371–380 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The more valuable part was the technology transfer.
Says what? > "Without European technology, the Chinese navy would not be able to move." You really think China couldn't buy tech from eg. Russia to make their "fleet move"? What was the tech? Why was it that important?
"European chip and auto companies, for their part, are mostly lined up against the idea. They would prefer subsidies for the older-generation chips that are heavily used by car manufacturers and are in short supply. Many of TSMC's most lucrative customers, such as Apple, are U.S.-based, while its European customer base is made up of mostly of automakers buying less-advanced chips." Oh boy... This is exactly why EU wi…
What the EU needs is specialization (comparative advantage), not becoming a TSMC assembly outpost.
Is automotive industry all that EU cares about? What about IoT/robotics? The fact that TSMC want to build only their older fab here is really disappointing to me.
Chips are a global industry, so yes, the factories will end up there but we will be able to buy chips subsidised by US tax payers. Many economists would claim that business and citizens would be more likely to efficiently allocate that $50B themselves. The increased tax on businesses in the US is going to hurt their innovation elsewhere in the economy, it just won't be as visible.
Governments picking winning industries has a very spotty track record. Often the industry does not turn out to be as crucial as thought, or subsidies end up in the wrong pockets. Every other generation this lessons needs to be re-learned it seems.
>TSMC chairman and founder Morris Chang, warned last month of higher operating costs and a thin talent pool for the U.S. plans in a rare public speech attended by Wei and chairman Mark Liu. >"In the United States, the level of professional dedication is no match to that in Taiwan, at least for engineers," Chang said. He warned that "short-term subsidy can't make up for long-term operational disadvantage."
I wonder how significant it is that there is all this worldwide expansion of chip making factories just as we get to 3nm architectures, I say that because there aren’t very many nm’s left, what happens when we get to zero?
angstroms
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Define “not much”. The idea sounds nice but how do you execute on it? Should Australia tax or ban rare earth exports to try to force value add industries here? That would go against our position as a stable supplier and would seem more likely just to make customers source their rare earth supplies elsewhere (they’re not that rare).
> Should Australia tax or ban rare earth exports to try to force value add industries here? You're right that doing so would appear to be a hamfisted approach to creating a homegrown economy that is attractive to industry, and would likely be doomed to failure. Rather than trying to browbeat the industry into slowing exports, provide the opportunities for using the materials here, within the nation. That is done by p…
This year’s federal budget has large allocations towards infrastructure projects - e.g. inland rail and port upgrades. That’s on top of the state infrastructure projects already in the pipeline.
Heck even the planned gas plants make sense in terms of keeping energy costs down for industry.
Fundamentally none of that is a path to a specific outcome - such as onshoring of value add industries based on rare earths though. Rather it’s a bet that industry will find a way to utilise the infrastructure.
>TSMC chairman and founder Morris Chang, warned last month of higher operating costs and a thin talent pool for the U.S. plans in a rare public speech attended by Wei and chairman Mark Liu. >"In the United States, the level of professional dedication is no match to that in Taiwan, at least for engineers," Chang said. He warned that "short-term subsidy can't make up for long-term operational disadvantage."
Again, he's an old guy with a lot of Taiwanese nationalistic pride. It's not much more than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say which outcome will be better but I do personally like China's way of buying their way in with money, roads, etc. better than the "old way" with selling guns to rebels, using CIA agents etc. I wish both would stop meddling in Africa though. Such a horrific history of greed. I'm curious how you see the difference though?
Small correction... China’s belt & road initiative is more about lending than buying.
> “John Adams said infamously that a way to subjugate a country is through either the sword or debt. China has chosen the latter,” said Brahma Chellaney, an analyst who often advises the Indian government and is affiliated with the Center for Policy Research, a think tank in New Delhi.
Careful not to underestimate the PRC.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say which outcome will be better but I do personally like China's way of buying their way in with money, roads, etc. better than the "old way" with selling guns to rebels, using CIA agents etc. I wish both would stop meddling in Africa though. Such a horrific history of greed. I'm curious how you see the difference though?
Small correction... China’s belt & road initiative is more about lending than buying.
[We] see you two .
TSMC deny the report and is proceeding with the original plan at this stage.