TSMC expects customers to pay more for chips fabbed overseas
theregister.com
theregister.com
Many companies have already cleared out of China as much as possible (Dell made it clear they wanted all supply out of China by 2024)...Taiwan is the next logical step.
You will start to see the term NCNT (No China, No Taiwan) used more and more...it's already part of many companies internal strategy and corporate planning. Similarly China has a "China for China" policy...where they want everything sold in China to be 100% made in China.
When you've got a strong industrial base AND a big local market then it becomes common sense both economically and strategically to nudge things in that direction
Also, as we see from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, drones and missiles are effective at taking out the world's second largest navy. Taiwan has very accurate and effective homegrown missiles [3]. China would need to amass a ton of ships which would be easily detected, staff them with only sons from families, and try to move them across a 100 mile straits while under the barrage of US/Japan/Taiwan missiles and drones.
Lastly, China is quickly transitioning to state run economy much like Soviet Union [4], which means innovations and growth will be gone forever, especially in tech industries.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....
[2] https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/global/frugal... https://www.scmp.com/economy/economic-indicators/article/325...
[3] https://www.eurasiantimes.com/taiwan-smashes-chinese-warship...
[4] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/China-s-favored-sta...
given trillion oil/gaz dollars pumped into war machine, and that after initial attack they now stuck fighting for some minor settlements for 2 years already against much weaker opponent, we can conclude they are effectively stopped, at least for now.
> I’m pretty sure China can take Taiwan if it wants to
Taiwan has a sea as defense line, which will be very hard to cross.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/china-supporti...
while Ukraine hasn't been taken over, their economy isn't exactly doing hot since everything is at risk of bombardment. Likewise, it's likely that even if Taiwan were not to immediately fall, that TSMC facilities would be damaged, and even if they weren't, it would be a major danger to ship anything out of Taiwanese ports; shipping out of Odesa has not been smooth sailing.
That doesn't mean the nations and corporations are right, but the world is reconfiguring as if they were either way.
2. Type in "Taiwan"
3. Type in "Ukraine"
4. Overlap them.
5. Go here: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php
6. Find China & Russia
7. Now find Taiwan & Ukraine.
8. Ratio China/Taiwan and Russia/Ukraine.
The only question is what costs more: taking Taiwan by force or developing Chinas own tech and watching TSMC go broke.
Also: quotation needed. Who and when said "the war would end in 3 days."?
most of those drones likely don't have enough range
> Also: quotation needed. Who and when said "the war would end in 3 days."?
it was some western intelligence/reports. But judging from tactics(send thousands of armored vehicles on key cities) it was indeed their plan.
China has state media, censorship, and there are some very loud voices that parrot what the party wants. I have the understanding that many Chinese see through a lot of the bullshit (and because of personal experience at that).
What there has been is more protests in china. From the white paper to recent wage protests. It's getting harder to cover over the dissatisfaction and people are being vocal. And the youth movement of lying flat is fascinating in light of the demographics.
The colapse there is going to be sudden, sharp and will impact the globe.
Rest of the world...doubt it.
>Although China has never made a full-blown attempt to seize Taiwan and dismantle its rival once and for all, fears of a Chinese invasion have increased in recent years, especially since Taiwan became an extremely important strategic asset thanks to TSMC's cutting-edge fabs.
Taiwan inevitably falls. Diversification out of taiwan and divestment of china toward smic will make taiwan's value to defend ever decreasing. China's analysts are looking at the cost-benefit and evaluating whether or not the world ultimately defends Taiwan or gives it up. November will be a big decider on this. https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/U.S.-elections-2024/Would-a...
China is suddenly wanting Trump to win, lets be realistic.
It's so hard a task that in World War II the Allied forces (with a ton more experience, and a far more favorable balance of power, chose to invade Okinawa instead, where the US "only" suffered forty eight thousand battlefield casualties. This was still a lot less than the projected causalities of attacking a ridiculously underdefended Taiwan.
The reason for TSMC to diversify is that Xi might be foolish enough to try this, and erratic and isolationist politicians in the US might fail to deter him. Taiwan doesn't have to fall for TSMC to gravely harm TSMC and the global economy, they merely have to start a war.
They are also a very non self-sufficient island in many forms of production, including food. If China wanted to attack Taiwan, they'd likely just carry out a naval blockade, and it'd probably be unstoppable. In WW2 this was not [regularly] possible, because blockades can take months to years to achieve victory. But when they can be done, they're relatively cheap and extremely effective.
But I doubt China wants a military solution, even if they are 100% certain they would be victorious - because that would not solve the underlying problem, and could even exasperate it. War will probably only happen if Taiwan declares its independence or starts pursuing nukes or relationships that would grant them defacto access to nukes, like e.g. joining NATO. And neither of those seems likely.
