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

751–760 of 1001 posts

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

#751

Post by golergka »

runako wrote: post #211
aurareturn wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less likely but could. Chip fab is much more valuable than putting iPhones together.

Not being snarky here, but what is the benefit of a chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used? I get why it would be important for niche (e.g. defense) applications, but is TSMC scale really needed?

> chip fab in Arizona, thousands of miles from the assembly lines where the chips will be used

1. Chips have a very high $/kg density, so logistics isn't go to change unit economics a lot. 2. These assembly lines are much easier to construct than chip fabs, so if there is any reason to keep the two close, it's not going to be a problem anyway.

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

#752

Post by preisschild »

thereddaikon wrote: post #611
tnt128 wrote: post #314

The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen. From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) do…

China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious province. In their mind, the Chinese civil war never ended and that island is the last bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it described in a way that is easier for Americans to understand is; Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over…

> Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over and have been calling themselves the real America ever since.

In reality while the confederate states were part of the United States, the Republic of China (Taiwan) was never part of the Peoples Republic of China (communist China), its the reverse.

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

#753

Post by nine_k »

thereddaikon wrote: post #611
tnt128 wrote: post #314

The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen. From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) do…

China doesn't want Taiwan for TSMC. They want Taiwan because they see them as a rebellious province. In their mind, the Chinese civil war never ended and that island is the last bastion of the Kuomintang. One way I've heard it described in a way that is easier for Americans to understand is; Imagine at the end of the American Civil War, a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba or Hawaii, they took it over…

> a confederate army retreated to an island like Cuba

No, it's the other way around. Imagine that the South is victorious, and the last remnants of the North forces remain in, say, Long Island, calling themselves the original American Republic, claiming their lineage from the revolution of 1776. Technically they would be!

The Taiwanese regime is a remnant of the original Republic of China established in 1914, and Kuomintang is one of the original democratic parties of that republic. The Communist regime are the "rebels" of the Communist revolution of 1949. But, as they say, a rebellion can never succeed, because if it does, it's called another way.

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

#754

Post by nine_k »

r00fus wrote: post #728
legitster wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than a rebellious province. It's a more successful rebellious province. For China, they hold up all of these technical accomplishments and quality of life improvements they have made under their one party system. But now over here is Taiwan that never bought in and is doing even better! It undercuts all of their messaging. If the communist party could wave a magic wand, they would take Taiwan and not just…

> It's worse than a rebellious province. It's a more successful rebellious province. That statement just made me LOL. In what dimension other than foreign investment do you see Taiwan as more successful than China? In 2025, it's pretty clear that China has self sovereignty, is the world's factory, leads in BRICS, and isn't subject to the US empire.

North Korea has self sovereignty, space rockets, nuclear weapons, and sends its troops to a war overseas to project its power!

South Korea is just much more successful at putting bread (and many other foods) on the tables of its citizens. It is also more advanced technologically, and, curiously, has a working democratic government instead of a hereditary single-party rule.

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

#755

Post by tazjin »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #737
r00fus wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worse than a rebellious province. It's a more successful rebellious province. That statement just made me LOL. In what dimension other than foreign investment do you see Taiwan as more successful than China? In 2025, it's pretty clear that China has self sovereignty, is the world's factory, leads in BRICS, and isn't subject to the US empire.

Taiwan is 3x more prosperous per capita. PRC just has a lot more people.

So Norway and maybe Monaco are more successful than the US?

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

#756

Post by Apocryphon »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #711
tcmart14 wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was gonna take some issue with point one until I read point to, which sounds like it addresses my thoughts. China could take Taiwan quickly, but it would come at a pretty high cost to Chinese forces. I personally don't think China is really that invested into conquering Taiwan militarily, the Chinese invasion has been 6-9 months away for 30 years now according to "foreign policy" experts on Chinese-Taiwan relations…

I direct you to some foreign policy experts (war on the rocks)[1]. While we can't know what the central party committee is thinking, we know what they are saying, Xi in a speech in 2021 set the priority of having the capability of taking Taiwan by force by 2027.[2] Additionally they are probably not building the largest navy in the world and the largest collection of civilian roll on roll off ships for show. I am not…

The 2027 date may be overblown, prone to hysterical misinterpretations:

https://x.com/MikeBlack114/status/1571401031539367939

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

#757

Post by nine_k »

dehrmann wrote: post #720
knowitnone wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the US made China it's manufacturing arm and now the US wants to take that back? Kind of late. If China invades Taiwan, the US is to blame. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.

US tariffs on China are worse for Taiwanese independence than TSMC building fabs in the US.

Pray elaborate! What is the mechanism of that, in your opinion?

(Not saying that the US policy is decent here, or anywhere else, under the current administration.)

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

#758

Post by anabab »

Rapzid wrote: post #657
tnt128 wrote: post #314

The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen. From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) do…

The West will continue to do two things. One, secure the supply of chips. Just look at what happened with COVID coinciding with increased TSMC fab demand from Apple, NVidia, and AMD. Two, prevent China from gaining the technology and expertise to make cutting edge chips. This is already happening and can be handled a number of different ways if China even wanted to try gaining this capability from Taiwan (debatable).…

The West seems to be not that unitary nowadays. What would be the reason for the half with ASML to keep doing the second thing you have listed?

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

#759

Post by wrsh07 »

tnt128 wrote: post #314

The idea that the US protects Taiwan from a possible Chinese invasion over chips is one of those things that sounds believable but really isn't going to happen. From China’s perspective, the cost of war is much higher than the cost of developing these chips themselves. In the worst-case scenario, they would be 2-3 years behind the cutting edge, which is not mission-critical. Most electronics (civilian or military) do…

My impression was that the most likely scenario was China blockading Taiwan until forcing a surrender. In that case, the US and its allies would have time to respond although may be busy doing other things (eg responding to ships near Australia/NZ or Japan)

Your situations seem possible but don't really cover any of the nuance of the real situation (see what China has been doing to the Philippines in the south china sea)

A multiyear conflict with China would be difficult for the US. The manufacturing capacity and proximity would make a large category of aid difficult/impossible/useless. (Allies like SK or Japan could be more helpful in this situation)

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

#760

Post by nine_k »

VerminOctopus1 wrote: post #592
DanielHB wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to drill this in the mind of people who grew up under stable governments, but dictators have this terrible habit of sacrificing prosperity to gain control (often sacrificing the former without gaining the later). Being a dictator and surrounded by yes-man, they also tend to act less rationally and less predictably than your average democratic leader. History is full of kings who started terrible wars and g…

[flagged]

It is rational for a dictator to increase their power at the expense of some prosperity of the populace. Communist rulers around the world exhibited this trait, but non-Communist rulers also did the same from times immemorial.
Post reply on HN