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

Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 301 posts

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#241

Post by redis_mlc »

threeseed wrote: post #231
WillPostForFood wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US hasn't even committed to defending Taiwan. I doubt the US would militarily intervene. The risk of escalation is too high. If China is committed to taking it, they will get it. The response would be economic, and I'm not confident enough of the world cares, or isn't already beholden to China for it to matter. >Ford class aircraft carriers Isn't there only one Ford class carrier? And it is still not fully ready,…

At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. And anything with teeth will never work whilst US companies build everything in China. So for me a short military dispute is more likely. No one is expecting war this year. There will be 3 Ford Class carriers by 2030 and 5 by 2040. As well as the Nimitz class which are still better than w…

>At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about.

This is incorrect.

Trump/Pompeo would have instituted US capital market controls (and pension fund disinvestment) had they been re-elected. That destroyed the USSR, and would have shattered China in a matter of 24 months. At a high level, BRI/etc. rely on a few trillion USD from New York.

What Biden needs to do is re-enforce the Trump actions that were rolled back, and continue the capital controls. However, the Biden family is involved in CCP corruption, and Biden's Chief of Staff is a CCP lobbyist.

In addition, CCP assets can be seized globally for the Wuhan corona - I think $10 million per death plus $100,000 each for the remainder of the globe would work.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#242

Post by ErikVandeWater »

coliveira wrote: post #173

It is funny that the US intelligentsia complains about China as being dominated by government, but there is nothing really big done in the US without huge costs for American tax payers, frequently without any retribution. This is clearly the next step: the US corporations created the "big enemy" China by exporting jobs there during the last 40 years, now they want the same taxpayers to pay for rebuilding the US indus…

> US corporations created the "big enemy" China by exporting jobs there during the last 40 years

I've noticed that for the most part every time a corporation export jobs it's the corporation's fault. Whenever a corporation brings jobs to the US the politicians get credit for good policy.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#243

Post by LatteLazy »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #128
elevation wrote: post #102

Even if this consortium constructs a North American fab, a single natural disaster near that fab could wreak the same follow-on effects in the headlines today; the underlying problem isn't only that we've outsourced our critical manufacturing, but also that we keep so little buffer that any disruption could cause today's headlines. The MBAs running US manufacturers need to scrap their JIT strategies, build some wareh…

Isn't one of the problems that JIT was made to solve that there is a tax on inventory? That the government punishes you for maintaining slack in the manufacturing chain by taxing it?

This came up a while back and no one seemed to be able to say what tax is paid on inventory. The best we could work out was you need a warehouse and warehouses are taxed as they are real estate.

JIT is about freeing up capital (which in the 80s when JIT came in was expensive). It also reduces waste a lot.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#245

Post by Arrath »

voidfunc wrote: post #222
_-david-_ wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars are not single battles. If China were to attack (and capture) Taiwan the war would not just be over. The West could attack mainland China and attempt to retake Taiwan.

Attacking mainland China seems like a great way to end up in a very bad Nuclear conflict.

China declared decades ago that they follow a No First Use policy in regards to nuclear weapons.

Of course, whether that holds true if boots land on their soil, who knows.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#246

Post by ErikVandeWater »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #177
robbrown451 wrote: post #31

To all those saying that those companies can afford it themselves, remember that there are reasons they don't. The economics don't add up. Companies tend to do what is in their economic interest to do. Something like this can change the economics, which could be a good thing.

"To all those saying that those companies can afford it themselves, remember that there are reasons they don't." This sounds a lot like "God moves in mysterious ways and has a plan for everyone, everything happens for a reason". No actual analysis and reasoning required. This free market religion is what gave us 2008 and will keep giving.

