6 ms·

No, I am absolutely not going to pay a 20% premium on the market. I’m sorry but I won’t. If this is really crucial to national security then the government can

by internet2000 1y ago

No, I am absolutely not going to pay a 20% premium on the market. I’m sorry but I won’t. If this is really crucial to national security then the government can subsidize the premium. And I know I’m not alone, price speaks louder.

EA-3167 1y ago
The government doesn't pay for things, we do through our taxes that they spend. So... instead of paying a markup on just your own consumption, you want to be taxed to pay for the subsidy on EVERYONE'S consumption?
- kulahan 1y ago
  Surely we could just move a subsidy around. Do we really need ALL of those corn fields? It’s not even a particularly nutritious crop.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    It's calorie dense and exceedingly easy to store for long periods, providing us with an extremely high degree of food security. That said I agree with the sentiment that farm subsidies could probably use some improvement.
    - kulahan 1y ago
      Americans are not in need of high calorie density, and 90% of this corn isn't being eaten anyways. Rice is easier to grow, eaten readily by more of the world, easier to store, easier to transport, etc. - there really isn't a great argument for corn.
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        > 90% of this corn isn't being eaten anyways But it could be. I don't have to consume the canned food in my basement for it to provide food security in the event of a natural disaster. I'm finding exact numbers difficult to come by but rice requires noticeably more water to grow. Dried corn kernels are approximately equivalent to dried rice when it comes to storage and transport. There really isn't any sensible argument for switching from corn to rice in the US midwest.
        fellowmartian 1y ago
        It’s not being stored. There’s no “strategic corn reserve”. What is not being consumed by people or animals gets turned into biofuel - the worst kind of fuel from thermodynamic perspective and one that would never exist without market distortion.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        Which means that the US is continually producing far more potential food than we actually use. That constitutes a form of food security. What it gets used for instead - be that animal feed, chemical feedstock, fertilizer, etc - is largely irrelevant. Are you certain there's no strategic reserve? If not there probably ought to be. Seems like a rather cheap form of insurance in the bigger picture.
        fellowmartian 1y ago
        The argument you’re making works just as well for any other crop. Productive land is the asset and the security, not the corn itself. In fact, growing the damn corn everywhere degrades the soil. We might as well grow wheat, rice, legumes, etc. Besides path-dependence there’s little reason for corn dominance.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        Agreed that it's the active land use, not a specific crop, that matters from a food security perspective. Disagreed otherwise though. Soil degradation is due to people cutting corners to save money. Rice requires significantly more water. Wheat and oats don't have the same shelf life. Legumes are likely comparable but how do they stack up against corn for things like animal feed and chemical feedstock? The reality is that corn is an extremely practical crop regardless of its lack of political popularity of late.
        fellowmartian 1y ago
        Well if corn is so productive and efficient then surely it doesn’t need any subsidies. It can stand on its own merits in a real free market.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  We are the government. It's us doing the spending. You can vote to change it. And if we ever outlaw paid lobbying then voting will be even more effective.
bongodongobob 1y ago
Wait until you learn who the government gets its money from.
- XorNot 1y ago
  Why are people showing up to tell other people they'll be sorry if they don't pay more for the same product now, but are also absolutely opposed to subsidies by the government? I already own a perfectly adequate computer for my needs. In every possible way this won't affect me, and infact so long as the cheaper product is available for purchase it still won't affect me. If I'm a business I'll be 20% better off then other local businesses by continuing to not buy local anyway. If I'm consumer...well I'll just have more stuff I want. And so on in this way you might want to go read up on The Tragedy of the Commons in economic theory and then reflect on what one of the primary roles of government actually is.
avhception 1y ago
This is not about national security. This is about being more than a simple consumer. If all your society does is consume, eventually, the money runs out. We need to have know-how, talent and all that stuff to create some value. We're bleeding all these things by the minute, and I don't want to be around when the critical point is reached.
- BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  The critical point has been reached. The part you don't want to be around for is following the realisation that there is no path back.
  - BobbyTables2 1y ago
    Seems like it is also bad for the countries actually making stuff too. Where would they be if their exports were significantly slashed? They didn’t develop all that manufacturing capacity to sell domestically.
- ulfw 1y ago
  What a ridiculous argument. So then every single country, every single city, every street should build their own chips, their own iPhones, right? Because wouldn't want to be "a simple consumer" only!
  - tetrahedr0n 1y ago
    Is it ridiculous to expect an economy, such as the US, to produce things of value? The author of the post you are responding to has a valid point. Consumption alone isn't sustainable.
    - bloppe 1y ago
      Nobody's arguing in favor of producing nothing. We're just saying there's something called comparative advantage and it's about maximizing efficiency. The US has no business manufacturing chips for strictly economic reasons. But when you consider national security concerns it looks different
idiotsecant 1y ago
Enjoy not buying any chips next time there is a supply chain hiccup. If COVID didn't teach you this lesson, I don't think you're teachable. If you're making a product one of the considerations you make is how robust your supply chain is. If you fail to make that consideration you will get eaten by the organizations that do, on a long enough timescale.
- crote 1y ago
  Two issues there. First, high-end chips have essentially a single global market. Compared to the value of the product, transport cost is negligible. If a TSMC Taiwan factory has an oopsie, all its customers are going to be buying from your local US plant - so you are still ending up having to deal with the effects of a significantly higher demand. AMD unable to ship? Expect Intel to go out of stock rather quickly as well. Second, the chip manufacturing supply chain. Having a local chip factory is nice and all, but where is that factory getting its supplies and equipment from? Most of it does not come from the US, so during another COVID your local chip factory might still be forced to shut down. This also applies downstream: what use is a fancy high-end CPU if you can't find anyone locally to produce all the trivial parts you need to support it? Who is going to manufacture those trivial-yet-essential $0.05 connectors and $0.001 capacitors or resistors? That has all been outsourced to Asia decades ago. A single US plant isn't going to do anything for your supply chain robustness. You're going to have to rethink the entire chain and each step is going to be 20% more expensive, so better prepare for a doubling or tripling of the final product price. Local factories are nice for the defense industry, where the confidentiality needs due to national security might warrant the premium. But regular consumer chips? You'll be paying a huge premium just so a politician can get a couple of favorable headlines, often without there actually being a significant impact to the local economy.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Manufacturing of the trivial items can be brought online in a reasonable timeframe. The lead time on a modern process node on the other hand is measured in years, and that's when you already know what you're doing. China still hasn't achieved state of the art even after everything they've invested over the past 20 years or so. > You'll be paying a huge premium just so a politician can get a couple of favorable headlines You're paying a premium to reduce the cross section of risk that your local economy is exposed to. The cost savings of globalization do not come without their own downsides.
BLKNSLVR 1y ago
It would be un-American to do anything other than what you're suggesting. There's nothing that represents American values more than respecting the market, and supporting a non-competitive player is the kind of manipulation that could have had all kinds of negative implications, both now and in the past. The State choosing winners... smh. /s (but only partially)
dartharva 1y ago
Looks like you won't really have a choice

