Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/trump-attacks-bipartisan-semiconductor-law-a-key-policy-achievement-for-biden.21325/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Trump Attacks Bipartisan Semiconductor Law, a Key Policy Achievement for Biden

tonyget

Well-known member
Trump Attacks Bipartisan Semiconductor Law, a Key Policy Achievement for Biden

Former President Donald J. Trump’s comments came during a nearly three-hour episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

Former President Donald J. Trump on Friday blasted the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan law aimed at reducing America’s reliance on Asia for semiconductors by providing billions in subsidies to encourage companies to manufacture more chips in the United States.

“That chip deal is so bad,” Mr. Trump said during a nearly three-hour episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “We put up billions of dollars for rich companies.”

Mr. Trump argued that the federal government could have imposed a series of tariffs to make chip manufacturers spend more of their own money to build plants in the United States. He also argued that the law would not make the “good companies” invest in the United States.

“You didn’t have to put up 10 cents,” Mr. Trump said. “You tariff it so high that they will come and build their chip companies for nothing.”

That argument does not take into account how reliant the United States is on foreign nations for chips, particularly those made in Taiwan. Semiconductors have become critical to the U.S. economy, given that they are used in everything from cars to weapons systems and computers. Yet only about 10 percent of the world’s semiconductors are produced in the United States, down from about 37 percent in 1990.

America’s heavy reliance on Taiwan’s semiconductors has been a growing source of concern among U.S. officials, given China’s ongoing threats to invade the self-governing island.

During the podcast episode, Mr. Trump criticized Taiwan, saying that “they stole our chip business.” And he compared its relationship with the United States to a mob-like protection racket.

“They want us to protect, and they want protection,” Mr. Trump said. “They don’t pay us money for the protection, you know? The mob makes you pay money, right?” He added, “When I see us paying a lot of money to have people build chips, that’s not the way.”

The goal of the CHIPS Act, which President Biden signed into law, is to ramp up the domestic supply of semiconductors. The law gave the Commerce Department $39 billion to distribute as grants and includes federal tax credits that could cover 25 percent of the cost of building and outfitting factories with production equipment.

The Biden administration has awarded more than $30 billion to companies so far, though the vast majority of the funding has not been distributed yet. All five of the world’s leading-edge semiconductor manufacturers have been promised funding, including Intel and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the leading maker of the most advanced microchips.

T.S.M.C. will receive up to $6.6 billion in grants to support the construction of its first major U.S. hub, in Phoenix. The company plans to spend more than $65 billion on the project, which is expected to create about 6,000 direct manufacturing jobs.

Officials from Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign criticized Mr. Trump’s remarks and argued that his policies would hurt U.S. manufacturing jobs.

“Donald Trump is threatening to defund and dismantle thousands of manufacturing jobs across the country with an agenda that is so much more extreme and unhinged than anything we saw in his first term,” Joseph Costello, a spokesman for the Harris campaign, said in a statement. “Vice President Harris will cut taxes and create opportunity to help the middle class get ahead.”

The Biden administration has also argued that the CHIPS Act is crucial for strengthening national security and building up a reliable supply of semiconductors. America’s reliance on foreign chips became a huge problem during the pandemic, when factories overseas shuttered to prevent the virus from spreading. Automakers and other companies were unable to get the chips they needed, which led to a surge in prices for cars and other products as demand far outpaced supply.

Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman with the Republican National Committee, defended Mr. Trump's comments.

“In his first term, President Trump lowered taxes for American manufacturers that produced goods in the U.S.A. and imposed tariffs to level the playing field for American companies,” she said. “There is a reason that tech leaders like Elon Musk are backing President Trump: They know that only he can end our dependence on foreign supply chains and restore America’s place as the manufacturing center of the world.”

 
Wow! Something I finally agree with Trump on in substance if not in execution. I can agree that the CHIPs act, as currently constructed, is a poor way to incentivize the semi industry. As to the idea of driving other companies to build here through tariffs, not so much.
 
I think the only reason Trump likes tariffs so much is that he believes as president he can impose them without congressional oversight or actions. I think he's apt to find that the originalists and textualists on the Supreme Court, some of whom he appointed, are unlikely to side with him on the ability of the president to impose such broad and sweeping tariffs without a national security argument.
 
I think the only reason Trump likes tariffs so much is that he believes as president he can impose them without congressional oversight or actions. I think he's apt to find that the originalists and textualists on the Supreme Court, some of whom he appointed, are unlikely to side with him on the ability of the president to impose such broad and sweeping tariffs without a national security argument.
Well, it is bipartisan now.

I think that reason why Trump went with tariffs is partly consequence of his initial tax cut... And in general his voter base likes this combination.

Btw. what do You think about Harris's plan of unrealized capital gain tax, tax increases in general and combination of price controls with increases in minimum wage?
 
I'm a big fan of free trade for peace and (humanity) prosperity reasons..

But he is correct that the US does subsidize the economies of other countires (and their companies) like Taiwan by ensuring their security and ability to trade. (See Bretton Woods agreement).

