Fabs, Funding, Fashion, and the Future

The new Arizona plant built by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is now operational and is making A16 processor chips for Apple.  A lot of problems have been overcome in order to reach this stage, and congratulations are due to the American and Taiwanese workers, engineers, and managers who have driven this accomplishment.

This project has benefited from a $6.6B funding allocation under the CHIPS and Science Act, and I am sure that this plant will serve as a poster child for the kind of targeted industrial policy favored by Biden and Harris.  BUT:

When the opportunity to pioneer in advanced semiconductor manufacturing was emerging–an opportunity that TSMC took brilliant advantage of...would a US ‘targeted industrial policy’ have identified it as an opportunity worthy of focus and funding?  Highly unlikely, I think:  software, services, and marketing were what the Cool Kids talked about, manufacturing was viewed as something suitable for people with dull minds and countries with low-skilled populations.

“Targeted incentives” will go to the companies who are doing something currently fashionable and/or are politically well-connected. It seems likely that Schumer’s support of the NEPA permitting exception for chip manufacturers has something to do with Micron’s plan to build a new fab near Syracuse.

I’m certainly not arguing against the importance of US-based semiconductor manufacturing. But there are also a lot of other important product types and technologies and I’d much rather see a reassessment of NEPA criteria in general–as the above-linked article says, the rest of the economy needs a reprieve, too–rather than various exception bills.

Much of the genius of the US Constitution lies in the fact that it is short–it operates at the level of general principles rather than of endless specifics. We need more of this spirit in the design of legislation today.

 

 

10 thoughts on “Fabs, Funding, Fashion, and the Future”

  1. Yes – less red tape, get the public sector out of many things and stop their meddling. Permitting is one of those magic bureaucratic tools that does so much damage

    Just let’s make sure that we are cutting back on specifics in legislation as way of getting the government out and not allowing agencies to have more discretion. In other words minimize legislation to reduce scope and not grant more latitude for bureaucrats.

    It’s this latter result, a move by Congress to delegate more and more authority by writing frameworks and not legislation which has led us to many, many problems. It was done to grant flexibility, but instead has just further enshrined the zeitgeist of the State

    Thank goodness Chevron was overturned and the tide might be turning
    Reduce scope of legisla

  2. re: “Much of the genius of the US Constitution lies in the fact that it is short–it operates at the level of general principles rather than of endless specifics. We need more of this spirit in the design of legislation today.”

    You’re right, but the dilemma is that operating at that level means that the application of those principles becomes even more dependent upon interpretation. See The Death of Common Sense (https://www.amazon.com/Death-Common-Sense-Suffocating-America/dp/0812982746 :I think this is a later edition than the one I read. The author of that one was “A New York Lawyer”).

  3. The “Green New Deal” is an example of how ignorant our rulers are of science and common sense. The whole Global Warming hysteria is an invented panic from which a certain segment is profiting. Why so many are taken in is a mystery.

  4. The first problem is that all these initiatives are through the government. Setting aside the all but inevitable corruption, The one area where the government has proven to have disastrous judgement is anything having to do with profitable business, except as a victim.

    The second is this idea of governing by exception where the chosen winners will be exempted from some of the barriers erected by governments and then granted largess paid by those unfavored, still saddled with all those barriers and paying full taxes. If these supposed protections to the “people’s” safety can be suspended by fiat for certain favored players, why not for everyone?

    Remember that LG LCD panel factory in Wisconsin? A whole lot of politician hope you don’t, memories are the only thing that all that tax money bought.

    In the end, the way to have a secure job is to work for a profitable company run by management that knows how to run a profitable company. The TSMC deal might be an exception, they’re making money for now, which begs the question of why they need such huge subsidies. If they’re too stupid not to understand that they are living in the shadow of a smoking volcano in Taiwan along with their customers, come the day, that will be a hell of an opportunity for someone not so stupid.

  5. Actions like this one have also highlighted for China how they are vulnerable. Their companies are ordinarily uncooperative with each other or even harshly competitive, but on this issue they are getting along – for now. I don’t know whether that means we shouldn’t have done it, but other countries are also not static, and our actions affect theirs.

  6. Thankfully, mostly politicians don’t have to. It’s generally when they have to, or more realistically, pretend to in order to hand out money that the trouble comes. He’s lucky that diesel compressor didn’t attract part of the clipboard mafia to shut him down.

    Starting any business requires stepping off into the void with only your naivete protecting you from a true realization of what you’ll have to overcome to succeed. An awful lot of businesses have a similar story and whether they were successful or not often comes down to luck. And a lot of the unsuccessful stories hinge on something like some government entity taking exception.

    At the same time it’s important to keep in mind that while China is notionally #1 in manufacturing, the U.S., with a fraction of the population, is still #2 and long way ahead of #3.

  7. “Just let’s make sure that we are cutting back on specifics in legislation as way of getting the government out and not allowing agencies to have more discretion. In other words minimize legislation to reduce scope and not grant more latitude for bureaucrats.”

    Much of this is a lingering effect of John McCain whose sponsorship of “McCain-Finegld” put political fundraising ahead of writing legislation in the Congress as fund raising became more difficult and resulted in staffs taking over legislation. McCain had never had a private sector job.

  8. And now the staffs can’t be arsed to do anything. I’ve lost track of when they last bothered to fulfill the Constitutionally mandated process of making and passing a budget.

Comments are closed.