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

471–480 of 489 posts

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

#471

Post by tdhz77 »

trasz wrote: post #83
tdhz77 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost is not the only consideration. I fear for people who only focus on one issue and ignore the rest. Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. I would say they find that reliance on China to be a threat to National Security. US and China communications is zero and even lower than it was during the Cold War. Pelosi story on visiting Taiwan should give you an idea of the stakes that are play. Chi…

>China siding with Russia should be the final consideration If it happened, which it didn't.

China has the best chance of ending the war by aligning itself with the western world and imposing sanctions. They are trading partners and could threaten and stop to buy gas/oil/goods from Russia and Putin would have no choice but to retreat. By turning a blind eye, it certain China is supporting Russia.

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

#472

Post by tdhz77 »

lapcat wrote: post #104
tdhz77 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost is not the only consideration. I fear for people who only focus on one issue and ignore the rest. Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. I would say they find that reliance on China to be a threat to National Security. US and China communications is zero and even lower than it was during the Cold War. Pelosi story on visiting Taiwan should give you an idea of the stakes that are play. Chi…

> Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. There has been widespread bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex for as long as Eisenhower (correctly) warned about the military-industrial complex. Partisan disagreements just tend to make the headlines more often.

This bill is about the private sector creating microchips. Nothing about the bill is about the military industrial complex. Intel, Apple, AMD

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

#473

Post by lapcat »

tdhz77 wrote: post #472
lapcat wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rarely do we see congressional leaders agreeing on this scale. There has been widespread bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex for as long as Eisenhower (correctly) warned about the military-industrial complex. Partisan disagreements just tend to make the headlines more often.

This bill is about the private sector creating microchips. Nothing about the bill is about the military industrial complex. Intel, Apple, AMD

I was just giving an example of common bipartisan issues.

Corporate welfare and bailouts are also big ones.

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

#474

Post by jobgh »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #459
jobgh wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mean… yes? I thought this was common knowledge; there’s certainly no shortage of documentation available: the ROI from lobbying efforts is insanely high, on the order of 75,000% by many estimates. I find it amusing that you dismissed this in a sibling comment as “just comparing spending to returns”… that’s literally what lobbying is : spending money to secure political favor. If our elected representatives simply a…

>I find it amusing that you dismissed this in a sibling comment as “just comparing spending to returns”… that’s literally what lobbying is: spending money to secure political favor. If our elected representatives simply agree that something should be a priority, companies wouldn’t need to bribe them to do it.

This is wrong. That's not what lobbying is understood to be. I think you're confusing lobbying with campaign contributions or PAC money. Lobbying is basically just advocating.

>I always assumed it was at least in part because there are a limited number of politicians competing with each other for the same funding sources.

That's kind of dodging the question. Why are there so few funding sources then?

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

#475

Post by trevorboaconstr »

culi wrote: post #62
trevorboaconstr wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don’t think so. The last few years have been no more than a speed bump in the 100 year trend of increased global interconnection.

"Global interconnection" is not the same thing as "globalization". In many ways they're actually opposed. With globalization comes increased strength of patent and copyright laws and much more control over what crosses what borders There's a direct relationship between international trade agreements and border security

So, your position is that this century long trend of globalization is over and all systemic mechanism that enable it will somehow, someway, cease. Or, what exactly? What is your position? Because, if for example, the crisis in Ukraine has shown, countries need more diversification, not less.

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

#476

Post by outsidetheparty »

jobgh wrote: post #474
outsidetheparty wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean… yes? I thought this was common knowledge; there’s certainly no shortage of documentation available: the ROI from lobbying efforts is insanely high, on the order of 75,000% by many estimates. I find it amusing that you dismissed this in a sibling comment as “just comparing spending to returns”… that’s literally what lobbying is : spending money to secure political favor. If our elected representatives simply a…

>I find it amusing that you dismissed this in a sibling comment as “just comparing spending to returns”… that’s literally what lobbying is: spending money to secure political favor. If our elected representatives simply agree that something should be a priority, companies wouldn’t need to bribe them to do it. This is wrong. That's not what lobbying is understood to be. I think you're confusing lobbying with campaign…

> Lobbying is basically just advocating.

That's fair. I was imprecise: I should have made it explicit that I was speaking about lobbying in America:

> The one big difference between the US and the EU is that the majority of policymakers in the EU institutions are not elected, and since they do not need to stand for elections, they do not need to find the significant amounts of cash to support campaigns. Instead of spending innumerable hours fundraising, they balance competing interests in an effort to produce policies that are seen as legitimate, though produced by a less-than-democratic supranational structure. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-lobbying-in-america-is-d...

