TSMC Founder Says He Supports US Efforts To Slow China's Chip Advances (reuters.com) 32
The retired founder of TSMC said on Thursday that even as he supported U.S. efforts to slow China's advances in the semiconductor industry, the "bifurcation" of the global supply chain and the reversal of globalisation would increase prices and reduce the ubiquity of chips that power the modern world. From a report: "There's no question in my mind that, in the chip sector, globalisation is dead. Free trade is not quite that dead, but it's in danger," Morris Chang said, speaking at an event hosted by Taiwan's CommonWealth Magazine. "When the costs go up, the pervasiveness of chips will either stop or slow down considerably," said Chang, who at 91 remains an influential voice in Taiwan's chip industry. "We are going to be in a different game." In Taiwan, TSMC, Asia's most valuable listed company and a major Apple supplier, is widely regarded as the "sacred mountain protecting the country," because of its economic importance. [...] U.S. "onshoring" and "friendshoring" efforts to boost chip manufacturing stateside or in allied countries present a predicament for Taiwan. "Friendshore does not include Taiwan. In fact, the commerce secretary has said repeatedly that Taiwan is a very dangerous place, we cannot - America cannot - rely on Taiwan for chips," Chang said. "Now that, of course, is I think Taiwan's dilemma."
Re:Which quote? (Score:4, Informative)
1st sentence of the 1st paragraph, no?
"The retired founder of TSMC (2330.TW) said on Thursday that even as he supported U.S. efforts to slow China's advances in the semiconductor industry..."
though technically not a quote maybe
Re:Which quote? (Score:4, Informative)
Had to goto the Register but it is quoted:
"The US started their industrial policy on chips to slow down China's progress. I have no quarrel and I support it," Chang said."
https://www.theregister.com/20... [theregister.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn’t help that China plays by mercantile rules.
Re: (Score:1)
Please.. The whole world does. Of course TSMC would like to suppress the competition. The world of finance is the epitome of corruption.. Love of money, babe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the only place free trade exists is probably at the lunchroom table in high School
If there was ever a market distorted by threats of violence...
Re: (Score:2)
I must not be understanding (Score:2)
I don't understand this part...
"...China's advances in the semiconductor industry....would increase prices and reduce the ubiquity of chips..."
in just about everything else China has been producing, prices go down and the ubiquity goes up
what am I missing?
Re: (Score:3)
Go back and read it more carefully. US efforts to address China's advances are resulting in supply chain bifurcation and the reversal of globalisation; those factors he believes will reduce the ubiquity of chips.
In other words, if we stop buying Chinese products, it will be harder to find products we can buy at prices we're willing to pay. Whether that turns out to be the case remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:1)
it's not a lack of careful reading, so fuck your condescendence
your next sentence is a bit more helpful, thanks
Re:I must not be understanding (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that the US has simply acknowledged that the PRC views Taiwan as part of the PRC, not that the US has accepted it. In addition, the US has agreed to not have formal political relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is why the US has no embassy there and doesn't formally recognize it as a country. The US does maintain Taiwan as a trading partner as an entity separate from the PRC though.
Thus the start of the current era of "strategic ambiguity" regarding how the US would respond if the PRC invaded Taiwan. The US arguably recognizes Taiwan as an independent country informally, but it is very unlikely to ever formally recognize it as long as it wants a positive relationship with the PRC. It's all basically semantics at this point, although very important semantics since they have arguably prevented war for decades.
Re: (Score:1)
>> Thus the start of the current era of "strategic ambiguity" regarding how the US would respond if the PRC invaded Taiwan.
I think this is pretty clear, especially if you look at how much the Democrats in particular are funded by/in the pockets of the arms companies (It's a major reason why Biden is such a war hawk).
If China invaded Taiwan, Taiwan would basically become another Ukraine, who are willing to trade their economy and souls cheap to the US (and anyone else) in return for arms.