A blockade is one potential option that the PRC has, and it comes with risks and uncertainties. If your "probably" is genuinely modifying the "unstoppable" then we are only disagreeing about the odds, rather than about "inevitability"
But generally, I agree with your assessment that pursuing a military solution is not in China's interests.
But autocrats surrounded by yes men sometimes can mistake their interests, just as voters in democracies sometimes want really stupid things with bad consequences. The (hopefully) remote risk of war happening seems reasonable for TSMC and its customers to want to hedge against.
A tangent here, but I also think the distinction between autocracy and democracy, in this regard, is farcical. Voters don't decide to go to war, politicians do - and then they convince the average masses that they supported the war through endless propaganda, lies, and misrepresentations. When the endless propaganda ends, and people can see what they did, many will outright deny they ever supported the war. Polls in Iraq are the best example of such. Just at the start of the war, when the propaganda was at its peak, 72% of people supported the war - and more than 90% thought it likely we'd find WMD. Only 13% of people opposed the war. [2] Now modern polls shows a small minority claim to have ever supported the war - they are lying to themselves. There's enough naive individuals that we could turn Canada into the next great threat to the world, at least in the eyes of a US plurality, if we really wanted to.
[1] - https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/submarine...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...
Obviously I dont own a crystal ball and cannot predict the future but I stand by the prediction.
> China would have to take an inexperienced military and accomplish one of the hardest things imaginable, an amphibious invasion that can only happen in narrow time windows at handful of spots on an island that consists mostly of mountains, jungle and dense urban areas.
Oh for sure you're correct about the technical skill levels of the military, the losses will mount to insane levels. But they kind of need to drastically reduce their incel population.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/february/chi...
Their amphibious invasion fleet is literally being built right now. Confirmed via satellite imagery. They arent building these during an economic depression just for laughs.
>It's so hard a task that in World War II the Allied forces (with a ton more experience, and a far more favorable balance of power, chose to invade Okinawa instead, where the US "only" suffered forty eight thousand battlefield casualties. This was still a lot less than the projected causalities of attacking a ridiculously underdefended Taiwan.
Technology has greatly improved in the last 75 years. Lets not forget airborne as well.
Remember, Taiwan has no military alliances. Taiwan's total population is around 25 million.
China's PLA strength is probably in the 10 million or so area and I would never assert they are inexperienced. If we're talking inexperience, the incels they wish to shed, we're probably talking 100 million strength. Taiwan has literally no chance of defending against this.
>The reason for TSMC to diversify is that Xi might be foolish enough to try this, and erratic and isolationist politicians in the US might fail to deter him. Taiwan doesn't have to fall for TSMC to gravely harm TSMC and the global economy, they merely have to start a war.
The USA has withdrawn. TSMC makes up about 50% of the reasons, but realistically this isn't really about their economic strengths. This is about a unified china and Xi making the history books for a long time.
This has it backwards. Assuming China envisions a strong sphere of influence over Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific, which is a vision in conflict with the US sphere of influence over that region, their ability to manifest that vision directly benefit from conflicts that draw down US readiness.
How far they get to exploit that conflict depends on other factors, including who presides over the next US administration, but in respect to this long-term vision they're in a better position for there being a war in Ukraine than not and so are invested in making it longer and more treacherous for Europe. And you see exactly that in their interactions with Russia.
Letting China win won't give the US a microchip monopoly. It will give China a chance to talk to experts familiar with the state of the art.
China is telling people Trump will abandon Taiwan, and you believed their propaganda? Amazing how that works.
The last person China wants is Trump. Trump already said he would increase tariffs on China. He also said he would ban the sell of Chinese cars in the United States. Not to mention, he said he sanction China for selling weapons to Russia, which Biden hasn't done.
Gotta read that again; not propaganda. This isn't some straight forward meaning to their words.
>The last person China wants is Trump. Trump already said he would increase tariffs on China. He also said he would ban the sell of Chinese cars in the United States. Not to mention, he said he sanction China for selling weapons to Russia, which Biden hasn't done.
China is in a economic depression and probably going to be near its bottom by the end of the year. The fear of tariffs is far lower today and realistically not that necessary.
As I said though, 'suddenly' which essentially I agree with you, but it recently switched.
There is something seriously wrong with most people. You write things, and hope they are true. It is incredible. It's like Christians and other religious people. If I believe it, it will become reality.
Down 50% since covid started.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2023/08/20/china-s...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-13/china-s-e...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/15/china-is-grappling-with-a-co...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/20/china-too-b...
Though they are probably correct there's no soviet collapse coming, but collapse non-the-less.
Do you feel like these sources are sufficient? Or are they all incorrect?
Isnt it interesting that China's public numbers are always 5-7% growth no matter what?
>There is something seriously wrong with most people. You write things, and hope they are true. It is incredible. It's like Christians and other religious people. If I believe it, it will become reality.
