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

391–400 of 489 posts

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

#391

Post by runarberg »

jobgh wrote: post #386
runarberg wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. The parallels of this rhetoric from the war on terror is stark. You can put anything under the umbrella of national security, and your average senator is perfectly aware of that. A theoretical threat to semiconductor distribution pails in comparison to the actual threat of climate change or the real threat of poverty which millions of Americans are facing. No, I don’t believe the senators looked at this w…

Securing core resources has been a long standing national security concern for countries. Also, there’s a good chunk of populist isolationist sentiment in the zeitgeist. Senators aren’t unbiased. They’re biased towards what their voters want. If they step out of line, they’ll likely get crushed. I don’t think money in politics is very explanatory. It seems a basic understanding of the 3 branches and the interplay bet…

I think you might be underestimating voter apathy. Voter apathy stems further then low voter turnout, it also includes people who vote despite not caring or despite not believing their values will not be represented in that vote. That is, the lesser of two evils is a very real thing for many (most?) voters.

For that to be true there would have to be some dissonance between what voters actually want and to what their representatives actually deliver. If you don’t believe this dissonance exist, then sure, there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. I on the other hand, not only believe such dissonance exist, but is a fundamental flaw in our democracy.

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

#392

Post by mrkstu »

rurp wrote: post #346
cal5k wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> essentially making it a constitutional issue due to the 2nd amendment. Yes, because that's how the American constitution works. If you think something else should have similar protections - or if you don't like the second amendment and think it should be repealed - lobby for a new amendment. Until then, it's the highest law in the land and is on equal footing with any constitutional protection, regardless of your p…

Oh to live in such a world... Unfortunately the Supreme Court is not a compiler that returns rulings from some objective process. The justices have massive leeway to decide how to interpret every part of the constitution, and they do so to align their rulings with their own personal and political goals. If we swapped this court with 9 other judges they would return very different rulings on the exact same cases.

In this instance though, the majority's 'political goals' are textualism and originalism- where the intent of the written words is paramount. This at least has the virtue of limiting the power of their unelected personal policy outcomes- which we see much more often with the putative conservatives voting with the liberals against their presumed personal opinions on what they'd like the outcome to be.

You see that quite often from Gorsuch and Alito- you'll not once see that from Sotomayor.

Thomas is consistent, though conveniently for him his policy and political preference's and how he reads the Constitution seem to align nearly perfectly.

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

#393

Post by DubiousPusher »

remarkEon wrote: post #374
DubiousPusher wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm open to debate. But I think the OP is erroneous in presuming popular will is expressed in American National Security and Foreign policy and therefore using that to lend credence to this turn of events.

I don’t think that’s what was implied. In the abstract it seems much easier to get alignment on a national security question (especially one as cut and dry as this one, which is don’t let your nation’s semiconductor supply fall under the control of a hostile foreign country), than it is to get alignment on a much more ideological and philosophical question about how to solve poverty.

> In the abstract

There is nothing abstract in politics and that's just plain old "begging the question".

> especially one as cut and dry as this one, which is don’t let your nation’s semiconductor supply fall under the control of a hostile foreign country

Cut and dry to whom? And were it so cut and dry why is a subsidy the solution rather than any number of other legislative actions?

> than it is to get alignment on a much more ideological and philosophical question about how to solve poverty

Free lunch for students is hardly an attempt to "solve poverty".

On one subject you are asking to do politics in a vacuum because it is the status quo and on the other imply a heavy ideological weight.

In reality both things are equally ideological, the only difference you're asserting is that a nationalistic defense ideology should be taken for granted and perhaps that it is popular.

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

#394

Post by brewdad »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #334
BobbyJo wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, these people are voted in.

True, the natsec Republican your polity elected did have to overcome a natsec Democrat or visa-versa. I encourage you to attend some meetings of your local party Republican or Democrat (whichever is dominant) and see how the people you get to elect are chosen. What you'll find is the folks controlling that process are deeply under the influence of a status quo and that most unorthodoxy there is very quickly marginali…

People with power wanting to retain that power is not as insightful or surprising as you think it is.