EA-3167 1y ago

The government doesn't pay for things, we do through our taxes that they spend. So... instead of paying a markup on just your own consumption, you want to be taxed to pay for the subsidy on EVERYONE'S consumption?

kulahan 1y ago
Surely we could just move a subsidy around. Do we really need ALL of those corn fields? It’s not even a particularly nutritious crop.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  It's calorie dense and exceedingly easy to store for long periods, providing us with an extremely high degree of food security. That said I agree with the sentiment that farm subsidies could probably use some improvement.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    Americans are not in need of high calorie density, and 90% of this corn isn't being eaten anyways. Rice is easier to grow, eaten readily by more of the world, easier to store, easier to transport, etc. - there really isn't a great argument for corn.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      > 90% of this corn isn't being eaten anyways But it could be. I don't have to consume the canned food in my basement for it to provide food security in the event of a natural disaster. I'm finding exact numbers difficult to come by but rice requires noticeably more water to grow. Dried corn kernels are approximately equivalent to dried rice when it comes to storage and transport. There really isn't any sensible argument for switching from corn to rice in the US midwest.
      - fellowmartian 1y ago
        It’s not being stored. There’s no “strategic corn reserve”. What is not being consumed by people or animals gets turned into biofuel - the worst kind of fuel from thermodynamic perspective and one that would never exist without market distortion.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        Which means that the US is continually producing far more potential food than we actually use. That constitutes a form of food security. What it gets used for instead - be that animal feed, chemical feedstock, fertilizer, etc - is largely irrelevant. Are you certain there's no strategic reserve? If not there probably ought to be. Seems like a rather cheap form of insurance in the bigger picture.
        fellowmartian 1y ago
        The argument you’re making works just as well for any other crop. Productive land is the asset and the security, not the corn itself. In fact, growing the damn corn everywhere degrades the soil. We might as well grow wheat, rice, legumes, etc. Besides path-dependence there’s little reason for corn dominance.
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        Agreed that it's the active land use, not a specific crop, that matters from a food security perspective. Disagreed otherwise though. Soil degradation is due to people cutting corners to save money. Rice requires significantly more water. Wheat and oats don't have the same shelf life. Legumes are likely comparable but how do they stack up against corn for things like animal feed and chemical feedstock? The reality is that corn is an extremely practical crop regardless of its lack of political popularity of late.
        fellowmartian 1y ago
        Well if corn is so productive and efficient then surely it doesn’t need any subsidies. It can stand on its own merits in a real free market.
paulryanrogers 1y ago
We are the government. It's us doing the spending. You can vote to change it. And if we ever outlaw paid lobbying then voting will be even more effective.

bongodongobob 1y ago

Wait until you learn who the government gets its money from.

