Wolfspeed is building a fab in North Carolina that will make SiC based chips. They are receiving $750 million from the CHIPS and Science Act and will likely receive another $1 billion in tax credits.
SiC transistors and diodes are used in high power applications like locomotives, EV chargers and industrial motor controls. In their catalog they have a half-bridge power module rated for 1200V and 760A, which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that much.
> which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that much.
i'm also equally amazed at how much <5v can accomplish. 3.3v is common, but I also think back to the old NTSC video signal was 1v peak-to-peak. Of course, that was just the signal and not the voltage driving the CRT, but still impressive. I've done my own hobby electronics ala Arduino type stuff, and detecting voltage drops in analog of <1v can be challenging to do accurately.
It really bugs the hell out of me that we are constantly forced against our will to fund these companies for basically nothing. It’s an utterly insane model. Sure, we get to then give them yet more money to use those critical chips after the same people squandered the time and gutted the American economy and shipped it all overseas for decades prior; but can’t there be a rate of return and not just give, essentially executives huge bonuses forever?
There should be no such thing as free grants, if anything they should be ownership stakes by the U.S. people by way of the government if, e.g., we are handing them 700 Million dollars and then basically deferring on 1 Billion dollars which also has an additional opportunity cost and a cost of the money, i.e., inflation and interest.
I can’t tell you how many people have become extremely wealthy from nothing by getting government grants and contracts that built and funded their companies, paid for by you, with your tax money and inflation you pay at the grocery store.
Whats your solution then, when Taiwan falls to China tomorrow and the chips stop flowing in? The parasite execs are a problem, but a much smaller problem than if the Chinese blocks flow of essential chips. It will cause all kinds of cascading issues. Which we saw when supply chains from there, all shutdown during Covid.
Absolutely agree. We need chip supremacy as a home-soil tech asap. Jet engines are no longer the challenge they previously were for China, we can’t afford to let the same happen with chips.
Let's not push that one too far, there is no "little guy" in these deals.
What does surprise me more is that we don't see "tax credits" in "pay your tax in shares". The amount would be higher then, probably - but many of these deals would in the end be profitable.
It's entirely possible for the government to pressure the corporations in the chip industry to move resources into research, development and manufacturing capacity.
What the government would have to do is increase corporate taxes and capital gains taxes but give various writeoffs and rebates for R & D and new factories. Essentially the government tells the corporation, "you can pay us this tax money, or you can put the money back into R & D and production starts, it's up to you."
This would probably upset the Milton Friedman neoliberalism proponents, but they've made a mess of things IMO. Regardless the shareholders and executives would have to take significant losses relative to their present situation under such new conditions. The money has to come from somewhere and fabs are expensive complicated beasts with demanding supply chain issues.
Well the revival may be halted depending on the election:
> The US CHIPS and Science Act's future may depend on the outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election after House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested the GOP would likely move to repeal the $280 billion funding bill if the party wins a majority in Congress.
> Johnson, who voted against the legislation, later said in a statement that the CHIPS Act, which poured $54 billion into the semiconductor manufacturing industry, “is not on the agenda for repeal.”
They are building a new fab in Boise to return production to the US. That's in addition to the new fab in Syracuse. Any guesses why they need two new facilities in the mainland US when the bulk of their output is just going to be shipped to SEA? DRAM is a fully commoditized, low margin product. Kryptonite to MBAs, but someone convinced them to make the move to reverse their successful offshoring with a lot of promised benefits.
Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard militarily relevant?
If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs then you will likely prefer more directly military targets rather than a manufacturing facility which would likely only start to matter for a conflict months into combat, which itself is a scenario (drawn out conventional war) that is likely precluded by exchange of nuclear weapons in the first place.
> If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs
China has hundreds going on thousands of ICBMs. Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange between America and China.
You realize if China is launching ICBMs on US cities we are simultaneously deploying nuclear weapons against China and it’s the end of the world… right?
