6 ms·

Well the revival may be halted depending on the election: > The US CHIPS and Science Act's future may depend on the outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election

Well the revival may be halted depending on the election: > The US CHIPS and Science Act's future may depend on the outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election after House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested the GOP would likely move to repeal the $280 billion funding bill if the party wins a majority in Congress. * https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/chips_act_repeal/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/chips_act_repeal/ but a little while later: > Johnson, who voted against the legislation, later said in a statement that the CHIPS Act, which poured $54 billion into the semiconductor manufacturing industry, “is not on the agenda for repeal.” * https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson-chips-act-d5504f76d3aa0d5b401216f3592c9a09 https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson-chips-act-d5504f76d3... so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

GenerocUsername 2y ago
Partisan scare tactics? Which outcome would result in loss? Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.
- standardUser 2y ago
  Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but not chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing back into the US was entirely a Biden project.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons. And how's that Foxconn factory going? * https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back-wisconsin-investment-2021-04-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back...
  - bitsage 2y ago
    In the end they created jobs and invested money, but both were less than expected. The subsidies were also contingent on performance, and negotiated down, so Foxconn didn’t the original amount. This also seems like purely a deal between the state and Foxconn, so it’s interesting it became so prominent, as if it were contingent on control of the White House. https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/03/23/what-we-know-about-foxconn-in-wisconsin-and-how-we-got-there/70037738007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/03/23/wha...
- wavefunction 2y ago
  Nah, it wasn't him.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  No
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
wumeow 2y ago
I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
- kurthr 2y ago
  Here was his statement: https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64 https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64
- brutal_chaos_ 2y ago
  My hunch is something like NAFTA -> USMCA would happen with CHIPS. Repeal and replace with basically the same to make it look like a GOP win.
  - tzs 2y ago
    Here's what he said about it last month when interviewed by Joe Rogan: > We put up billions of dollars for rich companies to come in and borrow the money and build chip companies here, and they’re not going to give us the good companies anyway. and > When I see us paying a lot of money to have people build chips, that’s not the way. You didn’t have to put up 10 cents, you could have done it with a series of tariffs. In other words, you tariff it so high that they will come and build their chip companies for nothing. That really doesn't sound like it is something he'd just do some minor tweaks to and change the name like he did with NAFTA. If he does go through with the large tariff approach, something to keep in mind is that usually when you impose tariffs on imports there are retaliatory tariffs imposed on your exports. The US chip making industry makes 82% of its sales from exports.
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      Most of the factories are being built in Republican areas, so I'd be really surprised if they actually got rid of it. The rebranding seems more likely to me, but then the GOP have surprised me a lot in the last decade.
gosub100 2y ago
[flagged]
alephnerd 2y ago
> Well the revival may be halted depending on the election Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin will continue to remain. There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this front for over a year at this point [0] Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have benefited from these industrial policies as well. Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness, CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor fights) That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that reason. Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc. [0] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-policy/ https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-p...
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Which CPC affiliates?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Pramila Jayapal most notably. Donald Norcross in the Labor Caucus has been a major blocker as well because most of these CHIPS projects are being built independent of AFL-CIO in a lot of cases.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      According to Mark Warner Elon Musk should be on this list as well.
      - alephnerd 2y ago
        Elon Musk didn't have a say in disbursement - congressmembers do.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Micron is a defense critical company. They're getting their new fab no matter what because China can more readily target Boise.
- j2bax 2y ago
  What makes Boise a more readily available target for China?
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    Their medium range ICBMs, which they have greater inventory of, can reach the northwest.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard militarily relevant?
      - jhj 2y ago
        If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs then you will likely prefer more directly military targets rather than a manufacturing facility which would likely only start to matter for a conflict months into combat, which itself is a scenario (drawn out conventional war) that is likely precluded by exchange of nuclear weapons in the first place.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs China has hundreds going on thousands of ICBMs. Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange between America and China.

GenerocUsername 2y ago

Partisan scare tactics? Which outcome would result in loss? Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.

standardUser 2y ago
Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but not chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing back into the US was entirely a Biden project.
throw0101d 2y ago
> Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons. And how's that Foxconn factory going? * https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back-wisconsin-investment-2021-04-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back...
- bitsage 2y ago
  In the end they created jobs and invested money, but both were less than expected. The subsidies were also contingent on performance, and negotiated down, so Foxconn didn’t the original amount. This also seems like purely a deal between the state and Foxconn, so it’s interesting it became so prominent, as if it were contingent on control of the White House. https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/03/23/what-we-know-about-foxconn-in-wisconsin-and-how-we-got-there/70037738007/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2023/03/23/wha...
wavefunction 2y ago
Nah, it wasn't him.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
No

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

wumeow 2y ago

I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.

kurthr 2y ago
Here was his statement: https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64 https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64
brutal_chaos_ 2y ago
My hunch is something like NAFTA -> USMCA would happen with CHIPS. Repeal and replace with basically the same to make it look like a GOP win.
- tzs 2y ago
  Here's what he said about it last month when interviewed by Joe Rogan: > We put up billions of dollars for rich companies to come in and borrow the money and build chip companies here, and they’re not going to give us the good companies anyway. and > When I see us paying a lot of money to have people build chips, that’s not the way. You didn’t have to put up 10 cents, you could have done it with a series of tariffs. In other words, you tariff it so high that they will come and build their chip companies for nothing. That really doesn't sound like it is something he'd just do some minor tweaks to and change the name like he did with NAFTA. If he does go through with the large tariff approach, something to keep in mind is that usually when you impose tariffs on imports there are retaliatory tariffs imposed on your exports. The US chip making industry makes 82% of its sales from exports.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    Most of the factories are being built in Republican areas, so I'd be really surprised if they actually got rid of it. The rebranding seems more likely to me, but then the GOP have surprised me a lot in the last decade.

gosub100 2y ago

[flagged]

alephnerd 2y ago

> Well the revival may be halted depending on the election Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin will continue to remain. There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this front for over a year at this point [0] Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have benefited from these industrial policies as well. Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness, CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor fights) That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that reason. Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc. [0] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-policy/ https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-p...

selimthegrim 2y ago
Which CPC affiliates?
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Pramila Jayapal most notably. Donald Norcross in the Labor Caucus has been a major blocker as well because most of these CHIPS projects are being built independent of AFL-CIO in a lot of cases.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    According to Mark Warner Elon Musk should be on this list as well.
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Elon Musk didn't have a say in disbursement - congressmembers do.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

Micron is a defense critical company. They're getting their new fab no matter what because China can more readily target Boise.

j2bax 2y ago
What makes Boise a more readily available target for China?
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  Their medium range ICBMs, which they have greater inventory of, can reach the northwest.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard militarily relevant?
    - jhj 2y ago
      If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs then you will likely prefer more directly military targets rather than a manufacturing facility which would likely only start to matter for a conflict months into combat, which itself is a scenario (drawn out conventional war) that is likely precluded by exchange of nuclear weapons in the first place.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs China has hundreds going on thousands of ICBMs. Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange between America and China.