Biden Signs Executive Order To Address Chip Shortage Through a Review To Strengthen Supply Chains (cnbc.com) 229
President Joe Biden signed an executive order Wednesday meant to address a global chip shortage impacting industries ranging from medical supplies to electric vehicles. From a report: The order includes a 100-day review of key products including semiconductors and advanced batteries used in electric vehicles, followed by a broader, long-term review of six sectors of the economy. The long-term review will allow for policy recommendations to strengthen supply chains, with the goal of quickly implementing the suggestions, Biden said at a press event Wednesday before he signed the order. The action follows calls from bipartisan members of Congress and industry leaders warning about the potential consequences of the shortage. Commonly known as chips, semiconductors are used to power electronics including phones, electric vehicles and even some medical supplies. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that "semiconductor manufacturing is a dangerous weak spot in our economy and in our national security." Press release from The White House.
Again? (Score:3, Insightful)
They did that four years ago - that's why the tariffs were put in place.
Which haven't seemed to build a half-dozen 7nm fabs around the country, which we need more than another study committee.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
six fab plants at $8 billion each, no problem just slap 'em on the next bailout
oh wait, we really don't know what they'd need to make...
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
six fab plants at $8 billion each,
5mm fabs are forecast to cost $20B each.
But we really only need one. Fabbing benefits from scale, so one big fab is better than a few smaller fabs.
oh wait, we really don't know what they'd need to make...
There is plenty of demand. That is why there is a chip shortage.
But we can't rely on American know-how because Americans don't know how. Intel is a serial failure.
The solution is to offer TSMC an offer they can't refuse to build a fab in America.
Re:Again? (Score:4)
The larger a fab is, the more demand is required to keep it operating efficiently. So sure maybe for a year or two you will have high demand, and then you have a big inefficient plant producing low volumes of that old tech, and end up not being able to compete with the fabs scaled more appropriately to the times.
So is this an investment you plan on doing every couple years? Build a new MegaFAB 2.0? Then a MegaFAB 3.0? and so on?
Re:Again? (Score:5, Interesting)
So is this an investment you plan on doing every couple years? Build a new MegaFAB 2.0? Then a MegaFAB 3.0? and so on?
That's what Taiwan does.
TSMC's capital investment budget is $25B per year.
Re: (Score:3)
The solution is to offer TSMC an offer they can't refuse to build a fab in America.
Sort of like Foxconn in Wisconsin? That sort of offer?
Re: (Score:3)
Read the fine print? So many people were pointing out the obvious flaws with the Foxconn deal immediately before it was made. It wasn't the fine print that foiled that deal, it was the whole concept. Did anyone honestly expect Foxconn to follow through and build the production facility in the deal? It was a fantasy, and although most of the money was promised in tax breaks that haven't materialized because Foxconn didn't meet employment goals, the state and local government have spent hundreds of millions o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anyone honestly expect Foxconn to follow through and build the production facility in the deal?
The citizens of Wisconsin did, because that's how it was sold to them.
The president of the USA at the time when attending the groundbreaking ceremony in 2018 said:
"I think we can say this is the eighth wonder of the world," What is more, is that it already is a major success. Also from Trump:
“The economic benefits of this new plant are being felt in 62 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties already,” Trump said. “Don’t worry, in another three weeks it’ll be all 72.”
https [tmj4.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Foxconn was about getting votes, not about getting jobs. You get elected by promising jobs. So, candidate 1 says "I support Foxconn, it will bring you jobs, ignore all the naysayers they're just a bunch of poopie heads", then candidate 2 says "my analysis done with a bunch of nerdy economists who made it through all 4 years of college say the plan is infeasible", then the voters cheer for candidate 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
But we can't rely on American know-how because Americans don't know how. Intel is a serial failure.
I'm not an Intel fan but that's a little extreme. Intel's fab was, until very recently, the best in the business. They missed a turn on the last round of small geometry processes. It's recoverable if they stop dicking around. Intel's problem is less about the fab, and more about the design. The design side may have been MBAd into a singularity of despair.
