Eric Schmidt Urges US To Lean On TSMC, Samsung For Chip Security (indianexpress.com) 55
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Indian Express: The US should do more to attract overseas chipmakers to build plants on its territory as a matter of national security, former Google chief Eric Schmidt wrote in an opinion piece published Monday.
Pointing to China's accelerating investment in chip fabrication technology and capacity, Schmidt urged the US to reduce its dependence on Taiwan and South Korea for the most advanced semiconductors powering everything from smartphones to ballistic missiles and build out its own capabilities. Instead, it should be incentivizing national champions Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Samsung Electronics Co. to partner with US chip designers and build more on US soil, he said.
International relations scholar Graham Allison, who shares the byline on the Wall Street Journal article with Schmidt, previously warned that the US and China could be on a path to war that neither country wants. The two men set out policy recommendations for improving American competitiveness in the chipmaking race so as to avoid a drastic imbalance between the two superpowers. "If Beijing develops durable advantages across the semiconductor supply chain, it would generate breakthroughs in foundational technologies that the U.S. cannot match," they wrote. "The U.S. can't spend its way out of this predicament."
In addition to President Joe Biden's proposed $52 billion investment plan -- which is still under consideration by US legislators -- the US should lean into its strengths of research and development, manufacturing less-advanced but more widely used slower chips through the likes of Intel Corp. and GlobalFoundries Inc., and redouble its efforts to bring TSMC and Samsung on shore. Both Asian companies are constructing fabs in the US, but Schmidt and Allison's message is that more needs to be done to ensure long-term US prosperity. "America is on the verge of losing the chip competition," they said, urging that "the U.S. government mobilizes a national effort similar to the one that created the technologies that won World War II."
International relations scholar Graham Allison, who shares the byline on the Wall Street Journal article with Schmidt, previously warned that the US and China could be on a path to war that neither country wants. The two men set out policy recommendations for improving American competitiveness in the chipmaking race so as to avoid a drastic imbalance between the two superpowers. "If Beijing develops durable advantages across the semiconductor supply chain, it would generate breakthroughs in foundational technologies that the U.S. cannot match," they wrote. "The U.S. can't spend its way out of this predicament."
In addition to President Joe Biden's proposed $52 billion investment plan -- which is still under consideration by US legislators -- the US should lean into its strengths of research and development, manufacturing less-advanced but more widely used slower chips through the likes of Intel Corp. and GlobalFoundries Inc., and redouble its efforts to bring TSMC and Samsung on shore. Both Asian companies are constructing fabs in the US, but Schmidt and Allison's message is that more needs to be done to ensure long-term US prosperity. "America is on the verge of losing the chip competition," they said, urging that "the U.S. government mobilizes a national effort similar to the one that created the technologies that won World War II."
Chip security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly why TSMC is looking to build in other countries, including the US.
It's going to be a tough road with so much talent and resources offshored. The whole supply chain is outside of Western control. Oops.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean the opposite. If TSMC no longer has to rely on Taiwan. Taiwan no longer is important enough to protect.
Re:Chip security? (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean the opposite. If TSMC no longer has to rely on Taiwan. Taiwan no longer is important enough to protect.
Parent got modded troll for telling the truth. It is the US forcing TSMC to build fabs in the US, TSMC themselves have no desire to do so.
TW themselves called TSMC their protector, it gives more reason for the US to come to TW's defence. If TSMC had their most advanced fabs built in the US, losing TW become no big deal for the US. So forcing TSMC to move their fabs to the US is actually the first step for the US to sell out TW.
You could see these sentiment from TW media, so you can hard claim this is CCP propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC is building a high end fab in Japan. Rumour has it they are considered an emergency plan to relocate the company in the event of an invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
"TSMC themselves have no desire to do so."
TSMC is already building a fab in the US.
Re: (Score:1)
In other words (Score:4, Interesting)
He wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for these multi-billion dollar companies, who are making money hand over fist, to build chip fabs in the U.S.
Hey Eric, how much money are you going to personally contribute toward these plants?
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean if we are in economic war than it's probably a good idea for the government to get involved for domestic capability like they did with the Heavy Press Program [wikipedia.org].
Of course like that program the US should own the assets and lease them to domestic companies. Own the fabs, don't just give the cash to corporations. This is not about matching or even really competing with the likes of TSMC, they are there to assure domestic capability and capacity. Call it national defense.
Re: (Score:3)
< Insert something politically whiny about government owning a means to production, while totally ignoring the Army Corp of Engineers >
I'm with you, though. Sometimes the government just needs to build the thing, and if that's going to be the case then then American people deserve to benefit directly -- instead of simply being shaken down for money in the name of corporate welfare, which we've done too many times already in recent past.
Re: (Score:3)
Last I checked, the Army Corps of Engineers was not a private company earning billions of dollars every three months.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, that's exactly the point.
