable situation where certain key resources are almost entirely imported from regions closer to the sphere of geopolitical rivals than to ours. The decoupling from China that is happening is not the result of the CHIPs act, but it is certainly helping things move along. For Taiwan's sake, it is a good thing that chip production cannot be created or moved quickly, as I believe it is one reason that Taiwan hasn't been invaded by China yet. In the event of a Chinese invasion, those foundrys would be destroyed well before China could wrest control, and even if they did, it would be unlikely that they could keep them in production, given their incredible complexity, unique parts, and requirement of exceptionally skilled labor. Anyway, I'll use this moment to recommend some of my goto podcast source for info about trade and national security geopolitics: Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) https://www.csis.org/podcasts/trade-guys https://www.csis.org/podcasts/trade-guys https://www.csis.org/podcasts/chinapower https://www.csis.org/podcasts/chinapower https://www.csis.org/podcasts/asia-chessboard https://www.csis.org/podcasts/asia-chessboard https://www.csis.org/podcasts/truth-matter https://www.csis.org/podcasts/truth-matter

saovq 3y ago
I'd be remiss to not also recommend the gold standard of geopolitics podcasts imo, from Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-inte...
DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
The CHIPS act and US sanctions against the Chinese semiconductor sector are now publicly sold as "national security" measures, but if you read the think-tank studies that led to these measures, the actual motivation is gaining leverage over China in a critical economic sector. Back in 2020, the Brookings Institution laid out the strategy that the Biden administration has subsequently followed, in a report whose title speaks for itself: "Maintaining China's dependence on democracies for advanced computer chips" [0]. The basic argument that the Brookings Institution made was that the US can directly or indirectly control several key bottlenecks in the semiconductor industry. Semiconductors are critical to any modern economy, so by maintaining control over these bottlenecks, the US can maintain a potential chokehold on the Chinese economy. The Biden administration publicly argues that this is all about national security, but there's no plausible national security interest in preventing Chinese smartphone manufacturers from importing chips fabricated by TSMC. The strategy is to control the flow of high-end chips to Chinese companies, and to prevent China from creating its own high-end chips by controlling access to the machinery necessary to fabricate them. Over time, these controls are going to expand into other areas, like cloud computing. Then, whenever the US likes, it can turn off the spigot, and China will simply not have access to modern semiconductors. That's the theory. Of course, China has something to say about this as well, and has been working like crazy over the last few years to develop substitutes to US-controlled imported semiconductors. The attempt to drive Huawei out of business with sanctions was the shot across the bow, and China got the message. Huawei's new smartphone with 7nm chips and 5G is an indication that China has made significant progress, but we'll have to see how things develop. 0. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/maintaining-chinas-dependence-on-democracies-for-advanced-computer-chips/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/maintaining-chinas-depend...
- tester756 3y ago
  What do you think about Chip War book?
- Goodroo 3y ago
  They will get opposite of what they want. A good example is Huawei making its own modem something Apple is unable to do.
  - robotnikman 3y ago
    One thing that's worth noting, China doesn't have to worry about the minefield of patents owned by Qualcomm, Intel, and various other companies in terms of modem technology. Apple needs to be very careful that.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Dont you think that wasn’t gonna happen anyway? Take a look at all the other areas where China worked with the Western vendors and then replaced them after taking their IP.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  I do not think you can dismiss the national security element. There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. Getting out from under that influence is seen as a top priority by natsec. Moreover, cementing control over high-end chips production is a) securing our own levers, but also reducing future dependence that could arise. Also, the CHIPS act targets high end chips because advanced chips are critical to developing AI. AI superiority has major economic implications which can roll into security implications, but more directly, AI will power modern military weapon systems, want it or not, those are coming.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. When it comes to semiconductors, it's the exact opposite. The US controls the supply chain, and is weaponizing that control to a far greater extent than China has ever done with any sector. If US policy were simply about reducing the US' own dependencies, the US would not be trying to drive Chinese semiconductor companies out of business with sanctions. US policy is about crippling the Chinese semiconductor industry, in order to be able to apply pressure on China on a whole range of other political and strategic issues. Here's how the Brookings Institution study ends: > If SME export controls successfully reduce China's chip fab capacity, the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea — the only remaining economies with significant near-state-of-the-art chip fab capacity — could coordinate on further, targeted end-use and end-user controls to advance the cause of human rights and global stability. The plan is to make China entirely dependent on the US and its allies, and then to turn the screws to force China to make concessions on other issues. This is exactly the sort of supply-chain weaponization the US says China might theoretically engage in in the future.
RobotToaster 3y ago
>The Times pointed out that CSIS is funded largely by Western and Gulf monarchy governments, arms dealers and oil companies, such as Raytheon, Boeing, Shell, the United Arab Emirates, US Department of Defense, UK Home Office, General Dynamics, Exxon Mobil, Northrop Grumman, Chevron and others. >That CSIS would promote the expansion of the military and surveillance state is predictable, since that’s who pays its bills; what the Times revealed was a specific, rather direct example of this, using heretofore secret documents. https://fair.org/home/nyt-exposes-a-favorite-source-as-war-industry-flack/ https://fair.org/home/nyt-exposes-a-favorite-source-as-war-i...
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  When I listen to CSIS, I know what their biases are: National Security, and more of it, but I don't rank fair.org that highly, and their review of CSIS seems more accusation than evidence. Donations do not always equal corruption, and they mislead in indicating just those donors without indicating other large donors. I'll list just the donors 250k or more M.J. Chung Dalio Philanthropies John and Julie Hamre Jim McNerney Khosravi Family Foundation The Margot and Thomas Pritzker Family Foundation Andrew and Barbara Taylor Byron D. Trott Government of the United States Government of Japan Government of the Republic of Korea Government of the United Arab Emirates Taiwan Amazon Inc. Aramco Bank of America Corporation Chevron Corporation Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LLC Exxon Mobil Corporation FedEx General Atomics GSK plc HII Leonardo S.p.A Lockheed Martin Corporation Microsoft Northrop Grumman Pratt Industries, Inc. SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Korea Foundation Oceans 5 Open Society Foundations Rural India Supporting Trust Sarah Scaife Foundation SED Fund Smith Richardson Foundation Stanford University The Starr Foundation Stavros Niarchos Foundation Wadhwani Foundation Full lists here: Individual Donations: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/individuals https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/indi... US and Allied Partners: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/us-and-alliedpartner-government https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/us-a... Corporate: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/corporations https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/corp... Foundations: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/foundation-and-nonprofit https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/foun... Being NatSec focused, they tend to think more more more, but it is not clear to me that CSIS is appropriately thought of as propaganda.
nebula8804 3y ago
We are in this mess because the past leadership of this country sold out the country's manufacturing capabilities to China (and destroyed countless families in the process. Now that their pants are on fire, they are trying to bring back all that they lost. How do we know the unelected bureaucrats that caused this problem are not still at the helm? Why don't they ever feel any of the pain of their actions?

