Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ thisisit 4 days ago

First, what came out of these bailouts?

Each example industry continues to require some sort of government intervention to remain solvent at one point or the other. Auto/banks/saving and loans getting bailouts in 2008/2009. Airlines in 2020/2021 due to COVID etc. These industries employ a lot of people and now have become a political hot zone for voters so there is no way to remove these backstops now.

And whether these industries remain competitive globally is another question. Because it is always funny to hear countries accuse each other of propping up one industry or other through government intervention.

Second, these were industry wide bailouts. This action is not.

The genesis of CHIPS Act is a 2020 deal to onshore TSMC. The idea was to further persuade Samsung and Intel to produce chips in US through tax benefits, loan guarantees and grants. But now with US taking a stake in Intel, the strategy for onshoring TSMC and Samsung becomes unclear. Maybe the idea is to use tariffs to make TSMC and Samsung uncompetitive if they don't onshore but that is a bad idea. Because if Intel finds it easier to just coast on "national security" and continue producing last gen chips, they are going to do that and lower innovation even more. This is a win-win for Intel though.

▲hopelite 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Also, if you are TSMC and Samsung, why bother “on-shoring” to America and not just make Americans pay the tariffs since there are no alternatives and it is unlikely that America can really compete. They will also be fighting the current as BRICS/Asian momentum picks up right in their front yard.

▲klooney 4 days ago | parent [-]

I mean for TSMC, a fab in Arizona means they can manufacture chips for drones and planes and ships even if Taiwan is blockaded and under assault.

▲Larrikin 3 days ago | parent [-]

Given with how poorly Ukraine has been treated, why would Taiwan ever think they could easily get an emergency supply of chips for drones and planes exported from the US and past a Chinese blockade?

If Trump or someone similar is in the office I'd expect that there would be demands that the chips stay in the US to protect the country from Chinese aggression unless there is some kind of bribe.

▲bamboozled 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Exactly, no one with a brain is falling for this twice. Taiwan is wise to acquire nukes. Which is sad.

▲Yeul 3 days ago | parent [-]

Impossible. There is no way China will allow that- it would lead to a Cuba situation.

▲galangalalgol 3 days ago | parent [-]

If it happened it would be sudden, like Japan or South Korea having built their own, sending some to their neighbor. It still seems unlikely to me, but it isn't impossible. If China found out before they were installed it would likely instigate conflict. If they did not, I have no idea what would happen. That is an unstoppable force meets immovable object sort of situation.

▲bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-]

Let's be honest. No one would touch them, just like N Korea or Russia,once you got the bombs, you're good.

▲bamboozled 2 days ago | parent [-]

Impossible. There is no way China will allow that- it would lead to a Cuba situation.

I can't see how this wouldn't favor Taiwan? All the US republicans would start screaming about WW3 etc, it would put major pressure on China. I'd say it would be ideal for Taiwan.

The discussion now seems to be, "How do we get the chips out of Taiwan so we can let it fall to authoritarianism with the least political fall out possible".

▲msabalau 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Taiwan benefits from the US having access to some additional chip manufacturing to support a war effort and reduce the economic cost of intervening. At the end of the day, Taiwan can resist, slow down China, and make them pay an absurdly heavy price for trying to invade, but US participation is needed to break a blockade and end the conflict.

None of this was ever being done because there an expectation that chips were going to be exported to Taiwan in the middle of a conflict.

Yes, like every other security partner, Trump's immature and inconsistence isolationism makes things worse and unstable. But it was hardly the case that intervention would have be 100% assured under any other President, and it's not the case that that its at 0% under Trump. Improving the odds of intervention, slightly, regardless of who is in office, benefits Taiwan.

Moreover, Putin didn't attack US forces when he invaded Ukraine. There is a significant chance that the PRC would launch a Pearl Harbor style attack on the US and Japan at the outset of a campaign against Taiwan. That dramatically increases the odds of the US being involved in the conflict over the long term. Sure, it's also likely (probably more likely) that the PRC might try more limited form of coercion instead, but one ought to be prepare for the range of possible options.

It is worth observing that one of the major reasons why US conservative China hawks give for not wanting to support Ukraine is because it's not a vital US interest, and they want to focus on preparing for war with China and hopefully deterring it.