It's pretty cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and probably win Taiwan
We part ways here. Chairman Xi and his reconstituted CCP appear intent on invading Taiwan, because they're unwilling to compromise on their suzerainty over Taiwan (which means there will be no "peaceful" resolution of differences between CCP China and Taiwan).
But winning? There's a 90 mile moat between Taiwan and the mainland. If the US and the Japanese choose to interfere in the air/sea border between China & Taiwan, there's literally no way the PLA will be able to land enough soldiers, weapons, or
Re: (Score:2)
China can't invade Taiwan for all the reasons you outlined and more.
If you think for a few moments about the largest amphibious invasion in history which was D-Day, the Allies had air superiority and Naval control of the English Channel. They had also had two practice runs at Sicily and Italy the year before, so they knew roughly what they were up to.
Germany also had no satellites and didn't know where the landing were going to occur.
China has exactly none of those things and
Re:I must not be understanding (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand this part...
"...China's advances in the semiconductor industry....would increase prices and reduce the ubiquity of chips..."
in just about everything else China has been producing, prices go down and the ubiquity goes up
what am I missing?
I think he means that currently China is making chips and devices that are largely compatible and inter-operable with western electronics because everybody plays in the same market. However, if China is universally embargoed and shut off from the markets in the west and its allied countries then chips made in China may evolve in a separate direction, i.e. the world will be fragmented into two increasingly different 'tech-spheres' whose chips/products/standards/software will be increasingly incompatible with each other. So, since products from both the West and China will still be sold in many of the same markets (because many countries don't have an ideological bat in their belfry about China spying on them through cellphones and TikTok) then the inefficiency, duplication and general logistics headaches caused by technological fragmentation will drive costs and prices up.
Re: (Score:2)
good explanation, thanks for the help
No shit Sherlock (Score:2)
TSMC is happy US government is trying to cripple one of their potential rivals. Ok, what's the news?
Re: (Score:3)
Not rival, threat to TSMC's existence and its owners' ability to enjoy the wealth they've amassed from it. Intel and ARM based companies are TSMC's "rival". Good luck to SMIC producing enough working semiconductors to maintain exportable electronic products that 1st world consumers would be willing to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC has figured out that if the US successfully makes them redundant, Taiwan is up shit creek.
Thank you corporate profits (Score:3)
If corporations weren't so willing to get dirt-cheap overseas labor, China wouldn't have consodidated so much manufacturing leverage.
Now the capability divide is so wide it's practically impossible to close it.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll still get somewhat dirt-cheap overseas labor; there are a lot of people who live outside of China. They'll do it the same way they did it to China; throw billions of dollars in building their factories overseas to places like India and the South Pacific.
Free trade in danger (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because the Chinese gov. subsidize the heck out of their manufacturing companies to the point that they can sell products overseas for even cheaper than they actually cost to make and ship, so it's very far from a level playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
The CCP won't be able to subsidize those manufacturers when the West stops buying their stuff, and let themselves get rolled by the CCP when they try investing in China.
Re: (Score:2)
>> The CCP won't be able to subsidize those manufacturers when the West stops buying their stuff
Not gonna happen, and even if it did, why? That's the thing with a loss leader. It costs THEM to sell it. Less sales = more savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, you don't get economics. China is a relative poor country per capita. China wants to move from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. For China to manufacture, they need tools and machines from the West. For that, they need foreign currency. China deliberately jacks up the price of goods to their domestic population, and that subsidy is used to sell their goods at a cheaper price, which means the Chinese get more market share, and discourage the West from manufacturing their own good
The mainland is likely to win (Score:2)
It is of course not better to be dead than Red, and Beijing can accumulate sufficient regional overmatch to make anschluss practical. A change in government would be an administrative inconvenience for the general public, not a disaster.
The US has no existential interests in Asia or deeply popular public interests. The US military presence in the Pacific is a useful Cold War legacy the general public of 2023 could not care less about. Taiwan isn't worth fighting for and either way the US would be remiss dep