Chips and Science Act

[pmv]

I find at least on first kneejerk reaction, I can't decide what I think of this one.

It's one thing to say that COVID supply-chain issues, and the various potential threats of war, make it necessary for governments to think strategically about keeping strategic industries on-shore, but does that have to mean giving big handouts to corpororations that are already making big profits and paying their CEOs and shareholders a huge share of them? But is the only alternative for the state to set up it's own tech companies?

Not surprising that the dispute makes for strange political 'bed-fellows'. Pompeo and Biden on one side, Sanders and the Koch Brothers on the other.

How Bernie Sanders and conservatives united against US semiconductor bill

Vermont senator opposed ‘corporate welfare’ to firms paying huge salaries to executives – but Chips and Science Act passed Congress

www.theguardian.com

 

[pmv]

It's been clear for a while there's a contradiction/tension between ever greater economic globalisation and the way that nationalism and its conflicts have continued regardless. That "McDonald's rule" was disproven a long time ago (I think when NATO bombed Serbia). It seems as if it's turning out more complicated than people would once have assumed.

 

[Captante]

Big-money handouts to corporations are the last thing our "great" country needs to be doing right now EXCEPT in the case of funding chip-fabs inside the country.

Right now if Taiwan goes down, China will have America's balls in a salad-shooter.

 

[Jaskalas]

“The question we should be asking is this: should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $76bn at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? I think the answer to that question should be a resounding no,” Sanders said during a Monday speech on the Senate floor.​

We need local production. China's repeated vows of violence over Taiwan forces us to stop putting all our eggs into that one basket. China can choose to end our supply at any time and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

And if we are caught without Taiwan chip production, what then? It would take years to replace, if 1:1 replacement is even physically possible. (It isn't). Even with near parity, the loss of cutting edge tech R&D would easily set us back a decade. While no effort can eliminate the damage from the loss of Taiwan, we can at least soften the blow and make it more survivable. Even with this bill, there will be shortages, cost increases, some products ceasing to exist. But we should at least have enough production to carry on.

Opponents do not offer an alternative solution. So I endorse this bill as a ward against the coming storm.

 

[uclaLabrat]

We need to be competitive with other nations, especially for an industry/capability as critical as semiconductors. Same with engineering and science research. Being competitive means being willing to retain those industries, and as a result they have significant leverage.

I dont think we can single those companies out and dictate how they structure their ops/compensation to control what they pay leadership, thats something that would have to be legislated across all industries.

 

[Puffnstuff]

We need our own chip production especially for military and government applications where a bad actor breach cannot be allowed but the same should apply to our private sector. Our IP should be withdrawn from China and other potential adversaries.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Business will business. Publicly traded companies will pursue profit at all cost (so long as that is what their shareholders demand) and it's frankly not their responsibility to worry about things like national security or even diversified supply chains and manufacturing.

If Government hadn't completely abdicated it's oversight role 40-50 years ago and continued to either require or promote the development of strategically vital US industries, we wouldn't be in this position, but here we are.

Obama tried to promote American solar power companies, he got the same shit about "picking winners and losers" so the Chinese got the entire industry uncontested. Now everyone is wringing their hands about China makes everything, and wrings their hands about Biden trying to do something about it.

Same bullshit as always.

 

[Moonbeam]

Globalization without universal democratization among participating countries was a big mistake from the beginning. Even Mark Twain knew over a hundred years ago that China would eat our lunch. In a world that is not inspired by empathy for others, in other words by the hate generated by competition, the winner will want everything for itself. Only Liberals have much in the way of capacity to love their fellow man.

 

[fskimospy]

Globalization without universal democratization among participating countries was a big mistake from the beginning. Even Mark Twain knew over a hundred years ago that China would eat our lunch. In a world that is not inspired by empathy for others, in other words by the hate generated by competition, the winner will want everything for itself. Only Liberals have much in the way of capacity to love their fellow man.

So you think autarky would make America better off?

 

[Leeea]

The chips act is absolutely necessary.

The way it stands, if China drops a missile on TSMC we are all screwed.

China current has around 2,000 missile aimed at Taiwan.


We need to have chip production that is not going to get destroyed on the first day of war between Taiwan and China.

A war China claims it will be able to win in 2025.
Many commenters feel China will launch said war in 2027, during the centenary of China's People's Liberation Army.
The New York Times published an article claiming indications are China plans to launch its war prior to Feb 2024.
China's premier Xi Jinping, has vowed to retake Taiwan before he steps down in 2033.


A reasonable person would conclude that TSMCs production will be interrupted in the near future.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you think autarky would make America better off?

Considering the fact that I had to look up the definition of autarky, I don’t think it would be wise for me to venture an opinion, not one, at least that I would fave any reason to suspect as valuable.

My general feelings run along the lines that globalization is a good thing where all nations participating have the only security I can think of that might combat the threat of nationalism and economic war, some sort of liberal leaning democracy in place. I believe dictatorships will not act the same politically as liberals will. Some people, people who are inwardly rich, want others to arrive in a similar conscious state, whereas the inwardly poor look to steal what can’t ever really be taken. The definition of an authoritarian, in my opinion, is someone who is full of fear of realizing his or her state of inner poverty.

Few realize that competition is self hate.

 

[pmv]

Where do you draw the line, though?

I mean, I don't know the answer, it seems like a genuine dilemma. During the heyday of neo-liberalism the mantra was everything should be left to the market, ideally a global market. Hence Thatcher sold off all the UK's strategic industries (railways, water supplies, power supplies...) to foreign capital, including foreign governments. That always sat oddly with her supposed patriotism.

Even great chunks of the military are owned by private contractors.

