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

TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

safety1st wrote: post #147
yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #121

I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this. I feel so sorry for a great, entrepreneurial people. US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123628

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons * The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay fo…

> Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons

Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.

> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world

It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.

> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.

The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.

But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#222

Post by shipp02 »

Shank wrote: post #215
dataflow wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.

> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.

Intel/Samsung are behind. That is a fact.

The question is, is it better to wage a massive war that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives than to make an equal investment into the semi-conductor industry.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#223

Post by Sabinus »

linotype wrote: post #138
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The US is doing all it can to become irrelevant geopolitically in Europe, that's not to start a war with China with a very uncertain outcome. Economic ties is (was) the really last bastion that would have motivated the US to intervene.

Wild how quickly Europe has just given up on the US after all the money we’ve spent on them for decades. We need your help (a majority of sane Americans), not condemnation. If you don’t think Trump won’t do the same to you, you’re sorely mistaken.

Europe can't cure American political disease. The public discourse, general political education and health of American institutions is alarmingly bad. IMO it's unlikely that these trends will stop. America is suited to isolationism and Trump type views of the world aren't going away from the US voter mindset.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#224

Post by dragonwriter »

icegreentea2 wrote: post #165
safety1st wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons * The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay fo…

The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit. An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.

> The "clawing back" isn't simply a withdraw of resources back to America, it also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality), as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.

The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#225

Post by petesergeant »

dataflow wrote: post #202
tyre wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Our continued protection of you is contingent on your investment in us”. Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. The US has a protectionist president who likes big numbers in announcements and a base riled up about American production capacity. Long-term this is bad for Taiwan since it reduces its leverage with the US in administrations with short-term geopolitics (or no real geopolitical talent.) In the…

> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.

> across the ocean

It is, but it also isn't, given the US forces on Okinawa, and also just generally in the region. The US military is not a force that exists for homeland defense, it's a force designed purely to project power across the ocean.

> engage militarily

This can mean a lot of things though. A steady flow of matériel and intelligence given to an island that's basically a giant and highly-defended mountain-range is going to go a very long way.

> is any US president

I mean in the last 150 years they've shown a remarkable willingness to intervene, more than once in proxy wars against the Chinese.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#226

Post by re-thc »

Shank wrote: post #215
dataflow wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taiwan is hugely reliant on US defense guarantees. What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean, let alone the current one? The US population does not seem ecstatic to enter something that could turn into WWIII, which makes me feel that even a president in favor of this would quickly fail to do anything.

> What I don't get is, in what universe is any US president going to engage militarily against China across the ocean The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening. All high-performance computing is dependent on TSMC right now.

> The whole premise of TSMC is that losing TSMC would cause such a global economic collapse that defending Taiwan is the only option to prevent this from happening.

TSMC just hits the media often. If Taiwan goes the global economy will have way more problems than just TSMC. There is a long list of companies in many supply chains that would be impacted (not just computing).

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#227

Post by jopsen »

lurk2 wrote: post #190
ethbr1 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They only need to make this appear real for 4, maybe 2 years, and can then reevaluate. I'd guess they looked at their options and decided this was the best hedge.

Why would subsequent presidents allow Taiwan to maintain leverage over supply chains crucial to American national security?

Subsequent president might realize that America might want allies, and if so they'll attempt to appear reliable.

Current administration is fast tracking nuclear prolifiacian. A future president might want to stop such trends.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#228

Post by pj_mukh »

ein0p wrote: post #208
pj_mukh wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious why Taiwan would sign onto this, knowing how Ukraine is being treated vis a vis mineral rights. I realize Taiwan doesn't have any other options, but a "verbal offer" of future security guarantees from the Trump Admin aren't worth anything.

I don't think there are any multi-trillion dollar deposits of any "minerals" there. If there were, Ukraine wouldn't be so poor. Even pre-war it was the poorest country in Europe per capita. One can argue that it was mostly due to their insane levels of corruption, but then again, if there were any multi-trillion dollar deposits of anything there, Western investors (including Hunter Biden, no doubt) would be all over…

"Moreover, a lot of other countries will totally provide "lethal aid" and intelligence to China, if it needs it, in hopes of taking the hegemon down a few pegs."

This seems...not true. The Phillipines especially would like a word. Most of China's neighbors are begging for more American Hegemony (America is just not good at it anymore). China's industrial prowess is clear, but it's also true that. China (esp the CCP) has a lot more to lose from a direct confrontation with America. America could lose a president, China will lose a whole regime.

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#229

Post by foogazi »

safety1st wrote: post #147
yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #121

I cannot even begin to imagine what madness has infected the Taiwanese government to allow this. I feel so sorry for a great, entrepreneurial people. US tariffs will not matter when you are blockaded and Chester Nimitz is very much dead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43123628

Right now is a very interesting moment in that the future is crystal clear and yet so many people of all persuasions don't want to accept it for so many different reasons * The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay fo…

Interesting that it matches what I see as the flip from rights-based to might makes right world

If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries?

If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ?

If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside

Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?

Re: TSMC expected to announce $100B investment in U.S.

#230

Post by Sabinus »

braincat31415 wrote: post #41
tensor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He sure seems to be able to just terminate legislation signed into law. He already did it with USAID, and is in the process of doing it to many other departments.

USAID is a waste of money. Good riddance.

You like this rule being broken? Great, good for you.

What about the other rules? The ones protecting you and the country? Is due process not valuable any more? What protects us from people with bad or selfish intentions?

Post reply on HN