[joshuacc]

How else do you propose to get a company to build a factory at your preferred location rather than theirs? Paying companies is the usual way to get them to do things.

The economic effects are important but secondary to the national security effects of having TSMC chip manufacturing on US soil.

[everdrive]

I agree with you, and am excited for TSMC fabs in the US. At the same time, I also wonder if this would lead to _less_ defense of Taiwan if we neuter its strategic importance by building those crucial fabs somewhere else. Mind you, this is not an argument against building them. It just makes me wonder what the other effects will be.

[WitCanStain]

US will still have plenty of reason to defend Taiwan, if only because it is a crucial part of America's containment strategy - China would have a much easier time operating in the Pacific if it controls Taiwan, and the US won't allow that. Further, if Taiwan falls a lot of countries will lose faith in America's ability to protect them from China which would thrust the entirety of South-East Asia into China's hands, also something the US can't afford. Though, with recent claims that China can build 1000 cruise missiles a day[0] it might not matter whether US defends them or not.

[0] https://asiatimes.com/2024/03/america-has-no-ukraine-plan-b-...

[ajmurmann]

Yes, Vivek famously already said during his campaign that he'd tell the CCP that we need a few years to catch up on chips and then they can have Taiwan. I'm sure other share this (IMO inhuman, deprived of any morality and allegiance to our liberal western alliance and any foresight) sentiment

[deskamess]

They have said they will not build the best and latest here in the US. Many of the fabless companies here in the US want access to that latest stuff and the US is vested in keeping that channel open for market/defense/security reasons.

The Chip Wars book is an excellent read and tells you us the supply chain is globally integrated. If we were to draw a country graph of technology dependence to create semiconductor technology T (tools, chips, etc) - well, there is no DAG. The defense department is not so happy to see all this free market sharing of essential technology going on as it benefits non-friendly nation(s).

The book also illustrated how behind Russia was/is with weapons technology and semiconductors in general (compared to the US).

[YetAnotherNick]

Being 2-3 years ahead in chip making(with other closing the gap over time) is not a defence against a potentially WW3 level event. Anyone who thinks millions of life is less important than few percentage increase in performance is delusional. I don't know how this discussion surfaces in HN so many times.

[baxtr]

At the end of the day it’s a trade-off decision. It’s probably cheaper to build highly subsidized factories in the States than to go to war over Taiwan.

[poidos]

I wish it could be an investment instead of just grants and loans. Could be a way to jumpstart a national sovereign wealth fund.

[JumpCrisscross]

> wish it could be an investment instead of just grants and loans

It’s much more cleanly done with loans.

[xyzzy4747]

I disagree. You don't want the government to own things because they would be slow and ineffective at corporate governance. It's better to simply subsidize and let the business owners make the important decisions.

[randomcarbloke]

it is an investment

[jellicle]

The USA - the most powerful and richest country in the world - could ... just ... build it.

[PierceJoy]

Isn’t that effectively what they’re doing? They’re using their riches to pay the people with the necessary institutional knowledge to build it in the USA.

[ecshafer]

The US really doesn't do things directly like that, at least not in the last 50 years. Maybe you could point to this and say its wrong, but going through a contractor or company is the way the government typically operates.

[analognoise]

I like this idea and think we should get back into federally building things too.

[stewx]

Another approach would be to apply tariffs to chips coming from adversary countries, until it becomes more economical to produce them in North America.

[jasode]

>Another approach would be to apply tariffs to chips coming from adversary countries,

But Taiwan isn't an adversary of the USA so why would tariffs be "another approach"?

[melling]

Taiwan isn’t an adversary.

That’s the problem we are trying to solve: Too many important chips are made there.

[ytch]

The Information Technology Agreement of WTO[1] eliminates taxes and tariffs for IT products, I'm not sure if chips belongs to this agreements?

[1] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dtt_e/dtt-ita_e.htm

[likeabbas]

That would increase costs for US consumers drastically in the interim 20 years it takes to get those fabs online