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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by foogazi »

yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #163
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…

This analysis, if it can be called as such, misses the fact that the US is very, very politically divided, to the point where I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate. That perspective has been allowed to become reasonable, which is very, dangerous.

> I can see elections results being regularly considered illegitimate.

You think we’ll still have elections?

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

#232

Post by jopsen »

nomilk wrote: post #198
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…

Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now (let alone in a few years, when the US is presumably less dependent on Taiwanese chips)? I guess it comes down to how dependent on Taiwan's chips the US actually is (I don't know the answer to that). The US isn't dependent on Ukraine and it's pressuring them to hand over land. If it turns out the US isn't dependent on Taiwan it could show similar indifferen…

> Is it a given that the US would come to Tawian's defence now

In practice, probably yes, officially probably maybe. Giving a security guarantee would allow Taiwan to do provocative things, so hence, why there isn't a formal one.

If it actually came to be today, I guess the US would at-least offer token support. To (a) embargo China, (b) ensure chip facilities Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.

Both of which doesn't require winning a conflict, just making it painful.

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

#233

Post by antifa »

zmgsabst wrote: post #201
aurareturn wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The island of Taiwan belonged to China at some point. No political statement needed and no need to rewrite history on HN comments. Historically, Taiwan was governed by Chinese administrations for a significant period. In 1683, after defeating the Ming loyalists in Taiwan, the Qing dynasty extended its rule over the island, eventually incorporating it as part of its empire. By 1887, Taiwan was officially designated a…

Taiwan is under the administration of the government which ruled China then — and has continued to rule Taiwan since before the revolution led by the CCP. That’s why their official name is the “Republic of China”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%... The CCP never controlled Taiwan: it remained independent and under the previous regime. So the CCP would need to take Taiwan as their regime n…

> Taiwan is under the administration of the government which ruled China

Both consider themselves the temporarily embarrassed rightful heir to the centuries old concept of China.

The distinction between take/retake in this scenario is a shallow attempt to peacock your political opinion for everyone to see.

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

#234

Post by foogazi »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #196
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…

US only has 350M population.

Plenty of room to grow

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

#235

Post by icegreentea2 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #224
icegreentea2 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poli…

Yeah, that's the problem eh? Both for the OP's projection, but also identifies the element that most centrist/technocratic political parties are missing.

You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.

You need to address the wealth inequality.

And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe).

For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).

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

#236

Post by ein0p »

pj_mukh wrote: post #228
ein0p wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

See the comment above about the intellectual faculties of people who think like you do. We had to hightail out of Afghanistan. What on earth makes you believe that we could win against a peer adversary, let alone do so without a draft or millions of body bags?

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

#237

Post by roenxi »

re-thc wrote: post #203
yo_yo_yo-yo wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that I’ve calmed down a bit, I agree with your assessment. The optics game is so important, but Taiwan is in an impossible situation. If I were China, I would give them relative economic independence if they limit advanced process silicon to other countries and let Huawei and others monopolize the advanced nodes. The US at present does not appear to be a dependable partner.

> If I were China I wonder if China actually benefits from this drama and rather not claim Taiwan (despite what they say out loud). It's currently: - the best place to show military might (the "drills") - the best place to continue a proxy war with the US / EU - replaces Hong Kong as the gray area to do business

China is huge, huge things don't do subtlety well over any long timeframe. It is hard enough to get people to do move in sync with clear communications, let alone when there are confusing signals.

If China says they want control of Taiwan, the base scenario is they are serious. The only thing holding them back is how expensive it is to execute on that want. Although since the action is off the Chinese coast and China appears to be stronger than the US right now I don't see how this ends well for Taiwan.

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

#238

Post by agumonkey »

ethbr1 wrote: post #148
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…

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.

Fair point. I only worry that trump might decide to play them both ways.. extort investments for protection, then reneg the help unilaterally on a whim.

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

#239

Post by 827a »

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…

I tend to agree, with the exception of: I don't agree with the assertion that the US is broadly intending to renege on many of its security guarantees. I don't think that's a fair characterization on the Ukraine situation. If we had a security guarantee with Ukraine, it was the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, and we reneged on that under Obama in 2014 with Crimea, and under Biden in 2022 with the current war, but even Russia was a signatory to that and frankly its security guarantees were pretty weak anyway. Some say the economic, humanitarian, and military aid we've provided technically counts; its not like NATO Article 5 after all.

The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.

This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.

But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.

You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.

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

#240

Post by jopsen »

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.

> 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?

A managed escalation would blockade China, or at least ensure the rest of the free world never trades with China again.

Similarly, a local conflict could ensure chip facilities in Taiwan aren't surrendered intact.

The US doesn't have to win a hot conflict. Just start a cold war.

I still think the US has allies in Europe that would sanction China indefinitely. They'd probably also show up with something, if called.

Post reply on HN