That said, they absolutely do need a competitor here in the US. It's an atrocity that we're utterly dependent on Asia for semiconductors.
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, they absolutely do need a competitor here in the US. It's an atrocity that we're utterly dependent on Asia for semiconductors.
Dependence is good for global peace. If countries are dependent on each other then they will not attack.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
That might or might not be true of mutual dependency, but it is most certainly not true when one side is dependent on the other with no reciprocity. What we have here is ripe for exploitation.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, the mutual dependency is there. One side has chips; the other has bucks. One side needs chips; the other needs bucks
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Um, the mutual dependency is there. One side has chips; the other has bucks. One side needs chips; the other needs bucks
China doesn't need US dollars. You can't build stuff with dollars, or eat them. Dollars are only useful if you want to buy goods from people who accept payment in dollars, which means what we must offer China stuff that they want, not cash.
Perhaps you can argue that they want dollars to buy stuff from other countries who accept dollars, but if that's their only motivation it's not going to last, because it makes more sense for them to use the currency of their trading partners -- or their own currency. T
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
China doesn't need US dollars. You can't build stuff with dollars, or eat them. Dollars are only useful if you want to buy goods from people who accept payment in dollars, which means what we must offer China stuff that they want, not cash.
I think you may not understand how currencies work. [investopedia.com]
And you clearly don't understand how China works. In fact, China pegs the yuan to the U.S. Dollar and actually hoards dollars. [investopedia.com]
Now that we've cleared that up, care to cite a source where any country in the world won't take USD in payment for anything?
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. Intel can't at all be described as a failure, in fact they are the opposite and are the standout success of the semiconductor industry. Their current position is only a very small set back in an entire industry that they created - the x86 compatible industry.
Looking back to the early 90s, there were a huge number of different chips that were all fighting for space in the business mid-range server market. There was PA-RISC, SPARC, POWER, VAX (although already in decline), ALPHA, x86 (and a bit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But we can't rely on American know-how because Americans don't know how. Intel is a serial failure.
You fucking dweebs never cease to crack me up. Intel is _still_ raking in money hand over fist, and have _dominated_ the CPU market for _decades_. Calling them a serial failure because they have fallen behind on process for the first time since the days of Robert Noyce, aka the 70's is straight up lunacy to the point where nobody should take anything you say seriously.
Seriously, get a grep grandpa - I know you're some sort of weirdo AMD fanboi, but at least try to inhabit the same reality we do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is a massive amount of 5nm manufacturing what you actually need though? The automotive parts that there is a shortage of are not 5nm, far far from it. They don't use cutting edge stuff, they use proven designs that are known to be reliable for decades for use in harsh environments.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tarrifs have no capacity to achieve positive things for an economy. They are purely ideological tools that do more harm than good to the country imposing thme.
Keep in mind the American tarifs on Chinese products are paid by Americans, not the Chinese. Thats how Tarifs work.
If the US wants to address supply change problems, its fairly clear the first step would be eliminating the tarifs.
I mean, thats not even controversial, its basic economics.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tarrifs have no capacity to achieve positive things for an economy.
Indeed. That has been understood for centuries.
I mean, thats not even controversial, its basic economics.
Aye, that's the rub. This isn't just about economics.
Semiconductors are a strategic asset.
Do we really want our economy and national security dependent on Taiwanese fabs that are 90 miles from China's nukes?
Re: (Score:2)
the government has only so many options here:
a) Impose tariffs to make foreign goods more expensive, possibly use the funds raised to subsidise US manufacturing plants
b) Offer tax incentives to encourage building necessary plants to address perceived needs
Absent the federal government going into business to address the needs they identify (build a chip fabrication plant, an N95 mask factory, a battery plant, etc.), that's about it - "buy American" sounds nice, but in many cases you'll have to wait for deliv
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution for rare earth metals is easy: Build a stockpile big enough to tide us over until we can ramp up our own production.
America already makes plenty of batteries. Lithium is imported from South America and Australia, which are strategically reliable.
N95 masks are not a strategic asset.
So the only thing on your list that is a risk is semiconductors. Tariffs are a bad solution since domestic producers don't have the capacity or skills.