It's also interesting how some resort to attacking people.
i suppose this is the state of the west now, where literally anything negative about russia or china is accepted without question?
[1] China’s exports tumble 7.5% in March and imports also fall as demand slows https://apnews.com/article/china-trade-exports-imports-b25c2...
Diversifying outside of Taiwan is for the benefit of the US and allies. As you mention, for Taiwan this is a bad strategic move but they have no choice but to comply.
> What matters a great deal more is India, Australia, Japan, and SK
China has no military interest in any of those. Taiwan is Chinese territory.
At most China might be interested in the part of historical Tibet that is now in India (and which it still claims) but realistically a war is no longer viable or realistic.
Taiwan can be a Chinese territory only according to the law "might is right".
For millenia, Taiwan has not been a Chinese territory.
Only during the last few centuries there has been a massive migration of Fujian Chinese into Taiwan that has altered its population.
Then after WWII Taiwan has been invaded by the Kuomintang, which has altered again the population of the island, so that now the non-Chinese native inhabitants have remained just a small minority.
Taiwan has been officially a territory belonging to mainland China only between 1683 and 1895, which is a rather weak basis for claiming that Taiwan is a Chinese territory, not much better than claiming that Alaska is a Russian territory.
If anything, this overstates the connection. Yes, there were ethnic Chinese settlers heading over to get paid by the Dutch, or to leave mainland China for a variety of reasons. With vague, intermittent interest/claims/activity from the court in response to fears about foreigners and internal enemies at a remote place near/in/at the frontier.
But as late as the Rover incident of 1867, where aboriginal people in Taiwan killed some US sailors, the Qing dynasty said to the US "Nope, that part of Taiwan, at least, has nothing to do was us, it's not our territory, take it up with them. Any de jure claim that Taiwan as a whole was effectively administered by mainland China would have to fall somewhere between 1867 and Taiwan being ceded to Japan in 1895.
>only according to the law "might is right".
And your:
>Any de jure claim that Taiwan as a whole was effectively administered by mainland China would have to fall somewhere between 1867 and Taiwan being ceded to Japan in 1895
Historic association has little bearing on "settled" international law and is useful justification in so much as determining whether something feels right or not according to whichever end of propaganda you subscribe to. TW is recognized as Chinese territory of the "One" China at UN according to UN (and vice versa with PRC as Chinese territory) post Resolution 2758... actual "international law" rule based order types like to wank about. This alone supercedes all the insipid recent rationales trying to delegitimize via historic association because it quite literally doesn't matter when in terms of international law, TW as Chinese (though not necessarily CCP) territory is legally clear, hence various pro-TW countries tries to square the circle of their foreign policy by adopting their domestic "One" China policies. But at the end of the day, UN is the international law framework most of the world operates around, and at UN there is One China represented by PRC post Resolution 2758, while also no ratification exist for armistic of the ongoing Chinese Civil War that either side can resume at any time.
Actual international law is why US has far flung territories they spent a few years on during WW2, and then became US possessions in the post war order. "History" has nothing to do with it. Being legally recognized at UN does, which is why US tried so hard to spike the deliberations with a US draft that tried to add ambiguities by enabling ROC to continue occupy UN functions to present ambiguity of 2 Chinas, but was ultimately rejected for the Albanian draft that kicked all ROC representation out. It's also why all the latest (failed) efforts by US think tanks trying to get TW UN representation is based off attacking Resolution 2758 instead of the equally DOA previous attacks on historic grounds. TW is Chinese territory because the international law already states it is. All online TW seperate country hur hur is strawman wanking pretending TW is not already legally Chinese territory according to international law and how it shouldn't be because history, when... it already is irregardless of history.
In any event, discussion of "historical associations" is of great interest to, for example, the PRC, even if you find it irrelevant. They natter on endlessly and untruthfully about Taiwan being a part of China since "ancient times". Sometime invoking mythical emperors from prehistory. Which feels a little odd coming from nominal Marxists, but hey, maybe fables fall under the category "socialism, but with Chinese characteristics"
Just because history is irrelevant to what you feel "actual international law" is, doesn't mean that other people share your narrow range of interests. It would seem equally, arbitrarily, narrow to discuss Palestine only in the context of whatever UN resolutions don't happen to be vetoed. But you do you.
Given that your actual beef seems to be with people in think tanks who disagree with your assessment of UN Resolution 2758, maybe you could go someplace else and argue with them:
https://www.gmfus.org/news/distortion-un-resolution-2758-and...