saovq 3y ago

I'd be remiss to not also recommend the gold standard of geopolitics podcasts imo, from Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-interview https://www.foreignaffairs.com/podcasts/foreign-affairs-inte...

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

The CHIPS act and US sanctions against the Chinese semiconductor sector are now publicly sold as "national security" measures, but if you read the think-tank studies that led to these measures, the actual motivation is gaining leverage over China in a critical economic sector. Back in 2020, the Brookings Institution laid out the strategy that the Biden administration has subsequently followed, in a report whose title speaks for itself: "Maintaining China's dependence on democracies for advanced computer chips" [0]. The basic argument that the Brookings Institution made was that the US can directly or indirectly control several key bottlenecks in the semiconductor industry. Semiconductors are critical to any modern economy, so by maintaining control over these bottlenecks, the US can maintain a potential chokehold on the Chinese economy. The Biden administration publicly argues that this is all about national security, but there's no plausible national security interest in preventing Chinese smartphone manufacturers from importing chips fabricated by TSMC. The strategy is to control the flow of high-end chips to Chinese companies, and to prevent China from creating its own high-end chips by controlling access to the machinery necessary to fabricate them. Over time, these controls are going to expand into other areas, like cloud computing. Then, whenever the US likes, it can turn off the spigot, and China will simply not have access to modern semiconductors. That's the theory. Of course, China has something to say about this as well, and has been working like crazy over the last few years to develop substitutes to US-controlled imported semiconductors. The attempt to drive Huawei out of business with sanctions was the shot across the bow, and China got the message. Huawei's new smartphone with 7nm chips and 5G is an indication that China has made significant progress, but we'll have to see how things develop. 0. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/maintaining-chinas-dependence-on-democracies-for-advanced-computer-chips/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/maintaining-chinas-depend...