So the only tool left is big tax breaks, which are equivalent to subsidies. Using tax dollars to finance a 5mm fab will do a lot more for our national security than yet another carrier task force, and cost about the same.
Re:Again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Using tax dollars to finance a 5mm fab will do a lot more for our national security than yet another carrier task force, and cost about the same.
This.
America could an awesome country an leading the world by example if all the money spent on warmongering was diverted to doing useful things instead.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
N95 masks are not a strategic asset.
When a mask shortage leads to lockdowns which damage the economy, they are too a strategic asset.
Re:Again? (Score:4, Informative)
PPE is a strategic asset. If your workers are working in dirty environments - current pandemic notwithstanding, and you can't obtain the necessary equipment for them, your production shuts down. Oh sure you can think they'll keep working, and boo to safety equipment, but unless you really like to tempt fate between worker's comp, OSHA and massive personal injury lawsuits, well, you want to provide. (And Biden doesn't seem to be the kind of person who would scrap a pile of worker protection regulations)
N95 masks are useful in all sorts of industries that range in size from handcrafted and artisanal to industrial scale fabrication.
The shortage of N95 masks was only partially alleviated by the fact that the lockdowns and drop in consumer demand meant those industries didn't need as many, and many times those industries donated their stock of masks to the local hospitals - if they aren't producing goods, their workers don't need them and the local hospital does, so put them to use.
3M and other manufacturers are going to be slammed with new orders when those industries restart production because they're going to need a lot of masks very quickly when they need to restock.
This applies to all PPE, too. I've spoken to a few people and the big manufacturers of hard hats like MSA and Honeywell switched production - because well, you don't need as many of those when there's strong demand for respirators and face shields and masks. But those workers will need protective equipment when they get back to work.
It's a strategic asset - people need it or you're going to have workplaces that shut down or pay out tons of money in worker's comp. And your workers for that new fab will need PPE in the form of full body bunny suits. Granted, it protects the chips more than the person, but it's still required. Without those you aren't going to have a working plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two problems with your plan.
1. If China thinks the US is stockpiling it will limit supplies of rare earths to the US to prevent it happening. China is already considering it to limit the US' ability to manufacture F-35s.
2. If you use tax money to build a 5nm fab anything that gets made there will be subject to tariffs from other countries, due to it being government subsidised. That might be okay if the domestic market is large enough but it is unlikely to be very competitive overseas.
There is no quick fix
Re: (Score:2)
1. If China thinks the US is stockpiling it will limit supplies of rare earths to the US to prevent it happening.
America should ramp up production at The Mountain Pass Mine [wikipedia.org] buy guaranteeing to buy enough to fill the strategic stockpile at current world prices.
Tarifs have their place (Score:5, Informative)
The rationalizing economist will tell you that if they are good at making pickles and we are good at making pianos then by trading on our strengths we will both benefit.
True enough.
But if pickles are a necessity and pianos are a luxury, and the people we are trading with our not our best friends, then it would be wise for us to also make some pickles even if they are more expensive and of lower quality.
In Australia, the mining boom pushed up the Australian Dollar and killed the manufacturing sector. But when the boom ends, and the dollar falls back down, a manufacturing sector will not magically appear. The expertise and infrastructure will have gone. We will all just have to become bureaucrats in order to keep the economy moving.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments have far more leverage than just those two points. Just off the top of my head (and no, I am not advocating any of these, just pointing out that there are more options).
1. They can impose rules and regulations that may exclude some foreign sales or make them uneconomical (tariffs fall into this category but aren't the only sort of action of this sort that could be done).
2. They can create rules that make it easier to do locally
3. They can impose purchasing rules on all government purchases (e.g.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In the interest of national security, no government agency can contract or buy products, labor, or components from companies who use foreign nationals, products, or non-citizens to fulfill their contracts. This will also extend to sub-contractors of contract agencies.
If you want that lucrative government contract it wont be on the backs of cheap foreign labor or goods. Even your janitor better be a US citizen. Thats about the only way the feds can drive demand for US made products, and it helps reduce esp
Re: (Score:3)
Red China doesn't want to nuke Taiwan, they want to invade it. That's why we should build an Awesome F-35, let them in on some of the production, in exchange they build a 5nm plant here.