I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
>The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
It does seem like politics at the presidency now is less about what you'll do and more about undoing everything the other side did during their time in office, regardless of utility or popularity of what it is.
Is it me or is this worse now? Had it always been like that and I'm just now seeing it?
I'm a huge fan of the CHIPS Act, but most Americans have not heard of it [0].
That lack of noteriety is what protects it.
Doesn't hurt that most deal flow is in purple districts, so most shit-slingers tend to be far removed and shut up pretty quickly after a quick rebuke from Party Chairs about how close the election is.
Protects it? I think it makes it even more of a ripe target since nobody's heard of it and won't get up in arms about something they've not heard of. It's a low cost in political capital for them to undo it. Plus, if nobody has heard of it, they can definitely claim it as something they created and claim the victory in their echo chambers
It's too niche to be a wedge issue nationally, but most investment is primarily in purple districts which makes it dangerous for either party to oppose it without having a downstream impact in donations and even a primary challenge in 2 years.
Same reason why Brandon Williams quickly shut up Mike Johnson even though Mike Johnson could make his life in the GOP and the House hell (not all offices in the CBO have air conditioning despite hellish humidity) - he'd rather keep his seat (NY-22) even if it meant undermining his boss.
> Well the revival may be halted depending on the election
Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin will continue to remain.
There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this front for over a year at this point [0]
Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have benefited from these industrial policies as well.
Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness, CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor fights)
That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that reason.
Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc.
Donald Norcross in the Labor Caucus has been a major blocker as well because most of these CHIPS projects are being built independent of AFL-CIO in a lot of cases.
Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but not chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing back into the US was entirely a Biden project.
Rebuilding our microchip manufacturing base is critical part of US national defense. Why in the world would Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson want to repeal the CHIPS act?
The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage (as similar plans had been advocated for decades by various proponents), and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat). CHIPS seems much less divisive, though it seems stalled (at least based on recent statements by Intel and other CEOs).
> The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage
Fake manufactured baggage. Even if you think the ACA was a terrible idea and bad policy the fact is Republicans opposed it entirely out of spite and worked to repeal parts of it for the same reason. It had nothing to do with a rational approach to public policy.
The modern conservative movement has only two policies: no regulation (You Can't Tell Me What to Do Dad) and no taxes (Screw You, I Got Mine). Solving problems often requires regulation and money. Hence Republicans are incapable of solving most kinds of problems. A third leg, if one exists, is spitefully destroying anything that might demonstrate the government can do anything good or of value.
Anti-free market policies? Excellent because it reduces regulation. Hurt American competitiveness? Who cares, as long as I don't have to pay taxes.
> […] and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat).
That is not accurate:
> Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion, but it's a cinch that the ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats, hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time and effort wooing GOP senators — only to find themselves gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues, Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to public scrutiny.
> We feel a tap on our shoulder and we look back, and who is it? It's the Republicans. And they say "Huh, excuse me, we'd like the keys back." And we have to tell them "I'm sorry, you can't have the keys back if you don't know how to drive". If you want you can ride with us but you have to ride in the back seat.
Further context: Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.
As a sibling comment notes: the Democrats had the majority at the time and were in charge of setting the agenda ("had the keys").
Further, Obama was willing to give the GOP a (figurative) ride if they wanted and were heading in the same direction.
Surely HN of all spaces would understand why giving free money to Intel is a massive waste? Also if they genuinely need the money, they should be offering ownership in return.
China has a history of buying out its critics, and I do not doubt for a second that Donald Trump is for sale (notice how he changed his tune on TikTok?)
Trump didn’t seem to disagree with the premise just the funding. His argument is that the US shouldn’t be funding it. His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.
> His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.
The counter-argument (FWIW):
> Tariffs are paid by the importer and not the exporter. The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) claims that tariffs would not cause fabs to be built in the US, due to the cost of the factories, which can run from $18bn to $27bn.
> "No tariff amount will equal the costs of ripping apart these investments and efficient supply chains that have enabled current US industry leadership," SIA said.