tester756 3y ago
What do you think about Chip War book?
Goodroo 3y ago
They will get opposite of what they want. A good example is Huawei making its own modem something Apple is unable to do.
- robotnikman 3y ago
  One thing that's worth noting, China doesn't have to worry about the minefield of patents owned by Qualcomm, Intel, and various other companies in terms of modem technology. Apple needs to be very careful that.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Dont you think that wasn’t gonna happen anyway? Take a look at all the other areas where China worked with the Western vendors and then replaced them after taking their IP.
SubiculumCode 3y ago
I do not think you can dismiss the national security element. There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. Getting out from under that influence is seen as a top priority by natsec. Moreover, cementing control over high-end chips production is a) securing our own levers, but also reducing future dependence that could arise. Also, the CHIPS act targets high end chips because advanced chips are critical to developing AI. AI superiority has major economic implications which can roll into security implications, but more directly, AI will power modern military weapon systems, want it or not, those are coming.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. When it comes to semiconductors, it's the exact opposite. The US controls the supply chain, and is weaponizing that control to a far greater extent than China has ever done with any sector. If US policy were simply about reducing the US' own dependencies, the US would not be trying to drive Chinese semiconductor companies out of business with sanctions. US policy is about crippling the Chinese semiconductor industry, in order to be able to apply pressure on China on a whole range of other political and strategic issues. Here's how the Brookings Institution study ends: > If SME export controls successfully reduce China's chip fab capacity, the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea — the only remaining economies with significant near-state-of-the-art chip fab capacity — could coordinate on further, targeted end-use and end-user controls to advance the cause of human rights and global stability. The plan is to make China entirely dependent on the US and its allies, and then to turn the screws to force China to make concessions on other issues. This is exactly the sort of supply-chain weaponization the US says China might theoretically engage in in the future.

RobotToaster 3y ago

>The Times pointed out that CSIS is funded largely by Western and Gulf monarchy governments, arms dealers and oil companies, such as Raytheon, Boeing, Shell, the United Arab Emirates, US Department of Defense, UK Home Office, General Dynamics, Exxon Mobil, Northrop Grumman, Chevron and others. >That CSIS would promote the expansion of the military and surveillance state is predictable, since that’s who pays its bills; what the Times revealed was a specific, rather direct example of this, using heretofore secret documents. https://fair.org/home/nyt-exposes-a-favorite-source-as-war-industry-flack/ https://fair.org/home/nyt-exposes-a-favorite-source-as-war-i...

SubiculumCode 3y ago
When I listen to CSIS, I know what their biases are: National Security, and more of it, but I don't rank fair.org that highly, and their review of CSIS seems more accusation than evidence. Donations do not always equal corruption, and they mislead in indicating just those donors without indicating other large donors. I'll list just the donors 250k or more M.J. Chung Dalio Philanthropies John and Julie Hamre Jim McNerney Khosravi Family Foundation The Margot and Thomas Pritzker Family Foundation Andrew and Barbara Taylor Byron D. Trott Government of the United States Government of Japan Government of the Republic of Korea Government of the United Arab Emirates Taiwan Amazon Inc. Aramco Bank of America Corporation Chevron Corporation Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LLC Exxon Mobil Corporation FedEx General Atomics GSK plc HII Leonardo S.p.A Lockheed Martin Corporation Microsoft Northrop Grumman Pratt Industries, Inc. SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Korea Foundation Oceans 5 Open Society Foundations Rural India Supporting Trust Sarah Scaife Foundation SED Fund Smith Richardson Foundation Stanford University The Starr Foundation Stavros Niarchos Foundation Wadhwani Foundation Full lists here: Individual Donations: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/individuals https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/indi... US and Allied Partners: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/us-and-alliedpartner-government https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/us-a... Corporate: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/corporations https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/corp... Foundations: https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/foundation-and-nonprofit https://www.csis.org/about/financial-information/donors/foun... Being NatSec focused, they tend to think more more more, but it is not clear to me that CSIS is appropriately thought of as propaganda.

nebula8804 3y ago

We are in this mess because the past leadership of this country sold out the country's manufacturing capabilities to China (and destroyed countless families in the process. Now that their pants are on fire, they are trying to bring back all that they lost. How do we know the unelected bureaucrats that caused this problem are not still at the helm? Why don't they ever feel any of the pain of their actions?