Ah yes, the free market utopia every libertarian dreamed of existed in 2008. There were only just over 100,000 pages of federal law and regulations. Not to mention state and local laws.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#247

Post by AnthonyMouse »

threeseed wrote: post #231
WillPostForFood wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US hasn't even committed to defending Taiwan. I doubt the US would militarily intervene. The risk of escalation is too high. If China is committed to taking it, they will get it. The response would be economic, and I'm not confident enough of the world cares, or isn't already beholden to China for it to matter. >Ford class aircraft carriers Isn't there only one Ford class carrier? And it is still not fully ready,…

At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. And anything with teeth will never work whilst US companies build everything in China. So for me a short military dispute is more likely. No one is expecting war this year. There will be 3 Ford Class carriers by 2030 and 5 by 2040. As well as the Nimitz class which are still better than w…

> At this point there is very little economic sanctions US could impose on China that Trump didn't already either try or talk about. And anything with teeth will never work whilst US companies build everything in China.

This is a contradiction. It leaves open the possibility of sanctions sufficient to induce US companies to stop building everything in China.

In the long term the cost of this is negligible or produces a net benefit. Maybe some things cost more if it would have been cheaper to make them in China, but that isn't necessarily true outside of China's cross-subsidies which you're then still paying for, and even if they do you get the countervailing economic benefit of repatriating some of the production. (It's also plausible that sanctions on China would move production to places like Mexico and Brazil which are still cheaper than the US, but then you're back to no significant long-term cost increase and a benefit from diversifying production.)

The main cost is in the short term, because things would cost more. But they would cost more by the amount of the tariffs. Which go to the government, which it can then give back to the domestic population in various ways. Which could produce a domestic benefit, if China ends up paying any of the tariffs. If there is a $1 import tariff which pays for a $1 tax reduction for the middle class, but the tariff is paid $0.75 by the domestic buyer and $0.25 by the foreign manufacturer, you just transferred $0.25 to the domestic population.

The only way you even get a short-term domestic cost is if manufacturing actually does start moving out of China. Because then you have a $1 tariff which causes people to be willing to pay $0.25 more for a product made in Ohio or Mexico. Which costs you the $0.25 and then you don't get the $1 to offset domestic taxes. But it costs China $5, i.e. the full value of the sale and not just the amount of the tariff or the marginal cost of manufacturing it elsewhere. It costs them more than it costs the US. Which gives the US more negotiating leverage to get whatever concessions they want.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#248

Post by coliveira »

smithza wrote: post #219
coliveira wrote: post #173

It is funny that the US intelligentsia complains about China as being dominated by government, but there is nothing really big done in the US without huge costs for American tax payers, frequently without any retribution. This is clearly the next step: the US corporations created the "big enemy" China by exporting jobs there during the last 40 years, now they want the same taxpayers to pay for rebuilding the US indus…

A cynical take... considering how short-sighted public corps are with quarterly shareholder valuations, this is an unintended side-effect at best. At worst, it could be that your comment "the US corporations created the 'big enemy' China" was intentional.

Intentional or not it doesn't matter. If you do something wrong and lose money, they won't save you if you declare that it was all unintentional. But big companies have bad policies (sometimes criminal) and use this excuse all the time.

Re: Tech giants join call for funding U.S. chip production

#249

Post by to11mtm »

Siira wrote: post #187
elzbardico wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and this not only because of fiscal reasons, but because it is the ethical thing to do.

It's ethical how? By making rich Americans even richer, and removing one of the few ways developing countries can enter the global market?

If a developing country handled all environmental regulations, etc. there would -still- be a profit to be had, unless shipping winds up negating that profit. Logically speaking a less developed country will still have lower overall wages.

While this means the countries may develop slower, they will likely/hopefully wind up with less concentrated wealth (hiring more workers instead of a few people pocketing all the profits.)

I would hope that such taxes would be used towards environmental or humanitarian efforts, to be a proper 'offset' tax.

Doing so will likely result in some short term shocks, but a more sustainable society overall. My hope is that when prices would go up in such a scenario, consumers would again care about how long something lasts in big enough numbers that we have a less disposable society.

Post reply on HN