The CHIPS Act is popular, bipartisan, and a bad idea
thebulwark.com
thebulwark.com
To me, the author seems willing to use "second order effects" to bolster their argument but does not consider such effects that may cut against their argument. So, building American microchips signals to China that we have alternatives to Taiwan and therefore aren't as committed to Taiwan's defense. On the other hand, if America develops a credible alternative to Taiwan then maybe invading Taiwan isn't so attractive because you no longer take a crucial monopoly by the conquest.
The author also seems to assume that the US is, or should be, 100% committed to the defense of foreign nations. I don't really understand this. America's first priority should be America itself. We can meet that priority by bringing microchip manufacture onshore, so that if Taiwan is lost to us, we will not be ruined by a lack of microchips.
I also don't think it is guaranteed that America could defend Taiwan if push came to shove. We recently lost a two decade war against Afghanistan. Why are we so confident in our chances against China? Much better to have options, and to supply the Taiwanese with weapons, as in Ukraine, than to say we have "100% commitment" to the defense of Taiwan.
This doesn’t show how hard it would be for the US to defend Taiwan it shows how hard it would be for China to take Taiwan.
If not even the US can handle holding a country against a much less sophisticated adversary what chance does China have against Taiwan and the US
You need to remember as well the Chinese army hasn’t fought a war against a sophisticated adversary in a long time.
Additionally Taiwan is a island making it much harder to take. The buildup before the war be obvious.
Given the role China starts to have in electronics, if they want to start a war with the west they would start it by depriving us of chips that we would need for military equipment.
I don't really think Xi or the CCP seriously believes after hong-kong and US's reliance on China that there will be a war with the US directly. Just like with Russia there will be an economic war and proxy support by means of money and weapon sales to help taiwan defend itself. But if it faild and it gets invaded, america will not be liberating them from China.
Less reliance on China and Taiwan means more capability to wage a proxy war when the time comes so in a way this is good for Taiwan's defense as well. Regional allies are also better suited to in proxy or direct hostility against China if that will piss off uncle sam a little less.
Right now, the only thing preventing the US from economically onliterating China is its own addiction to Chinese goods. I disagree with most things Trumpian but his tariffs were the right direction.
Certain industries in addition to tariffs should have a lot more in tax burden specifically for not diversifying their supply chain outside of China (possibly with subsidies like the CHIPS act)
Wrong. As history shows the military exists to defend american interest not it's people. Sometimes that interest might also be to defend it's people, sometimes it might be a political calculation, sometimes a geopolitical one etc.
In any case they need people who are willing to die for it.
In the case of Taiwan I have to say the financial interest might be immense. If you think you have seen a chip shortage or supply chain disruptions, a war in Taiwan would show us an entirely new dimension of suffering.
It could already be catastrophic if one strategic fab in Taiwan would be destroyed. But a war?
Why would you send teenagers to die in a foreign land for "american interest", isn't that morally abhorrent?? Moreover, is it the will of the peope that soldiers die for american interests instead of defending americans and and the homeland?
I have not heard anyone outside of military-complex and politicians advocate for war for the sake of money. Isn't that why they lied about wmds in Iraq and lied about Vietnam as well(pentagon papers)?
Are you saying your government has consent to kill your people in an attempt to kill other people (including civilian collateral damage) for the sake of your economy?
I understand what has been happening in reality but I assumed given we just pulled out of Afghanistan the apptetite for war, especially with a nuclear armed nation containing over half of humanity would not be acceptable even if they implemented naval blocades in the south china sea or invaded Japan let along Taiwan.
Do prosperity and autonomy lie in letting your industries wither and die, or get taken over by foreign countries?
At macro scale and longitudinally, the answer seems to be, "yes", at least regarding prosperity. Regarding autonomy, which country do you think enjoys more autonomy, the U.S. or North Korea? The latter enforces Juche as state ideology (i.e. self-reliance almost as a religion).
But what can be said generally about national economies (especially large, developed economies) doesn't necessarily apply to specific industries.
The US practiced plenty of protectionism to nurture its economy. And looking beyond the global exception of North Korea for a moment, China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, and indeed every advanced economy, did the same. Of course protectionism and self-reliance can be taken to a harmful extreme, but so can the opposite. Yet economists only warn about one, not both.
In this particular area, I feel the US is trying to regrow (rather than protect) it's asset, it's capability, and that's why congress realizes they needed to put down some money; to make it happen.
I wish this were merely protection. But alas, the US is in most areas non-competitve globally, with too big an obligation on the average & even below average corporation to make a not-cheap life liveable. Housing, healthcare, food, energy, all of it has gotten out of hand costly via ever deepening ever more exploitative privitization & now it just doesnt make sense to do industries here. Oops, mea culpa.
We have to pay companies extra to do work here. That's what this funding means, that's where we are. Because we dont support lur people, because we let private concerns take over without check.