> It added: "Moreover, chip tariffs will drive away manufacturing in advanced sectors that rely on semiconductor technology, such as aerospace, AI, robotics, next-generation networks, and autonomous vehicles. If the cost of key inputs like semiconductors is too high, tech manufacturers will relocate out of the US, costing jobs and further eroding US manufacturing and technological competitiveness."
Foreign chipmakers would not pay the tariff (contrary to what Trump thinks) but their US customers, and what incentive to the foreign chipmakers to make changes? They're getting the same money and it's not costing them a dime. And where else are US businesses going to go for the product?
Even if the exporters are not directly paying the tariffs, their chips will cost consumers more, reducing the demand. So no; they’re not getting the same money.
If you were talking about some discretionary thing, like magazines, I'd agree with you.
But customers don't buy chips, they buy stuff, and chips are in everything. There's the obvious (phones, tablets etc), but also everything else, like cars, washing machines, tvs, air fryers, plus more.
Clearly tarrifs drive (domestic) prices up, which will cause some level of inflation, but it will be across the board (not on "chips"). And clearly that will weaken demand.
But given global demand that will likely not be all that noticeable. Indeed it'll likely just result in US manufacturing being less competitive. Certainly it'll make US manufactured products more expensive on the world market.
Which likely leads to more American plants moving offshore, not onshore.
There's been many complaints about DEI requirements in the CHIPS Act. Given that DEI is a favorite right-wing talking point, amendment or repeal+replace might be likely, but I doubt it would be scrapped altogether.
Wolfspeed is building a fab in North Carolina that will make SiC based chips. They are receiving $750 million from the CHIPS and Science Act and will likely receive another $1 billion in tax credits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
SiC transistors and diodes are used in high power applications like locomotives, EV chargers and industrial motor controls. In their catalog they have a half-bridge power module rated for 1200V and 760A, which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that much.
https://www.wolfspeed.com/products/power/sic-power-modules/h...
> which to me is amazing that a semiconductor can handle that much.
i'm also equally amazed at how much <5v can accomplish. 3.3v is common, but I also think back to the old NTSC video signal was 1v peak-to-peak. Of course, that was just the signal and not the voltage driving the CRT, but still impressive. I've done my own hobby electronics ala Arduino type stuff, and detecting voltage drops in analog of <1v can be challenging to do accurately.
It really bugs the hell out of me that we are constantly forced against our will to fund these companies for basically nothing. It’s an utterly insane model. Sure, we get to then give them yet more money to use those critical chips after the same people squandered the time and gutted the American economy and shipped it all overseas for decades prior; but can’t there be a rate of return and not just give, essentially executives huge bonuses forever?
There should be no such thing as free grants, if anything they should be ownership stakes by the U.S. people by way of the government if, e.g., we are handing them 700 Million dollars and then basically deferring on 1 Billion dollars which also has an additional opportunity cost and a cost of the money, i.e., inflation and interest.
I can’t tell you how many people have become extremely wealthy from nothing by getting government grants and contracts that built and funded their companies, paid for by you, with your tax money and inflation you pay at the grocery store.
Whats your solution then, when Taiwan falls to China tomorrow and the chips stop flowing in? The parasite execs are a problem, but a much smaller problem than if the Chinese blocks flow of essential chips. It will cause all kinds of cascading issues. Which we saw when supply chains from there, all shutdown during Covid.
Absolutely agree. We need chip supremacy as a home-soil tech asap. Jet engines are no longer the challenge they previously were for China, we can’t afford to let the same happen with chips.
> against our will
Let's not push that one too far, there is no "little guy" in these deals.
What does surprise me more is that we don't see "tax credits" in "pay your tax in shares". The amount would be higher then, probably - but many of these deals would in the end be profitable.
It's entirely possible for the government to pressure the corporations in the chip industry to move resources into research, development and manufacturing capacity.