Some people like to complain that government creating chip manufacturing infrastructure is a "means of production" and that it should be avoided because that's evil communism. Meanwhile, they complete ignore the fact that the Army Corp of Engineers regularly performs massive feats of civil engineering, but they fail to complain that doing so is robbing the economy/GDP of potential profits (even though business has no interest in performing that sort of social charity).
I'm just
Re: (Score:2)
I might add a 3rd option in terms of having a regulated but indepedent agency similar to the Post Office.
I would also love to see a modern version of the Public Works Administration [wikipedia.org] to build out projects like this.
Private goods vs public goods (Score:2)
Anyone who complained about the Army Corp of Engineers would be missing a fundamental understanding of economics. Maybe that's why you don't see people complaining about that.
There are two types of goods, public goods and private goods. Private goods are by their nature competitive, a given car can be used by one family at a time. A kitchen table is a private good. If you build a table, either you can use it or I can use it; we don't both use the same kitchen table.
Public goods are by their nature used by s
Re: In other words (Score:1)
Whenever the government does something, it will always be overpriced and underdeliver. The army corps of engineers can do great feats, as can any army that puts their mind to it, but they are still woefully inefficient overall when they do that. They are trained to build things that have to carry a tank over a river, and then get blown up completely. They built tons of bridges in WW2 Europe, none of them stand to date.
Re: (Score:2)
They are trained to build things that have to carry a tank over a river, and then get blown up completely. They built tons of bridges in WW2 Europe, none of them stand to date.
Tank bridges? Sure maybe.
They also build and manage longstanding civil projects, like levees, flood management, shipping lanes and ports, etc: https://www.usace.army.mil/Mis... [army.mil]
Re: (Score:2)
Army Corps of Engineers built the bridges connecting Massachusetts to Cape Cod. Damn fine piece of work, those, and I expect my children's children's children will be driving over them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, I wonder if the parent confused the Army Corp of Engineers with Seabees, which are literally hot combat zone constructionists. Definitely a different animal.
Re: (Score:2)
Related Slashdot link [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for these multi-billion dollar companies, who are making money hand over fist, to build chip fabs in the U.S.
The chip fabs are making money hand over fist by building in Taiwan and China, because that keeps their costs down. He wants taxpayers to pick up (part of) the tab so they can remain competitive while building out in the US, all of which serves our strategic interests. Not all subsidies are handouts.
Hey Eric, how much money are you going to personally contribute toward these plants?
None, why would he? He's in the business of making money, not securing the country's supply chain.
Re: In other words (Score:1)
Perhaps if the US was competitive overall to business, business would have no reason to go over there. The problem is not that the US government has to fund particular business, they just have to set up a corporate climate that would make it more attractive to build here than China. China is slowly learning that lesson as well, once you start mandating companies to do your bidding, raise taxes and regulation, they leave.
Re: (Score:2)
He wants the taxpayers to pick up the tab for these multi-billion dollar companies, who are making money hand over fist, to build chip fabs in the U.S.
Of course he does, and it makes sense to do so. National security as well as production security is a matter of government. Policy can either be enacted through incentives or tariffs. Companies are not going to voluntarily forgo profits. Without a government / tax payer involved there will be no local production, that's the basics of supply and demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't short of cash. Google could partner with TSMC to build fabs in the US. It's the experience and knowledge that TSMC has that is the issue, not the cash.
OK, Schmidt. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, we should totally listen to the guy that was "adult supervision" while Google was "growing up", and clearly was a shitty "parent" given how Google has turned out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of amazing how quickly the management class can mess up companies, just by joining. I've seen it again and again.
Re: OK, Schmidt. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How they turned out? You mean "basically a money printing operation?" In what world do ypu imagine them to be a failure lol?
They turned into a total Privacy Rapist, which is how they became a "money printing operation" by raping people's data lol!
Re: (Score:3)
and clearly was a shitty "parent" given how Google has turned out.
How did Google turn out? An all American company which has most employees based in the USA, holds most data and core R&D in the USA? Sounds like Google turned out great in the context of what is being discussed.
Context is important. Just because someone beats their wife, doesn't mean they may not be a legitimate source of information on fighting zombies.
Maybe separate your hate for what you think Google should be from the discussion for a moment. Talk with your brain, not your feelings. Stop with the ad
Re: (Score:2)
How did Google turn out? An all American company which has most employees based in the USA, holds most data and core R&D in the USA?
They turned into a total Privacy Rapist, which is how they got all that data that you're so totally enamoured with.
Re: (Score:2)
They turned into a total Privacy Rapist
So something completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand? Anyway time to take the kids to school. The little one is grumpy today. Why do I tell you this? Because it's completely irrelevant and off topic, and you clearly like that sort of conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta take mine to school too; Advil can help with grumpiness, since they might have a headache - mine's affected by strong winds sometimes.
Of course, might also be caused by how grumpy you are with them, since you seem to be overly triggered by minutiae in your life...
Translation (Score:2)
Eric Schmidt, in an attempt to stay relevant, spouts off on a topic everybody already knows about.
