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

US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

notebookcheck.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 560 posts

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#441

Post by gerash »

jm_redwood wrote: post #336
tw04 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so the logical conclusion is that American consumers will end up paying the tariffs. That’s been the point all along… they are significantly raising taxes on the bottom 90% of Americans and most are too stupid to even understand it. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy somehow.

it feels fair to call tariffs a VAT that goes away if the manufacturer produces things domestically which seems… reasonable? raise revenue and encourage domestic manufacturing. yeah, it sucks that I can’t buy a JetKVM right now. otoh being dependent on (often) adversarial nations for everything we buy is also not ideal.

It's not as simple as that. IIUC the tariff is no where near the difference in the cost of production in the US. https://youtu.be/uDGkkqllQa8?t=1144&si=vxhJH-JgMf6Pk9A7

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#442

Post by LexiMax »

nosignono wrote: post #207
tw04 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so the logical conclusion is that American consumers will end up paying the tariffs. That’s been the point all along… they are significantly raising taxes on the bottom 90% of Americans and most are too stupid to even understand it. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy somehow.

It has nothing to do with stupidity. Stop painting people as idiots because they exist in one of the most information hostile environments in human history. This isn't some natural state that's unrecoverable. The people you describe have been given a highly addictive media environment tailor made to engender outrage and drive behavior. It shouldn't be a shock when most people cannot resist it. The first step to chang…

> The people you describe have been given a highly addictive media environment tailor made to engender outrage and drive behavior. It shouldn't be a shock when most people cannot resist it.

Although I also take issue with labeling people "stupid," I also take issue with the blanket assumption that people are victims of the media environment. Both take away people's agency in their own way.

Instead, I'll ask this uncomfortable question. What if a good chunk of these people would prefer to believe a convenient lie over an inconvenient truth? If so, what does that say about them and their morals? Is that better or worse than being labeled stupid or a victim?

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#443

Post by aorloff »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #298

It seems like they're asking the wrong company to take a stake in Intel. It would make more sense to try to get companies like Apple & Nvidia to take stakes in Nvidia - US based companies that need the product that Intel can supply.

Apple or Nvidia could easily buy Intel. I would be surprised if either had not looked at it seriously (for patents alone).

Apparently they don't need that kind of headache.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#444

Post by geysersam »

wat10000 wrote: post #435
djfobbz wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your blanket assumption that consumers always pay for tariffs. In my experience working for a major garment importer, we kept retail prices the same even after tariffs were added. Why? Because competition from local brands forced us to absorb the cost ourselves. Sure, that's not how every industry works, but saying consumers always pay is an oversimplification. It really depends on the industry, prici…

Whether tariffs are paid by the consumer is a bit pointless. The incontrovertible fact is that tariffs are paid by someone in the importing country, whether the importing business or their customer or a middleman or some combination. These dingbats are out there thinking that these tariffs will be paid by China or Canada or whatever.

But that's not true, why would it be? Tariffs are paid by someone in the supply chain. It's not obvious that the payer is in the importing country.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#445

Post by nicman23 »

downrightmike wrote: post #310
UncleOxidant wrote: post #298

It seems like they're asking the wrong company to take a stake in Intel. It would make more sense to try to get companies like Apple & Nvidia to take stakes in Nvidia - US based companies that need the product that Intel can supply.

Honestly AMD makes the most sense, given they sold off the foundry stuff years ago, which is the part of the process Intel will be doing next. The board brought on a chop shop guy, you don't do that when there is a future, and TSMC would be smart to wait Intel out and pick it up cheap. The USA wouldn't last a month without TSMC chips, Tim Apple wouldn't let that happen. There is no way this demand has any teeth

more sense for TSMC not for the US lol

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#446

Post by aceofspades19 »

CSMastermind wrote: post #403
eru wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tariffs kinda make sense when you have a deficit in a widely available item. Big trade deficit with Bangladesh? Sure you can buy cheap textiles from Thailand or Vietnam or something. Sorry, how do they 'make sense'? What's the problem with a trade deficit with Bangladesh? And in your example, you'd just shift bilateral trade balances around, without impact the overall trade balance of the US? I could perhaps believ…

Because of the Triffin dilemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma Trade deficits in isolation aren't good or bad but because the US has the world reserve currency it must supply it's currency to the world. This basically forces it to have a trade deficit with everyone which over time can hollow out manufacturing sectors. Making the whole economy vulnerable to shocks and ultimately causing it to fail. It's…

On what sort of basis do you make the claim that the US is on track to be the only 1st world consumer driven economy 5 years from now? What do you mean by a 1st world consumer driven economy, as opposed to what exactly?

I do agree that having tariffs on certain items to encourage domestic production definitely does work. The tariffs have to be consistent and on things that can actually be produced in the country.

The issue with Trump's approach is that its not consistent, has nothing to do with which products can be made domestically. Changing tariffs daily/weekly/monthly is not going to encourage domestic production.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#447

Post by nahnahno »

robertjpayne wrote: post #274
mathiaspoint wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We couldn't make an iPhone because apple would refuse to cooperate, not because of a technical limitation. We could make a similarly capable phone though.

iPhone performance and battery life would likely slide back 5-10 years if Apple was forced to use Intel chips instead of TSMC today. Not just that, the raft of features that may have to be disabled until that performance and performance per watt gets back to where it is today.

Complete nonsense. Intel 18A, were yields good enough, is competitive with TSMC N2.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#448

Post by hunglee2 »

phkahler wrote: post #60
hunglee2 wrote: post #33

Unprecedented rapacity by the United States - not only forced tech transfer, and then having to pay for the privilege of being robbed; the hegemon is consuming its vassals, as it withdraws from its commitments.

Well China has been forcing tech transfer for 30 years now.

not remotely equivalent

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#449

Post by wat10000 »

geysersam wrote: post #444
wat10000 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether tariffs are paid by the consumer is a bit pointless. The incontrovertible fact is that tariffs are paid by someone in the importing country, whether the importing business or their customer or a middleman or some combination. These dingbats are out there thinking that these tariffs will be paid by China or Canada or whatever.

But that's not true, why would it be? Tariffs are paid by someone in the supply chain. It's not obvious that the payer is in the importing country.

They are paid by the importer. It’s possible those costs will be passed along with higher prices, but you can’t really pass costs back.

Re: US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to secure tariff relief

#450

Post by King-Aaron »

nosignono wrote: post #207
tw04 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so the logical conclusion is that American consumers will end up paying the tariffs. That’s been the point all along… they are significantly raising taxes on the bottom 90% of Americans and most are too stupid to even understand it. Gotta pay for those tax cuts for the wealthy somehow.

It has nothing to do with stupidity. Stop painting people as idiots because they exist in one of the most information hostile environments in human history. This isn't some natural state that's unrecoverable. The people you describe have been given a highly addictive media environment tailor made to engender outrage and drive behavior. It shouldn't be a shock when most people cannot resist it. The first step to chang…

> Stop painting people as idiots

1/3 of the voting population elected a known criminal, known sex predator, suspected child rapist, and known economically illiterate imbecile. The information may be hostile but it was widely and easily available.

At least 1/3 of the US voting population are idiots. Obviously there is a subset of that voting base that made an intelligent decision knowingly and complicitly elected Trump despite the extremely serious red flags, but I would still consider them to be idiots.

Post reply on HN