Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 489 posts

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#211

Post by thereare5lights »

theptip wrote: post #205
Someone1234 wrote: post #129

It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that . Unfortunately 52 senators…

This is a shallow analysis. You can’t just look at the price tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the ROI). A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is really cheap. I’m not making any particular claims about the free school meals program, just noting that this argument doesn’t hold water as it stands. Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it…

> Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it makes a lot of sense that the government is willing to spend big here.

You expounded on the value of semiconductors but you didn't on the value of feeding children that would go hungry otherwise.

This is why saying

> This is a shallow analysis.

rings hollow.

The value of feeding the next generation of Americans and ensuring they do not go hungry should be just as much a matter of national security as semiconductors. It's not because the poor are viewed as expendable.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#212

Post by jdasdf »

vxNsr wrote: post #161
djbebs wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profit isn't a sin, and if you want shareholders to do something for you, why do you think they will want to do it if there is nothing in it for them?

No one is asking shareholders to do anything… We’re having the government give the company money for a joint venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit. If the company cynically takes the money, intentionally fails to uphold their side of the contract, and then rebuffs attempts by the government to reclaim the money, while that might be in t…

>No one is asking shareholders to do anything… We’re having the government give the company money for a joint venture. If the company uses it wisely in the way they promise they would, everyone, including the shareholders benefit.

The company belongs to the shareholders, that's what being a shareholder means.

Let me quote you:

>The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec compensation for similar amount of time for any company that accepts the handouts.

>This should be true for any company that accepts gov money.

>The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders, they’re doing it to benefit the larger economy and country. Stock holder shouldn’t even be considered as beneficiaries in these deals.

You'll note that not a single word in that post said anything about the company not holding up its end of the bargain. And indeed you made no mention as to why "stock buybacks" or "total exec compensation" would prevent the company from holding up its end.

Let's be clear here about what you're doing, you're so focused on hurting shareholders, you don't even care if the results you get are compatible with what you state you want.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#213

Post by fabfabfab »

Fab guy here. This is excellent news and much needed, but vigilence is needed to make sure it doesn't end up being devoured by crony corporate agenda and it actually results in favorouble pro-US climate for semiconductor manufacturing.

I'd like to share personal experience with how we bankrupted American leadership in cutting edge nodes. Although, it is not lithography related, I was part of a few billion $ ROI program where we'd hot test the chip for binning, best I don't disclose too many details. Let's just say, it was critical so much so that I sat in unmarked buildings. I saw that get transfered under my personal watch to China. We had Chinese employees visit US for 6 months at a time and during this rotation, we'd teach them everything. Had to take a Chinese culture course. Process charts, metrics, drawings and schematics, whitepapers, how everything works, be part of troubleshooting process and then test them for their acuity. This was around 2012-2014. Usually, US semiconductor manufacturers do not transfer fab capabilities to China, only assembly/packaging. But, here, the was a clear violation of backend fab activities that were transferred to China and built out. I visited China for 3 months to get things up and running. This was a brand new process that no one in the world has. All custom equipment from a major Japanese equipment manufacturer. This process was so insane that it took 10 years of development internally to come to this point. Even today, in 2022, no one has replicated it.

This should not have happened IMO from a national security standpoint. But, these things continue to happen and US gov does not have enough insight into America's semiconductor industry when it comes to protecting IP. Far too many things do not require ITAR and are exported without oversight.

I am pretty much against over-regulation, but here there needs to be strict regulation for exporting any semiconductor technologies whether it is fab or assembly or what have you. The entire industry needs to be hamstrung with export control.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#214

Post by nwiswell »

mhneu wrote: post #183

This was what Andy Grove wanted - more investment in chip manufacturing. Good news. Grove was a visionary in many ways and his writing on this back in 2010 or so impacted my thinking. https://prospect.org/environment/andy-grove-trade-globalizat... In retirement, Grove became concerned about the decline of American manufacturing: When he was CEO, Intel not only performed its research and development in the United Stat…

> This was what Andy Grove wanted - more investment in chip manufacturing.

He was also the former CEO of Intel, so you know, not exactly impartial on the subject.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#215

Post by jdasdf »

Drblessing wrote: post #97
vxNsr wrote: post #34

The sane way to do this would have been to give the handouts on condition of no stock buybacks for 10 years and cap total exec compensation for similar amount of time for any company that accepts the handouts. This should be true for any company that accepts gov money. The gov doesn't give money to benefit the stockholders, they’re doing it to benefit the larger economy and country. Stock holder shouldn’t even be con…

You have a great idea. It would be tough corralling the boards and execs of these companies to accept Gov money that limits their compensation. Still, with competition, one company would be incentivized to take the money.

Why would there be competition, and why would any company take that deal, when it cannot benefit from it?

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#216

Post by [deleted] »

pm90 wrote: post #20

WaPo article, which has more details about the bill and less details about what different “personalities” are saying: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/27/senate-ch... . Overall, it looks great. We absolutely need to fund more semiconductor manufacturing. Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible strategic mistake. The US hasn’t lost this battle (over semiconductors) just yet. While curren…

[deleted]

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#217

Post by Clubber »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #197
listless wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to take one for the team and pull the plug on it, but I have little faith in our government ever doing the “principled” thing.

In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been overturned. It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to the 2013 decision of…

>In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges).

Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass.

Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcco...

>It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judicial activism.

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

Based on recent decisions, we seem to be currently in an era of judicial restraint, not activism. Again, the SCOTUS doesn't create laws, congress does. That's the way the system was designed. I hope the Citizens United decision will get overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#218

Post by sytelus »

Someone1234 wrote: post #129

It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that . Unfortunately 52 senators…

I would wager that a lot of these senators were available for purchase.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#219

Post by mwattsun »

abvdasker wrote: post #189
mwattsun wrote: post #172

We support strategic defense industries [1] in the U.S. so I don't understand how offshoring chip making was ever allowed to happen [1] As a former sub sailor, I'm aware that we kept submarine building capability afloat at New London, CT and Newport News, VA even when there is no current demand, but this was long ago and may no longer be true

That's capitalism, baby! It turns out domestic chip fabrication wasn't competitive (in this case a rare double-whammy of failing to compete on both cost and capability). The global market determined that Taiwan and South Korea made the best and cheapest chips so that's where all the manufacturing went. Demand for semiconductors is overwhelmingly not created by the military so it doesn't really make sense to compare i…

> Demand for semiconductors is overwhelmingly not created by the military

That may be true, but semiconductors are absolutely crucial to the military. I suppose the military has their own fabs locally located in partnership with Intel, AMD, IBM, TI, etc...

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#220

Post by 01100011 »

thfuran wrote: post #105
ZetaZero wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel had profits of $20B last year. They could easily build a new modern fab every year if they wanted to. But it makes more sense for them to spend tax payers money instead.

Easily as in "if they feel like wiping out all their profits", which is not really how public companies tend to feel.

Amazon went years basically making no money because they were reinvesting and in a growth stage. Intel could do the same. They just need to convince investors of the new narrative. Wall Street doesn't demand profits if you deliver promises.
Post reply on HN