Taiwan wants large numbers of cheap weapons (Score:3)
Not the F-35.
This has recently dawned on them. They are outspent 10 to 1 by China. But they own the field of battle. They need lots and lots of cheap missiles, mines, drone-submarines etc.
F-35s are also brittle. They need runways etc. China has thousands of missiles pointing at Taiwan, and will destroy runways as quickly as they can be repaired.
Re: (Score:2)
The F-35 is a failure [forbes.com]. They can't even get replacement engines, engines which are wearing out prematurely [upi.com] and causing a cut back in flights of the jets.
To add to what you said, all China has to do is throw thousands of (relatively) inexpensive missiles at Taiwan and U.S. forces to cripple them. Not even a carrier group would survive such an attack.
Re:Taiwan wants large numbers of cheap weapons (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not so gloomy for Taiwan.
Chinese missiles can hit big targets like airports. But not little targets like buried individual missile silos. Or mines.
Chinese aircraft carriers would also be blown out of the water by Taiwanese missiles if they approached.
The US would be based in Okinawa. Is that base missile proof? Probably not, but it should be toughened up.
Japan will wake up, but maybe too late.
And the Chinese need to get a large fleet of vulnerable Landing Ship Tanks over the straight. Taiwan just needs to hide in bunkers and sink most of those ships on the way. And then there are the beaches, full of nasty weapons.
And Chinese missiles need to travel 200km across the straights, so not that cheap. Taiwan's missiles only need to go 20km as the fleet approaches, much cheaper.
Until recently China had no hope of winning. Today it is less clear. China is unlikely to attack unless they think that a quick victory is certain.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tariffs aren't meant to directly boost the economy. They are for security and strategic purposes (not leaving the country vulnerable to supply line cuts or to trade embargo).
In the long run, they can provide for insurance against later economic damage. For example if a trade partner becomes less friendly.
They can also stimulate local economy by keeping employment local.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Tariff's are also a revenue generator for the gov't. They were the overwhelming majority of revenue until 1913 when income taxes were enacted.
Re: (Score:2)
How does limiting supply and increasing prices improve security? If that is the goal a better option is for the government to buy US productions, ensuring that there is a market for them. That is widely done with steel, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
How does limiting supply and increasing prices improve security?
The same way as always. Security is determined by location. If location is foreign and cheap, then limiting that foreign supply drives the market to provide that supply locally.
The fantasy is that this happens overnight. The reality is you need to have tariffs in place for a cool decade or more to reap the effects of it.
Re: (Score:2)
So make it more expensive for everyone? Great plan.
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That is literally how this works. Tariffs exist to price a cheaper option out of the market. Absolutely nothing more than that.
That cheaper option is usually due to unfair advantages. E.g. if you in a 1st world country pay your people a minimum wage and take care of their safety at your expense then the minimum cost of production needs to be passed onto the customer. Along comes a 3rd world country where the factory is run by slaves and the HSE department is just 2 guys who carry the body to the door, they will be cheaper.
The market will favour the cheap 3rd world country causing job losses in the 1st world country.
The laws in that 3rd world country are not in the control of the 1st world country.
The only handle you have left is tariffs that make the cheap 3rd world country equally as expensive or more so than the 1st world country causing the production to remain "at home".
For senseless protectionism it's stupid. For critical security of production it literally is a "great plan" especially since your cheap arse constituents will literally purchase themselves out of their own jobs and own lives if given the option.
Re: (Score:2)
Direct buying can work when the government has a significant need for the product. But the government only needs so many micro controllers and only so much rare earths. Not enough to support domestic production on it's own.
We can't conscript cheap labor and delete environmental standards to make (for example) rare earth mining and refining price competitive with China, but we can apply tariffs equivalent to the cost of the environmental regulations and fair wages for domestic workers so that the playing fie
Re: (Score:2)
That's not necessarily true. The idea of protecting domestic production from competition is of course garbage. But there is the matter of leveling the playing field with countries that run by different rules.
