ADVERTISEMENT

Grants for U.S. Computer Chip Industry

Spartans9312

Hall of Famer
Nov 11, 2004
10,435
10,546
113
China poses an urgent threat. Proposed bill is $250 billion in new spending. $52 billion to semiconductor industry. Bill is being debated now in the Senate.
 
China poses an urgent threat. Proposed bill is $250 billion in new spending. $52 billion to semiconductor industry. Bill is being debated now in the Senate.

the US shouldn't subsidize the chip industry absent stringently regulating it as well, which won't happen.

what the US should do, is set up shop themselves, just as they did with NASA back in the day.
 
the US shouldn't subsidize the chip industry absent stringently regulating it as well, which won't happen.

what the US should do, is set up shop themselves, just as they did with NASA back in the day.
Yes by the time they regulate SC’s the technology will shrink yet again. Every time it shrinks, the design rules (nand, nor, and flip-flop spatial geometries) for the VHDL compilers change. Intel, Apple, QuallComm, Nvidia don’t need the corporate welfare for facilities that can’t be built in CA‘s business environment before the equipment would be obsolete.

There’s more gigaflops in my IPAD than all the CDCs in the Wrubel basement in the late ‘70s. Senate staffers can’t keep up with the pace of change.
 
Last edited:
China poses an urgent threat. Proposed bill is $250 billion in new spending. $52 billion to semiconductor industry. Bill is being debated now in the Senate.
Brilliant idea, we have fallen behind Taiwan by a large margin, cannot afford other countries passing.
 
the US shouldn't subsidize the chip industry absent stringently regulating it as well, which won't happen.

what the US should do, is set up shop themselves, just as they did with NASA back in the day.
I see no reason to cut a check to one highly profitable industry.
“Global semiconductor sales increase 18% year-to-year, 1.8% month-to-month in May”.
The legislation does not bar companies that do business in China from receiving subsidies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
Brilliant idea, we have fallen behind Taiwan by a large margin, cannot afford other countries passing.
We need to end policies that indirectly benefit China. We need to strengthen our partnership with Taiwan. I’m doubtful this bill makes us more competitive with China. In fact, it might make us less competitive.
 
We need to end policies that indirectly benefit China. We need to strengthen our partnership with Taiwan. I’m doubtful this bill makes us more competitive with China. In fact, it might make us less competitive.
Why is that? China is trying hard to catch up. As we just discovered, depending solely on Taiwan has huge drawbacks.

Computer chips are not going to get less important, especially in military applications.
 
Yes by the time they regulate SC’s the technology will shrink yet again. Every time it shrinks, the design rules (nand, nor, and flip-flop spatial geometries) for the VHDL compilers change. Intel, Apple, QuallComm, Nvidia don’t need the corporate welfare for facilities that can’t be built in CA‘s business environment before the equipment would be obsolete.

There’s more gigaflops in my IPAD than all the CDCs in the Wrubel basement in the late ‘70s. Senate staffers can’t keep up with the pace of change.

335.jpg
 
Why is that? China is trying hard to catch up. As we just discovered, depending solely on Taiwan has huge drawbacks.

Computer chips are not going to get less important, especially in military applications.
The bill does not bar companies that do business in China from receiving subsidies.
 
Right, sell them our inferior chips instead of Taiwan. Win-win.
I think we are both opposed to helping China build its industry/infrastructure. If a semiconductor manufacturer takes a subsidy to build a plant in Ohio or any other state, what keeps them from using that money to bolster their manufacturing operations in China?

The legislation needs fixed
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
I think we are both opposed to helping China build its industry/infrastructure. If a semiconductor manufacturer takes a subsidy to build a plant in Ohio or any other state, what keeps them from using that money to bolster their manufacturing operations in China?

The legislation needs fixed
$39 of the $52 is for building or modernizing domestic plants. $13 to the National Science Foundation for research. How do they build a domestic plant in China?
 
I think we are both opposed to helping China build its industry/infrastructure. If a semiconductor manufacturer takes a subsidy to build a plant in Ohio or any other state, what keeps them from using that money to bolster their manufacturing operations in China?

The legislation needs fixed
One of the great life lessons: money is fungible.
As long as the US total invested exceeds the grant,
The money outside in the US is free and clear without a prohibition on its foreign investment or stock buy back. This can be as easy as not repatriating the funds in the first place.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT