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

371–380 of 489 posts

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

#371

Post by ch4s3 »

feet wrote: post #354
ch4s3 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasingly campaigns are funded almost entirely by small dollar donations raised through social media. This is about to make US politics really weird, and I'm not sure what to think of it. Also basically all legislation that passes which is very little, is written by the staffers of House and Senate leadership without going through committee. It's then handed to members to rubber stamp on the floor if the votes are…

There's a ton of legislation written by think tanks like ALECS It would be nice if all campaigns were funded by small donations. We should get large corporate donors out of politics

Sure, but most of that stuff doesn't make it into law at the federal level. State houses are a different story. Congress really doesn't pass a lot of legislation anymore.

> It would be nice if all campaigns were funded by small donations

If you go look at the videos congress people are putting up to pull in donations, you may not have such a rosy view. It tends to be the most divisive stuff, and really leans into fear of the other in general. It seems unhealthy to me.

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

#372

Post by ckw »

jobgh wrote: post #337
hanniabu wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In today's democracy you only get what you want if what you want is coincidentally the same as what their donors want.

What are some examples of legislation that has broad support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and is ignored by our representatives?

* Public option: 68% support, 18% oppose.

* Medicare for all: 55% support, 32% oppose.

* Civil asset forfeiture: 16% support, 86% oppose.

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

#373

Post by Jensson »

mathattack wrote: post #365
jagged-chisel wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You’re suggesting that buying free lunches for the 92% of students who don’t need it [0] is more efficient than just paying teachers more or hiring more intervention specialists or counselors? [0] https://www.schooldigger.com/go/CA/schools/2961004596/school...

Many parents who can afford things still don't pay for them for their kids. Not sure why nobody thinks of those kids, there ought to be millions of them...

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

#374

Post by remarkEon »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #328
notyourwork wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What answer do you expect to get to your argumentative question?

I'm open to debate. But I think the OP is erroneous in presuming popular will is expressed in American National Security and Foreign policy and therefore using that to lend credence to this turn of events.

I don’t think that’s what was implied.

In the abstract it seems much easier to get alignment on a national security question (especially one as cut and dry as this one, which is don’t let your nation’s semiconductor supply fall under the control of a hostile foreign country), than it is to get alignment on a much more ideological and philosophical question about how to solve poverty.

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

#375

Post by echelon »

jacobreg wrote: post #332
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…

The point isn't that its one or the other, the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives. The point is that either-or is a false dichotomy, we can have good social safety nets and still have robust national security. The reason we don't have both isn't that we can't afford both, its that much of this country v…

> makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives

Many people in this country want their chances to be better, and not have those opportunities distributed evenly. They want a shot of improving their status by ascending career, wealth, and opportunity gradients. This is how they vote. This is how companies operate too.

On the flip side, true universal equity doesn't even stop at the national boarder. If you're a proponent of equitability for all, then you want to distribute all high income jobs, housing, medical care, and wealth all around the world and give everyone access and good chances. To some degree this has happened with manufacturing. In time it will happen to knowledge work as well.

There are problems with both models of the world. Power and resources become concentrated. With slowing growth, wealth building up the lower class of one nation leads to the eroding of the middle class in another.

It's unclear to me that these choices are even the ones that will dominate the future outcomes for our civilization. It's resource reallocation. The big trends will be war, technological disruptions, and ecosystem changes.

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

#376

Post by runarberg »

jobgh wrote: post #331
InvisibleCities wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing do with people’s civic engagement levels, and everything to do with money. The semiconductor industry gets a massive subsidy because they spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbying - impoverished schoolchildren get left to starve because they don’t.

You honestly think tens of millions in lobbying efforts cause a tens of billions return on investment? Why is it so insanely cheap? Maybe our elected representatives simply agree that national security is a priority just like the people who voted them into office?

I doubt it. The parallels of this rhetoric from the war on terror is stark. You can put anything under the umbrella of national security, and your average senator is perfectly aware of that. A theoretical threat to semiconductor distribution pails in comparison to the actual threat of climate change or the real threat of poverty which millions of Americans are facing.

No, I don’t believe the senators looked at this with an unbiased mind and came to this conclusion on their own volition. Much rather, they rely on some funding for their campaigning, and said funding had a deep influence on their decision. Not rational thinking.

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

#377

Post by TameAntelope »

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…

> Unfortunately 52 senators get to control the agenda, and they get to decide what is "affordable" and "too expensive."

How else would you prefer this to be? Of course a majority of Senators get to control the agenda…

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

#378

Post by tootie »

fleddr wrote: post #341
tootie wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Still missing the point. You concerns mean absolutely nothing when the essentials in your society break down.

Inflation affects the availability of essentials. I'm not saying this is a bad deal just that it's possibly a big trade off doing it right now. It's also conceivable that increased production will alleviate some supply bottlenecks making this neutral on inflation.

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

#379

Post by bloodyplonker22 »

bagacrap wrote: post #307
bloodyplonker22 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible strategic mistake. More like losing that ability to Taiwan's TSMC and South Korea's Samsung. China's SMIC is very far behind and has insignificant market share. Additionally, it's rather insulting to non-communists when you mishmash together China and Taiwan.

yes, although the subsidies supply to anyone who builds fabs in the US, including TSMC.

Indeed, the point is to create jobs in the US and to, in the long run, lower the risk of a complete takeover of TSMC in case China invades Taiwan.

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

#380

Post by jobgh »

ckw wrote: post #372
jobgh wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are some examples of legislation that has broad support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and is ignored by our representatives?

* Public option: 68% support, 18% oppose. * Medicare for all: 55% support, 32% oppose. * Civil asset forfeiture: 16% support, 86% oppose.

These stats are from likely voters, adjusted for voting power? And could you source your stats on civil asset forfeiture?

I'm getting throttled so I might not be able to reply in a timely fashion.

Post reply on HN