US Lobbyists funneled a total of 3.77 billion dollars into campaign coffers in 2021, and are already over 2 billion for 2022. I hope it's not necessary to point out that they're not doing that without the expectation of a return on that investment (and as we've already seen, they absolutely are getting that ROI.)

> That's kind of dodging the question. Why are there so few funding sources then?

Not sure I see how it's dodging the question, especially since my following paragraph continues not dodging it in greater detail.... but setting that aside, the obvious answer to "why are there so few funding sources" is "there is a finite number of wealthy individuals and organizations", with a side order of "and they tend to consolidate their lobbying activities into industry groups". (To be specific, in 2022 that finite number is 11,441.)

https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying

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

#477

Post by res0nat0r »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #385
res0nat0r wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GOP in two years from now if they control Congress will ignore the filibuster and pass a national abortion ban at the federal level at the first opportunity. Anyone believing these folks haven't been lying or won't be complete hypocrites by now are living in an alternate reality.

You literally don't know that though. All signs point to them not doing that, because allowing abortions is actually popular. The only people telling you that Republicans will do that are Democrats. Also, even if they take a majority, they won't have a veto-proof majority, so there is no reason to go nuclear in the Senate when Biden is going to veto everything they do.

If they cared about popular will, almost every GOP controlled state in the USA wouldn't be as we speak trying to implement the most extreme abortion bans they can.

Mitch has said a national ban is a possibility: https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/1523246341173952517

Pence has said this should happen: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-...

Popular will doesn't matter when you don't need to listen to popular will to keep power. If your insane, extreme base is all you have to pander to to keep power, the GOP is doing just that.

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

#478

Post by trasz »

tdhz77 wrote: post #471
trasz wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>China siding with Russia should be the final consideration If it happened, which it didn't.

China has the best chance of ending the war by aligning itself with the western world and imposing sanctions. They are trading partners and could threaten and stop to buy gas/oil/goods from Russia and Putin would have no choice but to retreat. By turning a blind eye, it certain China is supporting Russia.

They are imposing sanctions - they have pulled of from some strategic investments, they limited electronics sales, they just don't make much fuss about it, because they aren't Americans.

As for the gas - it's quite probable that even before the war Russians were selling it at loss, purely to stay relevant. Which means China buying it hurts Russian economy more than keeping away. And of course it benefits China.

Besides - what exactly would be the point of isolating Russia altogether? A new USSR? Because that's precisely what Rashists want. China wants a pacified, but functioning vassal state instead. Or perhaps states, because there's no reason really for anything east of Ural to remain with Russia.

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

#479

Post by phkahler »

jen20 wrote: post #257
phkahler wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> We absolutely need to fund more semiconductor manufacturing. Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible strategic mistake. The correct solution to that is tariffs. That would hurt us short term and should have been done long ago before it would have been a problem. This will add to the debt pile, so it will be with us for a long time.

Who do you think pays the cost of tariffs?

People who buy the products. Not the entire population.

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

#480

Post by thereare5lights »

toolz wrote: post #461
thereare5lights wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hilarious, 100 years ago people would laugh at such "hardships". The metrics people used 100 years ago are of no concern to me and indeed the values those people held are more often than not abhorrent. > Food availability isn't a problem in the U.S. for all but the extreme outliers. When faced with data, you persist in this lie. > Now, education about nutrition is very likely a problem, but even the poorest of…

> One of the reasons people are obese is because all they can afford is the worst foods. Obesity is caused exclusively by calorie surplus. You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese. As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and l…

> You can literally eat pure sugar, twinkies, and sugary beverages exclusively at base metabolism maintenance calories and never become obese.

You changed your argument from nutrition to calories.

> As for your ignorant assumptions, I've been homeless for short periods of time in my life (in between jobs moving to a different city) and lived far below the poverty line for like 8 years of my adult life.

As for your ignorant assumptions,

> Frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can eat far healthier than the average american on the lowest budgets in the US. At literally half the poverty line if you spend 30% of your budget on food that's $5 a day on food - now you've probably never been poor so you don't understand how far $5 can take you in america - here's a nice showcase of what you can eat for $3.33/day

None of this would be true in a place like California, especially if you live in a food desert.

> So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about

So again, you've got no idea what you're talking about

> I could do this all day, honestly as it's not even remotely hard to eat very healthy and very well on $5/day

Yea, maybe where ever you live, not here.

Post reply on HN