Let reason be silent... (Score:3)
Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.
Tariffs are only paid by the consumer in the literal sense, when using a naive static analysis. We can deduce by reason alone that tariffs must be paid by the consumer, since they are part of something's cost, and all costs are ultimately paid by the consumer. But what does experience have to say about the subject?
In reality, prices are set by supply and demand, and not by the cost of production. (The inability to understand this was Marx's fl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why was the US economy booming from 2016 until Covid?
Because of steady growth through the Obama years... A steady recovery after the 2008 financial crisis, fuelled by massive deficits [wikipedia.org]. The deficits were increasing even more during Trump's administration.
Increasing deficits will increase economic activity, but will require that someone else pays your bills later. It makes sense to have deficit spending in bad years and pay back in good years, but the US has been on a "deficit spending in bad years, even more deficit spending through tax cuts in good years" roll which eventually will come back to bite whoever is in charge at the time when interests go back up.
Re: (Score:3)
Why was the US economy booming from 2016 until Covid?
It was booming since the economic recovery from the 2010's, the largest economic expansion in US history. But sure, our economic history only started in 2016. What a fucking clown of a tale.
Re: Again? (Score:4, Informative)
Heh. That's because the noisier peeps think 'economy' just means 'stock market.
Re: Again? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the noisy ones that talk about record employment numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
That was well covered by the "lamestream" media with due credit given to Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They did that four years ago - that's why the tariffs were put in place.
Yeah and look how effective the tariffs were. It's almost as if there is a bit more too it than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which haven't seemed to build a half-dozen 7nm fabs around the country
That's cool. But what does 7nm fabs have to do with the chip shortage? Most of the shortages are in the 40nm + range of which one of the largest producers is Texas and Utah, and in Europe Germany and Italy.
High tech fabs have zero to do with the current shortage, as does international supply constraints.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely it's not about 'price', America is above that sort of thing.
The Govt is going to build that? Yeah, Right. (Score:2)
Not sure what the Biden administration is going to do. Build a bunch of fabs and contract them out?
It takes 2 years to build a fab, and that's by people who know what they're doing.
Re:The Govt is going to build that? Yeah, Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether any of these are good ideas or not is another matter, but there are plenty of ways that governments can get something accomplished without having to do it directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe put all those Intel plants to use. It's not like they're doing anything useful with them.
https://www.intel.com/content/... [intel.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They can still sign executive orders.
Wake me (Score:2)
Both Trump & Biden have the power to order gov't agencies to buy American and don't. Both promised to do it on the election trail. I usually don't like the whole "both sides bad" but in this case neither one is doing anything substantial, or even just twisting Congress' arm to do it for them (and both have enough power in Congress to do it).
Then again, Biden was pretty clear he wa
Re:Wake me (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the inherent problem with the system of government currently in place. The system works for the two main parties, by maintaining the status quo they ensure that they share power between themselves and have no challenge. By having two parties, they create an appearance of choice which keeps the people more docile than a one party system.
The system is fundamentally broken and harms everyone except the two main parties, but it's only those two parties who have any power to change it, so it will never change.
I'm not going to blame the parties for this (Score:3)
No, the voters need to own this. America is conservative. Little 'c'. We're scared of change. Even good change. And it doesn't take much to make us freak out and pull back from anything new.
This isn't a shock. 60-70% live paycheck to paycheck (depending on whether you think "
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, were you paying attention the last 12 years? Trump and Obama were the safe, conservative choices?
On Trump, yes. He was a conservative choice in the mind of white voters who thought he was going to put white people back on top as the natural order of things. They hated the change in America where black people were (supposed to be) on the same level as them.
You forget the schizophrenic campaign Biden ran - his campaign called him the "return to normalcy" candidate, while every surrogate and special-interest group talked about him being the most progressive candidate ever. I seem to recall your boy Bernie saying as much after he conceded the primary to Biden.
Who takes campaign marketing at their word?