XorNot 1y ago
Why are people showing up to tell other people they'll be sorry if they don't pay more for the same product now, but are also absolutely opposed to subsidies by the government? I already own a perfectly adequate computer for my needs. In every possible way this won't affect me, and infact so long as the cheaper product is available for purchase it still won't affect me. If I'm a business I'll be 20% better off then other local businesses by continuing to not buy local anyway. If I'm consumer...well I'll just have more stuff I want. And so on in this way you might want to go read up on The Tragedy of the Commons in economic theory and then reflect on what one of the primary roles of government actually is.

avhception 1y ago

This is not about national security. This is about being more than a simple consumer. If all your society does is consume, eventually, the money runs out. We need to have know-how, talent and all that stuff to create some value. We're bleeding all these things by the minute, and I don't want to be around when the critical point is reached.

BLKNSLVR 1y ago
The critical point has been reached. The part you don't want to be around for is following the realisation that there is no path back.
- BobbyTables2 1y ago
  Seems like it is also bad for the countries actually making stuff too. Where would they be if their exports were significantly slashed? They didn’t develop all that manufacturing capacity to sell domestically.
ulfw 1y ago
What a ridiculous argument. So then every single country, every single city, every street should build their own chips, their own iPhones, right? Because wouldn't want to be "a simple consumer" only!
- tetrahedr0n 1y ago
  Is it ridiculous to expect an economy, such as the US, to produce things of value? The author of the post you are responding to has a valid point. Consumption alone isn't sustainable.
  - bloppe 1y ago
    Nobody's arguing in favor of producing nothing. We're just saying there's something called comparative advantage and it's about maximizing efficiency. The US has no business manufacturing chips for strictly economic reasons. But when you consider national security concerns it looks different

idiotsecant 1y ago

Enjoy not buying any chips next time there is a supply chain hiccup. If COVID didn't teach you this lesson, I don't think you're teachable. If you're making a product one of the considerations you make is how robust your supply chain is. If you fail to make that consideration you will get eaten by the organizations that do, on a long enough timescale.

crote 1y ago
Two issues there. First, high-end chips have essentially a single global market. Compared to the value of the product, transport cost is negligible. If a TSMC Taiwan factory has an oopsie, all its customers are going to be buying from your local US plant - so you are still ending up having to deal with the effects of a significantly higher demand. AMD unable to ship? Expect Intel to go out of stock rather quickly as well. Second, the chip manufacturing supply chain. Having a local chip factory is nice and all, but where is that factory getting its supplies and equipment from? Most of it does not come from the US, so during another COVID your local chip factory might still be forced to shut down. This also applies downstream: what use is a fancy high-end CPU if you can't find anyone locally to produce all the trivial parts you need to support it? Who is going to manufacture those trivial-yet-essential $0.05 connectors and $0.001 capacitors or resistors? That has all been outsourced to Asia decades ago. A single US plant isn't going to do anything for your supply chain robustness. You're going to have to rethink the entire chain and each step is going to be 20% more expensive, so better prepare for a doubling or tripling of the final product price. Local factories are nice for the defense industry, where the confidentiality needs due to national security might warrant the premium. But regular consumer chips? You'll be paying a huge premium just so a politician can get a couple of favorable headlines, often without there actually being a significant impact to the local economy.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  Manufacturing of the trivial items can be brought online in a reasonable timeframe. The lead time on a modern process node on the other hand is measured in years, and that's when you already know what you're doing. China still hasn't achieved state of the art even after everything they've invested over the past 20 years or so. > You'll be paying a huge premium just so a politician can get a couple of favorable headlines You're paying a premium to reduce the cross section of risk that your local economy is exposed to. The cost savings of globalization do not come without their own downsides.

BLKNSLVR 1y ago

It would be un-American to do anything other than what you're suggesting. There's nothing that represents American values more than respecting the market, and supporting a non-competitive player is the kind of manipulation that could have had all kinds of negative implications, both now and in the past. The State choosing winners... smh. /s (but only partially)

dartharva 1y ago

Looks like you won't really have a choice