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

#395

Post by jobgh »

runarberg wrote: post #391
jobgh wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Securing core resources has been a long standing national security concern for countries. Also, there’s a good chunk of populist isolationist sentiment in the zeitgeist. Senators aren’t unbiased. They’re biased towards what their voters want. If they step out of line, they’ll likely get crushed. I don’t think money in politics is very explanatory. It seems a basic understanding of the 3 branches and the interplay bet…

I think you might be underestimating voter apathy. Voter apathy stems further then low voter turnout, it also includes people who vote despite not caring or despite not believing their values will not be represented in that vote. That is, the lesser of two evils is a very real thing for many (most?) voters. For that to be true there would have to be some dissonance between what voters actually want and to what their…

I don't think I am. A good recent example was the ACA under Obama: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition#:~:text=The....

This is a big reason why Roe was never codified imo

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

#396

Post by jobgh »

richbell wrote: post #387
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?

> You honestly think tens of millions in lobbying efforts cause a tens of billions return on investment? Why is it so insanely cheap? This is exactly how lobbying works, and it's depressing how insanely cheap our countries are being sold for. - https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forg... - https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2019/05/14/how... For example, if a corporation doesn't like th…

Your first two sources are just comparing spending to returns. It doesn't address the hard question which is about causality.

A better explanation for The American Jobs Creation Act is probably the fact that republicans support lower taxes, and they won in 2016.

Regarding the Microsoft case with the IRS, perhaps the fact that everyone hates the IRS is a better explanation?

>Public preference has almost no impact on what legislation gets passed. Why would it have a significant impact? We don't pass laws by poll.

>Not to mention all the gerrymandering This one seems real from what I've seen, but I need to look into it more, and I don't think it should be tied very closely to money in politics.

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

#397

Post by doctor_eval »

twawaaay wrote: post #350
doctor_eval wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environment is what allows everything else to exist. By your logic, that should be the #1 spending priority. And that’s only the lowest hanging of the rotten fruit of this argument.

Security is at the top of all needs. A country that can't defend itself will be pray to everybody else and will not be able to do anything about environment or education. You can bitch and moan all you want. Go visit Ukraine and see what happens when you live in a country that can't defend itself. Everything else is being put to side. Do you think they are discussing how much they should be spending to help with the…

Your position is incredibly simplistic - and your response has nothing to do with my comment. That the environment underlies civilisation is a simple fact. Degraded environment, no food. No food, no people. No people, no military.

But the invasion of Ukraine most likely has a lot to do with Russia gaining control over the supply of fossil fuels to Europe and the world. So even at a very high level, the things you say are far from cut and dried. Had Europe moved more resolutely towards energy independence then things might have been different.

Military security is only one kind of security. Military spending is only one way to create security. Most of the wars of the last 100 years have been about energy. And I suspect that most militaries exist primarily to perpetuate themselves.

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

#398

Post by doctor_eval »

Splendor wrote: post #347
twawaaay wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is flawed logic. Security is what allows everything else to exist. You can't just say "Let's liquidate military and spend all that money on children". This would last only shortly until China or somebody else invades US. Now, I am not saying to not pay for meals. Investing directly in children is probably one of the better ways to improve future outlook of a country. I am just saying your logic is flawed and the…

The military is full of young people who grew up in poverty. It might be good for national security if more of them didn't have nutritional deficiencies. They aren't separate issues.

Yeah but if they weren’t in poverty they probably wouldn’t join up. But definitely related issues.

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

#399

Post by csomar »

jacobreg wrote: post #332
tablespoon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's misleading framing…

The point isn't that its one or the other, the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives. The point is that either-or is a false dichotomy, we can have good social safety nets and still have robust national security. The reason we don't have both isn't that we can't afford both, its that much of this country v…

> the point is that spending on social programs is much cheaper than national security programs and makes a more meaningful difference in more peoples lives

That's not the point presented by the OP. If he was to advance such a point, he'll have to cite a research that shows that investing in poorer families will lead to semi-conductor advancement in the country.

Unless you think the US (or any reasonably advanced big economy) doesn't need a competitive semi-conductor industry.

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

#400

Post by vanjajaja1 »

theptip wrote: post #205
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…

This is a shallow analysis. You can’t just look at the price tag, you need to think about the value too (more generally, the ROI). A $10 coffee can be too expensive while a $1000 MacBook is really cheap. I’m not making any particular claims about the free school meals program, just noting that this argument doesn’t hold water as it stands. Semiconductor manufacturing is of military and geopolitical significance so it…

I agree here, and I think a good way to think of it is not as government handouts but government incentives. $x for chips in USA incentivizes industry to move to USA which creates jobs and reduces a dependency on external companies. $y for feeding poor school children incentivizes what exactly?
Post reply on HN