It is really unclear you should say why that the Ukraine is being treated "poorly", it is being treated how you'd expect an more isolationist administration who thinks it is a strategic distraction would treat it. The current US administration may well be wrong about this--there's definitely a case to be made that further increasing the cost to Putin for aggression increases deterrence in Asia. But the current administration was very clear in the election about how they felt about Ukraine, and they won.

The argument that unless Trump treats Ukraine "not poorly" no one, anywhere, ever, ought to anything to bend the curve to increase the odds the the US intervening on their behalf seems rather sentimental and unpragmatic.

It seems likely that Taiwan leaders have a better grasp than you do of the strategic choices they are making, and that random feelings about how "poorly Ukraine has been treated" don't enter into it.

If you just hate Trump, it would be easier and more direct to say that, rather than seeming to claim that other people in the world are acting irrationally.

▲bamboozled 3 days ago | parent [-]

Breaking Russia would mean less money and resources for China and more time for NATO, the thing conservatives seem to think is stupid / unimportant to prepare. It’s probably too late now but the opportunity was there in January.

▲klooney 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not like they have a great hand to play, especially if China is going in 2027 the way people think.

▲dghlsakjg 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

If there weren’t other players in the game that might be true. As it is, though, the EU is rapidly rearming, and has proven itself to be far more principled and stable in the Ukraine conflict.

I wouldn’t trust a deal done with the USA to be worth anything right now. I would trust a deal done with Europe, Korea or Japan. All of whom would love to have TSMC build a fab in their respective territories.

▲AnimalMuppet 3 days ago | parent [-]

The EU may be rapidly rearming, but there is no way it will be in a position to help fight off a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2027. They won't have the navy. They won't have the force projection capabilities. They won't have the ability to get past China to get assets to Taiwan.

▲dghlsakjg 3 days ago | parent [-]

I’m talking about a deal with TSMC to safeguard their production.

Although, between the EU, Japan and Korea there might be enough of an incentive for China to think twice even without the US involved.

There are two countries in the EU that operate nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. More with conventional subs. Shutting down the sea lanes in that area would be relatively easy for any number of European countries.

One thing that Ukraine (if Iraq and Afghanistan didn’t already) has proven is that it is much harder to win a war for a major power than the posturing would have you believe.

▲Yeul 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The realistic scenario is that the Taiwanese elite does a deal with the CCP.

America is nobody's friend, at the end of the day China are still Chinese. Americans are xenophobic and racist. Increasingly anti free trade and isolationist.

Also I am incredibly sceptical that the US wants to go to all out war with China over Taiwan. A war they aren't even sure they can win and that REGARDLESS OF OUTCOME will leave Taiwan in ruins.

▲Larrikin 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If the US is poised for full on dictatorship, it makes sense to go in early.

If there will be a change in leadership, it makes sense to wait until the US has weakened every alliance as much as possible under Trump and then invade quickly like what Russia did.

▲AnimalMuppet 3 days ago | parent [-]

Xi has demanded that China be "ready" in 2027. So he seems to think that China will not be militarily capable of doing so before then. (Or at least he seems to be saying that. It could be a misdirection.)

▲15155 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Chinese blockade

I laughed a bit.

How long would it be until their entire fleet is sunk? 2 days? A week?

How long after that should the Three Gorges Dam be allowed to exist?

▲daemoens 3 days ago | parent [-]

> How long would it be until their entire fleet is sunk? 2 days? A week?

That's not something you or anyone else could predict.

> How long after that should the Three Gorges Dam be allowed to exist?

This would immediately cause a death toll in the millions and a nuclear response would follow.

▲15155 3 days ago | parent [-]

> That's not something you or anyone else could predict.

You're right: nobody can possibly predict how a nation with no blue water navy, and zero relevant (naval or otherwise) combat experience (ever) might fare against the most expensive, trained, veteran naval combat force in the world - backed by the world's two largest and most expensive, trained, veteran air forces (USAF, USN).

> This would immediately cause a death toll in the millions and a nuclear response would follow.

This presumes that the United States would ever allow a blockade to happen to begin with. The US Navy goes where it wants.

▲cryptonector 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Second, these were industry wide bailouts.

As I recall Ford did not take a bailout in 2009.