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

181–190 of 489 posts

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

#181

Post by disintegore »

snikeris wrote: post #140
analognoise wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as "the free market" - it's this mythologized idea that people keep pushing, usually to damage workers so they can ship jobs offshore. If anything, the more something resembles a "free market", the worse it is - you don't think Intel wouldn't poison the water supply if it juiced the Q4 earnings? It's always more economical to just dump the toxic waste into the local river. If anything these sub…

"The General Market's mechanisms are always operating - even when governments like to believe they've overruled it. For guns and bombs and red tape and regulations can only obstruct a consumer's quest for what he wants; they can never destroy his insatiable desire to improve his life and enjoy greater mental well-being. The self-interest of each human being, his continual search for whatever he wants, is a natural la…

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.

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

#182

Post by bumby »

lettergram wrote: post #61
bpodgursky wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh I mean yes Boeing is kind of a mess right now, but it's ridiculous to argue that having Boeing based in the US isn't an enormous strategic advantage. Can you imagine a world where US airlines had to depend on either Airbus or Sukhoi planes? Do you really think that would be better?

I don’t think subsidizing them has been a success. I think tariffs and awarding contracts to the best domestic manufacturers are the way forward. That’s why SpaceX took off, they won contracts. Boeing effectively lobbied to regulate others out of existence. Bought off who they could, then won grants and contracts because there was no one else.

That’s why SpaceX took off, they won contracts.

Can you elaborate? How was Boeing subsidized in this instance and SpaceX not? It's my understanding that it was closer to the other way around. Both Boeing and SpaceX won commercial crew contracts, but Boeing (at the time) had a stronger track record. It was a strategic move by NASA to not put all their eggs in one basket and it worked out well by subsidizing the early dark horse (SpaceX).

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

#183

Post by mhneu »

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 States, but its manufacturing as well. He was greatly disturbed that more and more American companies produced their products abroad. Concerned about the erosion of the American middle class, he also helped Service Employee International Union leaders Andy Stern and David Rolf conceptualize new ways that the American labor movement might once again flourish.

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

#184

Post by upupandup »

pm90 wrote: post #22
jasondc wrote: post #15

The beginning of the undoing of globalization, countries will start bringing industries back home with bills like this.

Globalization is here to stay. The economics are just too sweet to “go back”.

I think so as well, in particular I believe that countries with a large population of young will be the biggest beneficiaries of companies exiting China.

It's going to take some time to get back to scale but I believe India, Vietnam, Southeast Asia stands to be the biggest winners.

I do not see China returning to status quo anytime soon. It's more likely that they will fall victim to nationalistic fervor and close its doors.

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

#185

Post by thfuran »

cowtools wrote: post #151
smoldesu wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sensible measures" like that don't get picked because ultimately all cryptocurrency is a zero-sum game, and getting rid of all of them would save us a lot of time, manhours and wasted Internet conversations. But ideas like that are too sensible, so we give people the freedom to build whatever blockchain-garbage they want, because that's their sovereign choice.

banning cryptocurrency is easier said than done.

No, it should be pretty easy to effectively end them. Just make it illegal to possess, buy, or sell them and suddenly all the corporate interest vanishes, the exchanges disappear, and all the crypto bros quiet down.

Sure, some people would still use them but it'd be a rounding error compared to current adoption.

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

#186

Post by yieldcrv »

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…

You just need an external enemy. in this case China.

You can bridge consensus on all sides when there is a boogeyman that isn't another American.

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

#187

Post by sct202 »

C-x_C-f wrote: post #144
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…

This is always framed in terms of USA vs. China/Taiwan but what about Europe? AFAIK (I might know wrong) the consensus among macroeconomists is that "social market economies" like European ones are better suited (compared to "liberal market economies" like the USA) to investing in large scale manufacturing (see e.g. Varieties of Capitalism [0]—though it is a bit controversial). Though I do wonder if chip manufacturin…

The EU passed their own Chips Act earlier this year. It was a point of contention since Intel's CEO has kept threatening to expand in Europe instead of the US if the US CHIPS act isn't passed.

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

#188

Post by staticman2 »

mattnewton wrote: post #155
guelo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

51 senators could change that rule any time though, it’s just an accidental convention that hasn’t had the best track record imo

I assume they won't change it because they are afraid of what the other side will do when they are in power.

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

#189

Post by abvdasker »

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 it to submarines.
Post reply on HN