But then the "end of history" thesis fell on its arse, and suddenly even the free-market ideogues here started wondering if it was a good idea that we should, say, contract the Chinese to build all our nuclear power stations or our 5G communications infrastructure.

Does a country have to be self-sufficient in food? In fertilizer to grow that food? So does that mean restricting immigration to ensure there's enough agricultural land left to feed ourselves? Should foreigners be allowed to buy your media or critical 'too big to fail' financial institutions?

Seems a bit suspect that highly-educated tech-people agree that a tech industry employing highly-educated tech people should be protected, but nothing else.

 

[pmv]

Reminds me a bit of the Daily Telegraph back when there was a proposed London Underground strike and also the foot-and-mouth-disease outbreak going on.

On one page was a stern editorial denouncing the feather-bedded London Underground workers, and demanding the system be fully privatised and sold to the highest bidders and so opened up to the discipline of the competitive market - and on the opposite page was a call for massive state intervention to bail out the poor farmers from the economic damage of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, as farming was a critical strategic sector that had to be protected at all costs.

 

[Zor Prime]

I'm all for free market principles, but when it comes to national security if you have to make a deal with the devil to ensure a frying pan remains firmly over our asses then so be it.

 

[Lezunto]

It is simply amazing how the U.S. government allows corporate leaders to transfer high tech to nations and regions where it may fall into the clutches of unfriendly countries.

Total self sufficiency is probably not the answer. But walking around with blinders on in pursuit of billions in profits isn't the ideal solution either.

I imagine for some companies, having execs and investors hailing from a few nations, tends to dilute the notion of "National Defense."

 

[drnickriviera]

The chips act is absolutely necessary.

The way it stands, if China drops a missile on TSMC we are all screwed.

China current has around 2,000 missile aimed at Taiwan.


We need to have chip production that is not going to get destroyed on the first day of war between Taiwan and China.

A war China claims it will be able to win in 2025.
Many commenters feel China will launch said war in 2027, during the centenary of China's People's Liberation Army.
The New York Times published an article claiming indications are China plans to launch its war prior to Feb 2024.
China's premier Xi Jinping, has vowed to retake Taiwan before he steps down in 2033.


A reasonable person would conclude that TSMCs production will be interrupted in the near future.

IDK, seems China may have it's hands full with a housing bubble and bank collapse, but I guess a good ole war is a perfect way to distract the masses

 

[Jaskalas]

Seems a bit suspect that highly-educated tech-people agree that a tech industry employing highly-educated tech people should be protected, but nothing else.

The tech industry, as you put it, has the largest nation on the planet rapidly growing its own tech and military in preparation for eradicating said tech industry.
This is a specific and fairly immediate threat that requires a response.

 

[ivwshane]

If nothing else I would hope such a move would create some competition in the industry. Government subsidizing industries to get what it wants is about as American as you can get. If any American has a problem with this then it should be with how those subsidies/incentives are doled out. As it stands it seems like government strings are made up of the weakest requirements possible. So long as there is good oversight and decent minimum requirements, I’m ok with this. If it’s just another corporate handout, then I’m against.

 

[woolfe9998]

Where do you draw the line, though?

I mean, I don't know the answer, it seems like a genuine dilemma. During the heyday of neo-liberalism the mantra was everything should be left to the market, ideally a global market. Hence Thatcher sold off all the UK's strategic industries (railways, water supplies, power supplies...) to foreign capital, including foreign governments. That always sat oddly with her supposed patriotism.

Even great chunks of the military are owned by private contractors.

But then the "end of history" thesis fell on its arse, and suddenly even the free-market ideogues here started wondering if it was a good idea that we should, say, contract the Chinese to build all our nuclear power stations or our 5G communications infrastructure.

Does a country have to be self-sufficient in food? In fertilizer to grow that food? So does that mean restricting immigration to ensure there's enough agricultural land left to feed ourselves? Should foreigners be allowed to buy your media or critical 'too big to fail' financial institutions?

Seems a bit suspect that highly-educated tech-people agree that a tech industry employing highly-educated tech people should be protected, but nothing else.

Every issue you raise here is its own thing. Our politics need to be flexible and pragmatic to tackle the complex problems facing our nations and the world. Sanders' position here is based on knee jerk ideology, not pragmatism. Semiconductors are a crucial technology of which western access is now threatened by a burgeoning geopolitcal crisis in Asia. Sanders doesn't want to do anything about it because he doesn't like corporations.

Your concerns are best described as a slippery slope fallacy, akin to saying that if we legalize marijuana today, we'll surely legalize heroine tomorrow.

 

[pmv]

Every issue you raise here is its own thing. Our politics need to be flexible and pragmatic to tackle the complex problems facing our nations and the world. Sanders' position here is based on knee jerk ideology, not pragmatism. Semiconductors are a crucial technology of which western access is now threatened by a burgeoning geopolitcal crisis in Asia. Sanders doesn't want to do anything about it because he doesn't like corporations.

Your concerns are best described as a slippery slope fallacy, akin to saying that if we legalize marijuana today, we'll surely legalize heroine tomorrow.

No, I'm just questioning whether people are being influenced by self-interest, or at least class-interest, while convincing themselves their views are based on objective analysis.

I didn't suggest any 'slippery slope' argument, just questioned whether the line is being drawn in part according to which class it benefits.

As in the banking crisis, it always seems to work out that protecting vital national interests means giving lots of no-strings-attached money to the powerful and wealthy. When it's ordinary people involved, then the cold winds of market discipline suddenly assume vital importance again.

There seemed to be a lot more resistance to helping out ordinary working people during the pandemic, via sick pay, for example.

I'm not saying there's no argument for supporting this particular industry, just that I'm suspicious that such debates are always decided based on pure reason, when there are always vested interests involved.