What the government would have to do is increase corporate taxes and capital gains taxes but give various writeoffs and rebates for R & D and new factories. Essentially the government tells the corporation, "you can pay us this tax money, or you can put the money back into R & D and production starts, it's up to you."
This would probably upset the Milton Friedman neoliberalism proponents, but they've made a mess of things IMO. Regardless the shareholders and executives would have to take significant losses relative to their present situation under such new conditions. The money has to come from somewhere and fabs are expensive complicated beasts with demanding supply chain issues.
So they spent $13B + existing $25B in Albany = $38B
For scale comparison I checked TSMC and they will spend ~$35B in R&D and capex in 2024 and it will only grow.
Well the revival may be halted depending on the election:
> The US CHIPS and Science Act's future may depend on the outcome of Tuesday's Presidential Election after House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested the GOP would likely move to repeal the $280 billion funding bill if the party wins a majority in Congress.
* https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/04/chips_act_repeal/
but a little while later:
> Johnson, who voted against the legislation, later said in a statement that the CHIPS Act, which poured $54 billion into the semiconductor manufacturing industry, “is not on the agenda for repeal.”
* https://apnews.com/article/mike-johnson-chips-act-d5504f76d3...
so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Micron is a defense critical company. They're getting their new fab no matter what because China can more readily target Boise.
My understanding is that Micron only does R&D in Boise, they don't run any production manufacturing there.
They are building a new fab in Boise to return production to the US. That's in addition to the new fab in Syracuse. Any guesses why they need two new facilities in the mainland US when the bulk of their output is just going to be shipped to SEA? DRAM is a fully commoditized, low margin product. Kryptonite to MBAs, but someone convinced them to make the move to reverse their successful offshoring with a lot of promised benefits.
What makes Boise a more readily available target for China?
Their medium range ICBMs, which they have greater inventory of, can reach the northwest.
Sorry, what decision are you saying is being made because China can nuke Boise more easily than other places? Are you envisioning a limited tactical strike by China that bombs half the country but leaves the Eastern seaboard militarily relevant?
If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs then you will likely prefer more directly military targets rather than a manufacturing facility which would likely only start to matter for a conflict months into combat, which itself is a scenario (drawn out conventional war) that is likely precluded by exchange of nuclear weapons in the first place.
> If you have a limited number of long range ICBMs
China has hundreds going on thousands of ICBMs. Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange between America and China.
FUD!.The total including SLBM is 442.
https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-01/chinese-nuclear-weap...
> Nobody is creating redundancy from Boise to Albany and Sunnyvale to increase survivability in case of a nuclear exchange between America and China.
Uh, lol?
You realize if China is launching ICBMs on US cities we are simultaneously deploying nuclear weapons against China and it’s the end of the world… right?
I would trust his first statement more than his second. He only backed off after he faced criticism that could affect the congressman's election. The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
My hunch is something like NAFTA -> USMCA would happen with CHIPS. Repeal and replace with basically the same to make it look like a GOP win.
Here was his statement:
https://youtu.be/hzwQXL77VVA?t=64
>The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win so you can bet the GOP will want to repeal it.
It does seem like politics at the presidency now is less about what you'll do and more about undoing everything the other side did during their time in office, regardless of utility or popularity of what it is.
Is it me or is this worse now? Had it always been like that and I'm just now seeing it?
It is mostly that way for the GOP since the Newt Gingrich era.
Not that the Dems don't undo things... But they add to policy as well.
GOP does culture war, tear stuff down mostly.
Everything is worse now.
> The CHIPS act is a huge Biden policy win
I'm a huge fan of the CHIPS Act, but most Americans have not heard of it [0].
That lack of noteriety is what protects it.
Doesn't hurt that most deal flow is in purple districts, so most shit-slingers tend to be far removed and shut up pretty quickly after a quick rebuke from Party Chairs about how close the election is.
[0] - https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000018f-3fe4-dc61-adff-7fe53...