Eric Schmidt (Score:2)
I advise everyone to not listen to Eric Schmidt, if they want to hear wisdom. Schmidt is a middle manager who got promoted too high. Peter principle, etc.
How's globalization workin' fer ya now? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I get it - some form of globalization was desirable, necessary, and inevitable. But have we learned nothing about the perils of extreme specialization and single points of failure, AKA "all your eggs in one basket"?
Redundancy is an expensive-but-necessary component of fail-safe. It's good to offshore some parts of some capabilities, but letting local capability and expertise decay and disappear just because "it's available elsewhere cheaper" was short-sighted. Now the consequences are being felt.
I really hope government and industry get religion about the rest of the vulnerable supply chains before we get blindsided and burned again in some other key industry.
Re: (Score:2)
We could not even manufacture masks or covid tests in any kind of scalable fashion. I'm still astounded by the single-point-of-failure baby formula factory - we can't even manufacture sufficient baby formula for the nation. So forget about chips.
Consolidation, oligopoly, loss of competition, offshoring of technology and manufacturing has made a small group of people (and politicians [ballotpedia.org]) very wealthy.
Instead we get an economy focused on outsourcing, printing money and buying and selling virtual (financial) prod
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with.
Optimizing only for "profit" (a nicer word for greed or self interest), has left resilience by the way side, along with solidarity with the rest of humanity, sustainability and common human decency.
Its time to realize when you accept the market on faith... and neglect the other variables that drive history its only a matter of time before you're on the losing side of history.
Climate change, COVID-19 and other large unforeseen challenges will test the r
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt globalization of chip making really matters in the event of war. Chip making factories are extremely sensitive. Even a single conventional bomb would likely take it off line for a while. In short, it really wouldn't be possible to protect a foundry in a modern war. If a war was at all serious, they'd probably be at the top of the target list and trivial to hit. Only something crazy like maintaining years worth of buried chip supplies might protect against that. The reason it would be crazy is you'd
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt globalization of chip making really matters in the event of war. Chip making factories are extremely sensitive.
That's true, but the number of chips already on shelves and locally available could matter a hell of a lot. I see globalization as being closely related to schemes such as Just-In-Time delivery. When you lean things out that much, either through globalization or be not keeping stocks of parts, there's no buffer to tide you over in hard times.
With only 330 million people, we can't really justify many critical production capabilities on our own. Foundries for things like displays really need a larger customer base than that.
It's not that we "can't" justify it, we simply "won't". Security comes with a cost, whether it's in higher prices for lower volume production, or more inconvenient proc
Sure, local fabs are good... (Score:2)
But, any incentives given to TSMC and Samsung would have to be balanced against the support for foundry capacity Intel is *already* building in the US. I mean, give preference where it is due, really.
Providing some incentives for making fabs here is a good idea, just make sure that all the chips just don't go right back to China to help ill up those containers on the return journey. Of course, this means bringing more of the device manufacturing local to the US (and EU) as well and that's more complicated.
T
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, I'd rather just see improved investment in academic research to find the next set of improvements and breakthroughs around all aspects of chip making and the software that runs on it.
Without actual production, research can only get you so far. So a balance must be struck, since so-called breakthroughs can't always answer the short- and medium-term technological needs of a country. Often these require the evolutionary development that only come with finding solutions to the problems of large-scale production. For comparison, BEVs wouldn't have advanced to their present state of development if not for the attempts of Tesla and other companies to mass produce them.
Another failure of sanctions (Score:1)
At a governmental level, China only began to think about domestic chip production when the US sanctioned the supply of fab equipment to a Chinese business. Being China, instead of whining about it, the government set up three dedicated Institutes of Technology with one brief: Build from the ground up a full stack of 100% domestic IP for large scale chip fabrication.
China started many generations behind the then state-of-the-art, but now they're only two generations behind. Projections are that in three y
Put up or shut up (Score:3)
Eric "the mouth" Schmidt should put his money where his mouth is.
Taiwan is booming (Score:3, Interesting)
The Nikkei, the world's largest financial newspaper, recently did an investigation on all semiconductor fab construction sites in Taiwan, and found that Taiwan has just quietly launched the largest semiconductor expansion in human history, building over 20 megasized next-gen fabs at the same time, investing 5 times more than South Korea, 10 times more than China, and 15 times more than the USA and EU.
TSMC is building a plant in Arizona (Score:2)
Taiwan is outsourcing a high-tech factory to the US, specifically to Arizona. Kind of ironic, given that things were the other way around a couple of decades ago. But the truth is: no US chip manufacturer is anywhere near TSMC in terms of technology. Intel is trying to catch up, after resting on their laurels for way too long...
Also amusing: TSMC is having some troubles with work culture in Arizona. Americans apparently don't like working as hard as the Taiwanese.
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem is that apparently Americans are not as smart as Taiwanese, either, which is why TSMC leads Intel. US needs to subsidize not only the plant, but encourage TSMC to staff it with Taiwanese. Not great for American workers, but oh well.
Well, at least one (Score:2)
Well, we have now established that there is at least one intelligent person in the US.