FWIW, Many/most/all of the Trump tariffs of 2016-2020 were extended by the current administration, and in some cases added on to -- so I don't see the US backing down from increasing tariffs regardless of who is elected.
 
Btw. what do You think about unrealized capital gain tax,
This will fundamentally break the US economy. When" the Rich" go to sell their stocks to pay for these unrealized gains, far more in value will be lost in capitalization -- hurting the businesses on the stock market and anyone with a 401K, Mutual Fund, etc. The ability to raise capital for new enterprise will be permanently reduced too, or at least very expensive to achieve.

I won't respond further on this topic because I agree with Blueone's recommendation, but this one idea (unrealized gains - championed by many) is too deep for me not to bite.
 
I'm a big fan of free trade for peace and (humanity) prosperity reasons..

But he is correct that the US does subsidize the economies of other countires (and their companies) like Taiwan by ensuring their security and ability to trade. (See Bretton Woods agreement).

FWIW, Many/most/all of the Trump tariffs of 2016-2020 were extended by the current administration, and in some cases added on to -- so I don't see the US backing down from increasing tariffs regardless of who is elected.

To put high tariffs on foreign made semiconductor products will not work due to several flaws of such policy. Intel will be the first company to oppose it. Can we imagine Intel needs to pay high tariffs for importing chips made by Intel Ireland and Intel Israel?
 
As to the idea of driving other companies to build here through tariffs, not so much.
You don’t get much of a choice with Trump. He’s only got a single solution to everything right now - keep everything in the global world outside the US using tariffs, walls and deportation, and we‘ll all go back in time to that fuzzily-defined period when “America was great”. Let’s also remember that of the 4 or so non-Trump deals he claimed he would tear up and secure a signature “replacement better deal“ for, he failed to even tear one up (ACA), let alone replace it, tore up 2 and never replaced (Iran and China), and only barely managed to replace an expiring a NAFTA with essentially a NAFTA2. And don’t get me started on his landmark “Eighth Wonder of the World“ manufacturing plant “deal” in Wisconsin back in 2017.
 
The good news is that the semiconductor industry continues to be front page news, the bad news is that semiconductors are now a political football.

I spoke with a CHIPs Acts friend yesterday, he is leaving his Director position with the DOC and coming back to Silicon Valley so he spoke a little more freely.

Personally I am a fan of the CHIPs Act. I have paid taxes for the past 40 years as a semiconductor professional and am in favor of the US investing money into the semiconductor ecosystem. I have never been a fan of the US tax system and feel it is filled with irresponsible spending in the many trillions of dollars. I do not feel the CHIPS Act is irresponsible spending based on the US tax spending metric. It is not a perfect program but I feel it is a strong step forward in bringing the semiconductor manufacturing ecosystem back to the US. I am not a fan of tariffs but that is above my pay grade. I do not, however, feel it is one or another, there could be a balance.

And yes please keep this conversation focused on semiconductors. We do not allow political stuff on SemiWiki so I will be editing this thread accordingly.
 
Tariffs on chips are more complex than they seem. Are they on wafers, chips, or products like laptops and iPhones that contain them? What about AI servers chips made in Taiwan but AI system assembled in Mexico, or Intel chips packaged in Malaysia for laptops made in Vietnam?
 
Last edited:
To put high tariffs on foreign made semiconductor products will not work due to several flaws of such policy. Intel will be the first company to oppose it. Can we imagine Intel needs to pay high tariffs for importing chips made by Intel Ireland and Intel Israel?
Completely agree, btw.

I was just pointing out that the US's post WW2 arrangement effectively subsidizes trading between nations. The US corporations have to pay taxes to support the US military that handles policing the worlds oceans -- non-US corporations do not have to pay any taxes to support this arrangement. Of course the US sees a ton of other benefits from this arrangement too.
 
This will fundamentally break the US economy. When" the Rich" go to sell their stocks to pay for these unrealized gains, far more in value will be lost in capitalization -- hurting the businesses on the stock market and anyone with a 401K, Mutual Fund, etc. The ability to raise capital for new enterprise will be permanently reduced too, or at least very expensive to achieve.

I won't respond further on this topic because I agree with Blueone's recommendation, but this one idea (unrealized gains - championed by many) is too deep for me not to bite.
The simple solution to this is to only make it taxable if it’s used as collateral to make another purchase. Seems odd you can use something’s unrealized value for that purpose but say the gain isn’t realized.
 
If the Chips Act is put on hold in certain form, it probably okay for TSMC's Arizona fabs. TSMC can raise the price to offset it even if it's not 100% .

But it can be a devastating situation for Intel.
Johnston referred to the Green New Deal part of the CHIPS Act that needs to be re-examined. If there were tariffs, how would that affect TSMC's pricing?
 
Johnston referred to the Green New Deal part of the CHIPS Act that needs to be re-examined. If there were tariffs, how would that affect TSMC's pricing?

Please see my post:

 
Back
Top