Protects it? I think it makes it even more of a ripe target since nobody's heard of it and won't get up in arms about something they've not heard of. It's a low cost in political capital for them to undo it. Plus, if nobody has heard of it, they can definitely claim it as something they created and claim the victory in their echo chambers
It's too niche to be a wedge issue nationally, but most investment is primarily in purple districts which makes it dangerous for either party to oppose it without having a downstream impact in donations and even a primary challenge in 2 years.
Same reason why Brandon Williams quickly shut up Mike Johnson even though Mike Johnson could make his life in the GOP and the House hell (not all offices in the CBO have air conditioning despite hellish humidity) - he'd rather keep his seat (NY-22) even if it meant undermining his boss.
> Well the revival may be halted depending on the election
Not a fan of the GOP, but industry is operating on the assumption that most industrial policies under the Biden admin will continue to remain.
There's been a lot of policy research and lobbying on this front for over a year at this point [0]
Doesn't hurt that a number of major Trump-Vance donors have benefited from these industrial policies as well.
Sadly, most deal flow is anyhow locked up because the Commerce has been slow at disbursing funds due to bipartisan politicking (eg. GOP trying to undermine the CHIPS act due to pettiness, CPC affiliates trying to launch unnecessary NEPA and Labor fights)
That said, even companies knew that would happen - and a lot of deal flow was strategically placed in purple districts for that reason.
Foreign automakers and their supppliers used a similar strategy in the 1990s-2000s when entering the US market by opening factories in then-Purple Tennessee, Kentucky, WV, etc.
[0] - https://www.eiu.com/n/us-election-its-impact-on-industrial-p...
Which CPC affiliates?
Pramila Jayapal most notably.
Donald Norcross in the Labor Caucus has been a major blocker as well because most of these CHIPS projects are being built independent of AFL-CIO in a lot of cases.
Partisan scare tactics? Which outcome would result in loss?
Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.
Trump's tariffs were aimed at a lot of goods, but not chips. The push and subsequent law to get chip manufacturing back into the US was entirely a Biden project.
No
> Wasn't it Trump who popularized the pullback of Chip manufacturing to the US for security ad prosperity reasons.
And how's that Foxconn factory going?
* https://www.reuters.com/business/foxconn-sharply-scales-back...
Nah, it wasn't him.
Rebuilding our microchip manufacturing base is critical part of US national defense. Why in the world would Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson want to repeal the CHIPS act?
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-on-earth-does-trump-want-t...
It's associated with a member of the opposing party, so it must be opposed. Especially since it has a chance to be successful.
Similar situation with the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) - it was opposed not on its merits, but because it was from the opposing side.
The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage (as similar plans had been advocated for decades by various proponents), and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat). CHIPS seems much less divisive, though it seems stalled (at least based on recent statements by Intel and other CEOs).
> The Affordable Care Act came with a lot of baggage
Fake manufactured baggage. Even if you think the ACA was a terrible idea and bad policy the fact is Republicans opposed it entirely out of spite and worked to repeal parts of it for the same reason. It had nothing to do with a rational approach to public policy.
The modern conservative movement has only two policies: no regulation (You Can't Tell Me What to Do Dad) and no taxes (Screw You, I Got Mine). Solving problems often requires regulation and money. Hence Republicans are incapable of solving most kinds of problems. A third leg, if one exists, is spitefully destroying anything that might demonstrate the government can do anything good or of value.
Anti-free market policies? Excellent because it reduces regulation. Hurt American competitiveness? Who cares, as long as I don't have to pay taxes.
I’m not debating whether the ACA was good policy; are you addressing anything in my post?
I would agree that all long-term political baggage is ‘fake’ and ‘manufactured’ in that it’s human-created.
> […] and President Obama was arrogant and dismissive of any need for Republican buy-in (telling them they could take a back seat).
