U.S. still depends on China, despite years of onshoring efforts.
Reminds me of that time when one president signed a bill to move chip production to the US then the next president raided the chip-making facility and arrested all those chip-making people for trying to show the locals how to make chips.
one president signed a bill to move chip production to the US then the next president raided the chip-making facility and arrested all those chip-making people for trying to show the locals how to make chips
Chip making production has begun to migrate largely as a consequence of the Trump tariffs. The Biden plan to send Intel a few billion in kickbacks in exchange for a chip fab industry that wasn’t the laughing stock of the planet only enriched shareholders and executives.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Maybe Operation Low Voltage, which was a raid on a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia? I can’t find anything about a raid on a chip fab plant.
In fairness to Trump leadership, a bunch of these workers were, in fact, overstayed on their visas. Although, as usual, Trump sent guys in with shotguns to do what a sternly worded letter would have just as easily accomplished.
But these are the two faces of Western Capital. The bailout and the beat down. Liberals throw money at the problem. Conservatives slap you around on the thinnest pretexts. Neither president seems to have benefited the US domestic consumer.
More so both are factors towards onshoring happening. Same with PVs and batteries. Though Trump’s other policy undermind a lot of that progress as well.
The CHIPs act also favored union work and even funneled some money to worker owned shops. That so far seemed to be toothless in keeping this admin aligned there
The CHIPs act also favored union work and even funneled some money to worker owned shops.
It overwhelmingly favored Intel, for better or worse. And the early influx of cash did nothing to prevent Intel from axing 15,000 jobs.
I’m not here to praise Trump for any of his trade policies. But what Biden pitched through the CHIPs Act was largely a bailout for under-performing domestic producers more focused on dividends than scaled production or R&D. He’d have been better off nationalizing Intel than just handing them bricks of cash in the form of grants and low-interest loans. That is (kinda) what Trump ended up doing when he ordered the Treasury to take a 10% stake in the firm.
Honestly. I agree. A big issue the US has with “industrial policy” type of deals in general is this. Big businesses can afford to have specialists to get access to programs and programs can “accomplish” their budgets goals faster with these bigger deals. The COVID small business loans had the same issue.
Also supply side money funnels are popular with donors/lobbyists (for obvious reasons) but are almost always garbage. Demand side (upfront funding for some needed thing, and payments for fulfillment) are still possible for to fuck up but do WAY better.
Reminds me of that time when one president signed a bill to move chip production to the US then the next president raided the chip-making facility and arrested all those chip-making people for trying to show the locals how to make chips.
An absolute disgrace
Would you mind elaborating a little more? I live under a rock but this seems interesting
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0r434g5k1o
The Hyundai engineers, technicians, and equipment installers were not teaching anyone how to make chips.
Thanks
wasnt that HYUNDAI cars?.
That was the biggest failure so far. The other ones seem to be smaller
Chip making production has begun to migrate largely as a consequence of the Trump tariffs. The Biden plan to send Intel a few billion in kickbacks in exchange for a chip fab industry that wasn’t the laughing stock of the planet only enriched shareholders and executives.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Maybe Operation Low Voltage, which was a raid on a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia? I can’t find anything about a raid on a chip fab plant.
In fairness to Trump leadership, a bunch of these workers were, in fact, overstayed on their visas. Although, as usual, Trump sent guys in with shotguns to do what a sternly worded letter would have just as easily accomplished.
But these are the two faces of Western Capital. The bailout and the beat down. Liberals throw money at the problem. Conservatives slap you around on the thinnest pretexts. Neither president seems to have benefited the US domestic consumer.
More so both are factors towards onshoring happening. Same with PVs and batteries. Though Trump’s other policy undermind a lot of that progress as well.
The CHIPs act also favored union work and even funneled some money to worker owned shops. That so far seemed to be toothless in keeping this admin aligned there
It overwhelmingly favored Intel, for better or worse. And the early influx of cash did nothing to prevent Intel from axing 15,000 jobs.
I’m not here to praise Trump for any of his trade policies. But what Biden pitched through the CHIPs Act was largely a bailout for under-performing domestic producers more focused on dividends than scaled production or R&D. He’d have been better off nationalizing Intel than just handing them bricks of cash in the form of grants and low-interest loans. That is (kinda) what Trump ended up doing when he ordered the Treasury to take a 10% stake in the firm.
Honestly. I agree. A big issue the US has with “industrial policy” type of deals in general is this. Big businesses can afford to have specialists to get access to programs and programs can “accomplish” their budgets goals faster with these bigger deals. The COVID small business loans had the same issue.
Also supply side money funnels are popular with donors/lobbyists (for obvious reasons) but are almost always garbage. Demand side (upfront funding for some needed thing, and payments for fulfillment) are still possible for to fuck up but do WAY better.