Re: (Score:3)
Both Trump & Biden have the power to order gov't agencies to buy American and don't
Biden has only been in power for a month (plus he didn't get a normal amount of cooperation in the transition, so inevitably it will take longer to get up and running). So it is a tad early to judge what Biden will do. Indeed the whole point of this 100-day process is to figure out what ought to be done rather than acting upon some impulse. It isn't as if it is an easy problem to solve. Just ordering agencies to buy American might cause a lot more problems than it solves.
I am not actually suggesting he will
Re: (Score:2)
celebrates as a meaningful accomplishment
How? Because they issued a press release for it?
Every nation should learn Australia’s lesson (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2... [bookwormroom.com]
We have an unsustainable economic driver because all other employment has been shipped off-shore – they can’t ship off building – although with some of the pre-fabs they seem to be doing just that.
What has happened over the last 30 years is similar to the rest of the world where our manufacturing sector has been sold off to overseas and our welders and die-setters are lost – they become the local handyman, try to sell cars, maybe are absorbed into a multi-national as the engineer in the place that knows the difference between a spanner and a cup of coffee, or train to make better coffee for the burgeoning barista market.
I was shocked when our last car plant shut down – our last oil refinery moved offshore – our last white good manufacturer gave up – our last significant biscuit company crumbled (sorry) – last industrial fastener makers were screwed (I’m on a roll). Even our last book publishers – I think the ones claiming to still exist are just offices with no ink.
We are totally unprepared to protect ourselves – we can’t make an assault vehicle – we don’t make guns or ammunition – we will run out of fuel in 6-12 weeks if there is a blockade – our main local food sources aren’t all within our control – our population, without arthritis, is ambivalent to everything and addicted to technologies and information that we have no control over.
Now that we have given away all those skills to China (mainly), and our current generation will faint at a paper-cut, we are extremely vulnerable.
If China made a move on Australia now we would be gone in 48 hours – less. Biden would do nothing to help – Britain would try, but it would be too little too late.
We have sold out our future – with the promise that it will be all right because America, as an ally, is a big enough threat to protect us. (Ha, no one could see that idea going wrong.)
Your markets are big enough to justify manufacture still – but self-sufficiency is waning. As of the 20th this month you are no longer self-sufficient in oil. And it will only get worse by design.
Re: (Score:2)
"If China made a move on Australia now we would be gone in 48 hours – less. "
People forget history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man that is disappointing. That Wikiepdia page used to use the template for wars including listing the generals and people on "both sides". Unfortunately the Emu side had no flag of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
As of the 20th this month you are no longer self-sufficient in oil. And it will only get worse by design.
What about the 20th of February? I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've been googling to see if there was some oil-related event on the 20th, but I'm not finding anything significant.
And note that the US has not been self-sufficient in oil since before 1950 at least... until last year. 2020 was the first year in most of a century that the US was a net exporter of oil, thanks mostly to the fracking boom and partly to declining domestic consumption. COVID was a significant piece of that, but the long
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
White Goods Manufacturer refers to large domestic appliances (washing machines, refrigerators, etc.)
Australian mining killed our manufacturing (Score:2)
Mining pushed the dollar up. Made our manufacturing uncompetitive with foreign imports.
But why bother to make things when we are gifted with lots of stuff to dig out of the ground?
When the hole is empty, or the mining boom ends, then a manufacturing industry will magically reappear. Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, nothing is known as "black goods", just think of the horror that would create!
Black goods have a whole market... [wikipedia.org]
You can tell it's a government thing (Score:2, Insightful)
100-day review of key products including semiconductors and advanced batteries used in electric vehicles, followed by a broader, long-term review of six sectors of the economy
I'll give you the conclusion of the report right here and now: loosen the US' dependency to China. You don't need 100 days of dicking around on taxpayer's money to know that.
You can tell it's a TMSC thing (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'll give you the conclusion of the report right here and now: loosen the US' dependency to China. "
Yeah, let's become dependent on Taiwan, or South Korea. ;-)
An executive order that doesn't do anything... (Score:2)
It sets up a political group to "analyze" the situation. Color me cynical, but the output of this is going to be additional executive actions or policy rules that benefit those who are lobbying the government...political cronies. So no effective change and no benefit to the buying public that's inconvenienced by the supply and pricing distortions that result.