That is not accurate:
> Not only were Republican senators deeply involved in the process up until its conclusion, but it's a cinch that the ACA might have become law months earlier if the Democrats, hoping for a bipartisan bill, hadn't spent enormous time and effort wooing GOP senators — only to find themselves gulled by false promises of cooperation. And unlike Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's semi-secret proceedings that involved only a handful of trusted colleagues, Obamacare, until the very end of the process, was open to public scrutiny.
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/01/set-health...
President Obama literally said the Republicans had to sit in the back seat: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4748375/user-clip-obama-tells...
Entire transcript of the clip:
> We feel a tap on our shoulder and we look back, and who is it? It's the Republicans. And they say "Huh, excuse me, we'd like the keys back." And we have to tell them "I'm sorry, you can't have the keys back if you don't know how to drive". If you want you can ride with us but you have to ride in the back seat.
Further context: Oct. 22, 2010, in Las Vegas on behalf of Sen. Harry Reid's re-election campaign.
As a sibling comment notes: the Democrats had the majority at the time and were in charge of setting the agenda ("had the keys").
Further, Obama was willing to give the GOP a (figurative) ride if they wanted and were heading in the same direction.
"If you want, you can ride with us, but you gotta sit in the back seat."
As in, "we have a majority so we drive the political clown-car. "
Surely HN of all spaces would understand why giving free money to Intel is a massive waste? Also if they genuinely need the money, they should be offering ownership in return.
Surely HN of all spaces would understand there are far more chip manufacturers than just Intel.
Do you have some secret intel? They make the best chips in the USA.
Yes, we should be giving that money to Boeing instead!
That is not fair. They did not actively kill hundreds of people.
They just waste some energy on suboptimal chips and business decisions.
China has a history of buying out its critics, and I do not doubt for a second that Donald Trump is for sale (notice how he changed his tune on TikTok?)
He changed his tune on electric vehicles after Musk started backing him.
Trump didn’t seem to disagree with the premise just the funding. His argument is that the US shouldn’t be funding it. His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.
> His strategy is to put tariffs on chip imports and foreign chip manufacturers would have to build US based plants on their own dime.
The counter-argument (FWIW):
> Tariffs are paid by the importer and not the exporter. The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) claims that tariffs would not cause fabs to be built in the US, due to the cost of the factories, which can run from $18bn to $27bn.
> "No tariff amount will equal the costs of ripping apart these investments and efficient supply chains that have enabled current US industry leadership," SIA said.
> It added: "Moreover, chip tariffs will drive away manufacturing in advanced sectors that rely on semiconductor technology, such as aerospace, AI, robotics, next-generation networks, and autonomous vehicles. If the cost of key inputs like semiconductors is too high, tech manufacturers will relocate out of the US, costing jobs and further eroding US manufacturing and technological competitiveness."
* https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/trump-bashes-chip...
Foreign chipmakers would not pay the tariff (contrary to what Trump thinks) but their US customers, and what incentive to the foreign chipmakers to make changes? They're getting the same money and it's not costing them a dime. And where else are US businesses going to go for the product?
Even if the exporters are not directly paying the tariffs, their chips will cost consumers more, reducing the demand. So no; they’re not getting the same money.
If you were talking about some discretionary thing, like magazines, I'd agree with you.
But customers don't buy chips, they buy stuff, and chips are in everything. There's the obvious (phones, tablets etc), but also everything else, like cars, washing machines, tvs, air fryers, plus more.
Clearly tarrifs drive (domestic) prices up, which will cause some level of inflation, but it will be across the board (not on "chips"). And clearly that will weaken demand.
But given global demand that will likely not be all that noticeable. Indeed it'll likely just result in US manufacturing being less competitive. Certainly it'll make US manufactured products more expensive on the world market.
Which likely leads to more American plants moving offshore, not onshore.
your premise is that nobody else would by chips from them if the US demand lowered. I don't buy into that premise.
Lol, yeah. They will not do that.
There's been many complaints about DEI requirements in the CHIPS Act. Given that DEI is a favorite right-wing talking point, amendment or repeal+replace might be likely, but I doubt it would be scrapped altogether.