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

311–320 of 489 posts

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

#311

Post by goatlover »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #294
tablespoon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's misleading framing…

> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?

And what do the voters think?

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

#312

Post by vxNsr »

jdasdf wrote: post #215
Drblessing wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why wouldn't it benefit? the idea would to be prevent giving a handout to the shareholders through unethical means. When you sign a contract with someone you are bound by the contract, for some reason you and most company executives are having trouble understanding that. They all (you) think, "if I can take someone else's money and run, then I should, my word and agreements be damned." That anathema to a civil society.

I'll address your disingenuous reply to me above over here:

Stock buybacks and executive bonuses are things you give out when the company is doing well -- through its own means, not when you get charity from the government because you screwed up for 30 years and failed to invest and innovate. If intel which had record profits last year and revenues in excess of $70billion needs a handout because it doesn't have the money to invest in the US, then it shouldn't be allowed to reward it's owners and failed executives until the US government gets a return on its investment.

It takes 5 years to bring a fab online and 5 years to see the economic impact of that new fab, so 10 years before they're allowed to start rewarding their owners again. Or return the money early and then you can do stock buybacks, and phat exec bonuses.

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

#313

Post by mark_l_watson »

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…

Your points are very good, I would have said the same thing.

The cynic in me thinks it is not just the Senate. How much money has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s family invested in US chip makers in the last few months? Quite a lot of money…

I remember when the US government stopped the $50 million/year breakfast for poor kids program - too much money. That is when we were attacking Iraq, and spending $50M every 20 minutes of so in order to pump money into political donors like the ‘defense’ industry and energy industries.

Off topic, but I laugh when I hear democrats or republicans talk like their political party cares for them. Absurd. The DNC and RNC are themselves profit driven entities.

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

#314

Post by andrekandre »

tootie wrote: post #287
fleddr wrote: post #254

Fairly cynical comments on this thread, many trying to uphold American values like "free market", "protectionism is bad", "what about the consumer", "not from my tax money". I find those remarks pretty naive. Every major power block heavily subsidizes strategic industries, now and forever. It's in no way new or remarkable, nor does it violate some principle. Most of the above concepts are pure fiction. Semiconductors…

Here's my cynical take: This bill will subsidize a lot of jobs when we already have zero slack in our labor market. I think it's an excellent target for spending and would have a positive multiplier in normal times but in 2022 this seems likely to just goose inflation another inch. Unless we actually start seeing cyclical job losses finally hit right when this money starts being spent. Which is entirely possible.

any way to stop inflation without a needing job losses?

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

#315

Post by rubyist5eva »

jprd wrote: post #277
mathattack wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids independent of financial status? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-uni...

Yes! Why would a human being feel that feeding children is NOT their responsibility? Clearly you have never had to be the "free lunch kid", or idealize your childhood independent of the cruelty of "different". You are extremely privileged. The idea that we'd limit what kids we fund for meals, education, etc. is just gross and bifurcates any moralistic or democratic ideals. The US has a serious problem with "bootstrap…

> Why would a human being feel that feeding children is NOT their responsibility?

Perhaps we should ask the parents who are encouraged to not feed their own children because of the existence of these programs.

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

#317

Post by diordiderot »

mathattack wrote: post #191
djur wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A substantial number of those 52 senators oppose free school meals not because they're "too expensive" but because the policy itself (the government giving free food to children) is something they object to on ideological grounds. A much smaller subset of that group also oppose the government giving free stuff to industry, but in either case the cost is not what they're concerned about.

I’m all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids independent of financial status? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-uni...

earn more > you pay more tax > kids 'free meal' isn't free

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

#318

Post by bobthepanda »

commandlinefan wrote: post #266
jonathanlb wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of its constituents. If the majority of the people living in the state are opposed to such a program, then they shouldn't have such a program. You're ignoring that gerrymandering districts allow politicians to enact policies that don't reflect the will of the people.

> gerrymandering districts But that would be even worse at a federal level because there are so many more districts to gerrymander, wouldn't it?

The federal government is a lot less likely to be one-party than a state. We haven't had a same-party trifecta for over a decade.

Also, states draw the federal district lines, so generally the Dems and Repubs both do it and the end result is less lopsided.

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

#319

Post by disintegore »

snikeris wrote: post #248
disintegore wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This looks like an appeal to nature, concerning a form of conduct that could just as well be conditioned in individuals. It also seems to place the government in direct opposition with the wants of consumers, without acknowledging at all the fact that markets are just as often made unfree by the actions of its private actors.

> the fact that markets are just as often made unfree by the actions of its private actors. Example please.

There are countless examples of anticompetitive conduct going all the way back to prehistory. The legal vocabulary around it pretty extensive.

Since this is HN though maybe these will ring a bell :

* Intel's rebate program (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2010/08/...) which ended up with a $1.2B payment to AMD

* Microsoft's notorious antitrust case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....)

* AT&T abusing its monopoly status and being broken up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._AT%26T)

Honestly this is such an obvious notion that the fact that you're asking for examples is suspect on its own.

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

#320

Post by danenania »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #203
mathattack wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids independent of financial status? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-uni...

Doing it for everyone makes management simpler. I suspect it leads to better academic performance, too.

Exactly.

It's not about the kid in Palo Alto who doesn't need it, but gets it anyway.

It's about the kid who lives in poverty and should get it, but doesn't, because their family didn't properly submit forms A65, B39, and F12 proving their annual income meets the ever-changing requirements.

Giving a benefit to everyone is by far the simplest and most effective way to be sure no one falls through the bureaucratic cracks (though it's probably more accurate to call them gaping chasms than 'cracks').

Post reply on HN