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

531–540 of 560 posts

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

#531

Post by croemer »

herbst wrote: post #475
croemer wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For drugs that are monopolies, tariffs actually don't impact the end price and hit the producer. In the short term, for drugs that are already on the market. In the long run, it reduces incentives to develop drugs. Tariffs are a tax on consumers for commodities but not for monopoly products.

So the assumption is they take the hit of 250% and just keep providing the US with these unique drugs when the US is "only" at max 20% of the total market? Afaik even less the more specialized drugs get. Edit:// it's not just me. Swiss media does barely seem to understand anything anymore either

A monopolists can set prices however they want (in contrast to competitive supplier of commodities where there's a market price). They want to maximize profits and if marginal cost of sale is negligible (as is the case for patented drugs) the optimal price is determined by the demand curve. The demand curve depends on the price the buyer sees including tariffs. So the price post tariff is the same as the price without tariff. The monopolist absorbs the tariff, customer pays the same.

Yes, monopolist will still want to sell because they still make profit. They don't take a hit of 250%, their profits are just reduced by ~2.5x.

US has famously high drug prices due so cutting edge pharma makes much of its profits there.

This is all standard 101 International Economics, Paul Krugman has written the standard textbook for it, it's a fun read.

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

#532

Post by croemer »

mallets wrote: post #495
notepad0x90 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why analysis like this doesn't go a bit deeper. Yes americans will pay more, but TSMC will also see less demand. Intel has it's own foundry, maybe it can start competing against TSMC, because now TSMC costs a lot more and intel's cost of manufacturing in the US to compete against TSMC can be recouped much better thanks to the new market prices set by the TSMC tariffs? Government's shouldn't put up with m…

It doesn't work if you don't have 1:1 product, which Intel foundry absolutely doesn't. Not in performance, price or just ease of use. No one is going to risk years and billions to get it working on Intel, that's a sure way to lose your edge. Companies (like Nvidia) will just raise prices and if demand drops they will divert more of it to countries like China and EU. And demand isn't going to drop much anyway for in-d…

Monopolists or companies with some degree of Monopoly will absorb some of the tariffs as opposed to passing on. Putting tariffs on monopolists makes some economic sense.

Tariffs on commodities though don't.

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

#533

Post by croemer »

eru wrote: post #465
snickerbockers wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sorry, how do they 'make sense'? To the same extent that other forms of taxation make sense. I wish people had this same sudden interest in protecting the free market and maximizing trade when we're taking about income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc.

> I wish people had this same sudden interest in protecting the free market and maximizing trade when we're taking about income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. But people do have these interests! Different taxes distort markets differently. Tariffs are one of the worst ways to tax. Similarly transaction taxes, like a Tobin tax or stamp duty, are bad. Income tax ain't great, but it's ok. (Details depend on impl…

Glad to see someone with economics knowledge! The best taxes are Pigouvian taxes on externalities. They not only raise revenue but distort the market in the right direction. Carbon tax comes to mind (though that's a tricky case as there is no world government, tax works best for local externalities like air pollution).

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

#534

Post by tomhow »

lossolo wrote: post #514
tomhow wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, you have no idea what you're talking about. > The idea that people in authoritarian countries are clueless about what’s really going on is arrogant and frankly ignorant. You can't comment like this on Hacker News, no matter what you're replying to. The guidelines clearly ask us to avoid swipes and name-calling like this. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and t…

Hi there, thanks for the nudge. I agree those two sentences could be worded differently to convey the message.

Sincere thanks!

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

#535

Post by Boston_Baz »

Its nearly a guarantee TSMC was going to be exempt. The dismal performance of their AZ location and Samsung's TX location shows how the US wouldn't even be anywhere near 20% domestic manufacture by 2035. Capital≠Competency. The 70k staffing shortage, difference in culture is the real issue here. This tariff would have turned into a kamikaze maneuver had it not been for the carveouts.

I was stunned when it was announced. I mean having contradicting tariffs and goals is one thing, but semis?! Wonder if this will finally get Intel their first Intl. buyer for their semis.

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

#536

Post by athriren »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #376
athriren wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

madoff died in custody at FMC Butner. he was not released before he died.

I think you are confusing Bernie Ebbers (Worldcom founder/CEO in Clinton Mississippi) with Bernie Madoff (big ponzy scam in NYC)? Yes, they are both named Bernie.

you are right, i did conflate the two. apologies.

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

#537

Post by oezi »

pjc50 wrote: post #472
notahacker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. But I think it's also true to say if the US hasn't been willing or able to effectively use its military power at the margin to stop a historic enemy from annexing its neighbours with impunity, your average regional power doesn't have to worry about the US using its military power to dominate world trade.

Entire discussion seems to be ignoring the Russian nuclear weapons, so the war has to be conducted entirely with Ukranian-flagged troops.

Why? Would the presence of peace western troops make a Nuclear strike by Russia more likely?

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

#538

Post by 20after4 »

hedora wrote: post #413
20after4 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using Intel hardware on Linux for more than 10 years. The instances of driver issues that I can think of are very very few and they were never related to anything Intel did.

I wonder what hardware you've been buying. I've tried Apple, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Intel OEM, Toshiba, ASRock, and a half dozen others. I never saw any of them run Windows (OEM or from Microsoft), Linux, or MacOS X (on the Mac) reliably. The most recent Intel machine that did work reliably is now 15 years old (and humming along nicely, for what it's worth). Sure, they had Linux drivers, but they also would do crap like k…

The most important pieces, IMO: Asus or Gigabyte motherboards, integrated video (because GPU drivers are usually unstable), Intel Ethernet (avoid realtek), Intel K series unlocked processors - not overclocked, if anything I run them underclocked for cool, quiet and efficient operation. And use quality RAM, that's pretty important. Debian Stable.

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

#539

Post by 20after4 »

booleandilemma wrote: post #422
20after4 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What democracy?

People voted for orange man, were you not aware?

Some people voted for the orange man. Whether the vote count was fair remains in question. https://electiontruthalliance.org/

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

#540

Post by eru »

croemer wrote: post #533
eru wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish people had this same sudden interest in protecting the free market and maximizing trade when we're taking about income tax or sales tax or property tax, etc. But people do have these interests! Different taxes distort markets differently. Tariffs are one of the worst ways to tax. Similarly transaction taxes, like a Tobin tax or stamp duty, are bad. Income tax ain't great, but it's ok. (Details depend on impl…

Glad to see someone with economics knowledge! The best taxes are Pigouvian taxes on externalities. They not only raise revenue but distort the market in the right direction. Carbon tax comes to mind (though that's a tricky case as there is no world government, tax works best for local externalities like air pollution).

Well, for Pigouvian taxes to make sense, you first have to argue why in your specific situation Coasion bargaining breaks down.

Similar to how, if you want to use 'market failure' to justify your favourite government intervention, it actually comes with lots and lots of restrictions and only justifies a very narrow slice of possible interventions.

Post reply on HN