Use the military (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the government need to fully (100%) pay for a new fab?
Money isn't the issue - we've collectively become numb to "billions" and "millions" are just ignored as rounding errors - the issue is the need to build a government fab plant. Domestically-produced chips may cost a bit more, so throw the manufacturers a small, time-limited tax reduction.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: It's not unusual at all for the gov to finance a unique manufacturing capability, either to protect a legacy supply chain or stand up a new one for some milspec electronics. See BAE's radiation-tolerant RH45 ASIC technology, for instance - many megabucks were invested to get this up and running, even before there was anybody wanting to use it.
But if you are the government, you build it, and then tell defense contractors that they better use this newfangled ASIC, or else.
So that is the answer?! (Score:2)
Glad to see we can rely on politics to do something that does nothing.
Isn't the problem lack of rare earth metals (Score:2)
Re:Isn't the problem lack of rare earth metals (Score:4, Informative)
Wow... (Score:3)
semiconductor manufacturing is a dangerous weak spot in our economy and in our national security
Globalization and offshoring make your supply chains less controllable, rendering your manufacturing sector less resilient and your economy less robust. Who knew?
ah, a study, wonderful (Score:2)
A study and and 100 day blue ribbon committee... that will solve it!
How about a 0% interest loan program to the people in North America willing to build and expand their fabs?
How about a grant system to pay for the engineering necessary to re-open rare earth mines in California while meeting environmental laws and expectations?
If we enable domestic fabs to increase automation via low-cost (or free) capital and not make them pay out of pocket for environmental upgrades, I think we could make domestic fabs ec
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a true leader wouldn't ask experts to study the problem of semiconductor shortages. He would trust his gut instincts and fasten on the first idea that sounds like it might work. Giving away federal money feels like a safe bet, when you're the one doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a 100 day study, followed by a long-term study (their words) before any recommendations will be published. Once published, their findings will be debated by politicians (who know nothing about any of the findings), and then a bill will be put forward to be voted on. Sounds like, if we're lucky, we might see action on this pressing need just in time for the 2022 election and the end of the current congress.
Don't you think the "experts" that brought the issue to Biden Administration already know what's ne
Re: (Score:2)
If you want industry you need 2 things (Score:2)
Massive cheap labor supply (400 USD per month for a 60 hr work week) and massive government subsidies in the form of trade barriers and no interest multi century loans to business. Thats how the Chinese do it.
Re: (Score:2)
You also need expertise in how to make stuff. Which China now has and we used to have.
China is not all cheap labor any more. They are starting to use a lot of robots. And good labor is not that cheap there any more. They outsource labor intensive stuff to places like Bangladesh.
I think of back in the days (Score:3)
Give Intel dough of money to divest their fab (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think many sectors are revisiting their decisions to offshore production to China. Other countries stand to be beneficiaries as some of those companies opt out of China. China is laughing all the way to the bank. They grabbed knowledge and market share from the gullible. They'll turn that knowledge inward to feed their domestic consumer market while sorting out ways to leverage what they learned to expand outward.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Watch all the exports from China go up and the manucafturing of everything to continue to go out of the USA.
Let's start with this lie. The idea that the US is declining in manufacturing (I can spell it correctly). That's total bullshit. Yeah, a lot of stuff is made in China.. But the US is not declining in manufacturing. I suggest you reconsider "just making shit up" when you're dealing with folks on Slashdot. Most of us have been using the internet for a while and know how to look up stats.
Exports [tradingeconomics.com]
Manufacturing GDP [tradingeconomics.com]
Recessionary dips aside, the US has increased manufacturing output and revenue consist
Re: (Score:3)
The President is the national executive, and he gives orders [wikipedia.org]. That's kind of the point of having an executive. He's not creating laws, which obviously is reserved for Congress, but is setting policy within the framework of existing laws and the Constitution. And of course, the courts can challenge and block such orders if they are deemed illegal or unconstitutional.
So, hardly "ruling by degree."
Also, if he wants to go for the record, he'll need to work hard to surpass FDR's all time high of 3,721 over hi