My beef are with arguments that sets up strawman arguments of why China has no/weak dejure argument for TW being part of China as if it's premised on TW is not ALREADY dejure recognized as part of China. Discussing unsettled Palestine status at UN with whatever context is sensible because it's not a settled question. VS TW being part China is ratified law with well understood historic basis, which makes efforts to portray it as not appear to be suspect and dishonest. I also highlighted these are old/well trod (failed) arguments that well funded think tanks already tried to carve more legitimacy for TW in international bodies, including by the folks at GMF who tried to push hard using historic arguments in their pior work at other organizations. So I'm also point out that assertion that "any dejure claim" based on history is false in existing international law context, it's also false in past/ongoing attempts to circumvent established Chinese dejure claims over TW context.
Please do provide a source, because I don't remember reading about Qing officials making any such remarks.
Of course, you might not want to buy an expensive book from a university press. But a there seem to be a range of googleable resources on the web that discuss this, for example, from the Harvard University Asia Center:
"After the wreck of the U.S.S. Rover in 1867, for example, the Chinese disclaimed accountability for the slaughter of the crew on the grounds that "the Americans were not murdered in Chinese territory, or on Chinese seas, but in a region occupied by savage tribes .... The savage region does not come within the limits of our jurisdiction. "
> After the wreck of the U.S.S. Rover in 1867 ... the Chinese disclaimed accountability for the slaughter of the crew ... on the grounds that "the Americans were not murdered in Chinese territory ..."
The phrase "the Chinese disclaimed accountability" suggests the Qing government made a public statement. But that interpretation comes from the US Consul in Xiamen who was quoting correspondence with the governor-general.[1] That official was soon to be corrected by the Qing's foreign minister on this very point.[2] Also the fuller contexts from [1] and [2] make clear that the Chinese side's main point is about jurisdiction. Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty oblige Qing only to punish offenses against Americans occurring "within the jurisdiction of the emperor, either on shore or at sea," and Qing did not consider the local tribes under their jurisdiction. Which is not a wholly unreasonable stance seeing as it is analogous to how neither India nor the US had any desire to pursue legal action or punitive measures against the Sentinalese for the murder of John Chau.
[1] 'In a correspondence with the U.S. Consul for Amoy, while he was conducting the negociations with the chief of the aborigines in 1867, for the adjustment of the Hover case, appears the following declaration, emanating from the governor of the Island himself: — "Articles 11 and 13 of the Treaty (between America and China) provide that within the jurisdiction of the EMPEROR, either on shore or at sea, any one who shall molest an American, shall be punished by the civil and military authorities to the best of their ability; but as, in the Rover case, the Americans were not murdered on Chinese territory or on Chinese seas, but in a region occupied by savage tribes, relief could not be asked for under the Treaty. Were it in our power to seize the murderers we would gladly do so, that the Chinese might keep friendly intercourse with foreigners. But the savage region does not come within the limit of our jurisdiction, &c., &c.,(t)"' (see p. 12 of https://ia903202.us.archive.org/17/items/IsAboriginalFormosa...)
[2] "In the spring of the seventh year (1868), Prince Gong, the Minister in charge of foreign affairs, wrote to the Governor of Fujian, stating that although the native tribes could not be punished by law, their land still belonged to China. Moreover, it was an important route for Western countries to travel to the South Seas. If it were still treated as a savage region, and if other countries harbored intentions of coveting it, claiming that people had abandoned it and they were taking it, and thus freely encroaching upon it, although the harm might not be immediate, it should still be planned for in advance." (https://ctext.org/wiki.pl?if=en&chapter=149754#:~:text=%E4%B...)
If I look at a world map from "millenia" ago, or even just 1683 then by your logic most of the world's countries are built on a "weak basis", often even weaker than that...
We all now the tricky political situation of Taiwan but sometimes some people seem to lose all sense of basic reality and facts about it.
This is not the case of a territory that a country controls now, even if it has occupied it only recently (e.g. like Tibet), when nobody can contest that they are not the owners of the territory, unless they would be willing to attack them, to change the current ownership of the territory by force.
This is the case of a territory that is not controlled by the country that desires to be its owner, and it has not been controlled by it since 1895. Despite that, they want to change the de facto ownership of the territory, which can be done only by force. The fact that some corrupt politicians from many countries have decided that de jure Taiwan should belong to China, without any grounds for this, so that they have given to China what was not theirs to give, is something as valid as the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, where Hitler, despite not being the owner of Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Romania, has nonetheless given them to Russia, or the Churchill-Roosevelt-Stalin accords, where Churchill and Roosevelt, despite not being the owners of Eastern Europe, have given it to Stalin.
There are other such cases where a country desires to become the owner of some territory, but they at least can justify their claims by the fact that the desired territory has actually belonged to them for a long time and it had been taken from them by force, so that it would be right for the territory to have its ownership reverted.
In this case such historical claims have little value, because Taiwan has become Chinese only recently and only by force, first during the Qing dynasty and then due to the Kuomintang invasion.
It's always fascinating the mental gymnastics people are able to do to build a fictional world that somehow fits a narrative.
Historically, it would be more accurate to say that China is Taiwanese territory ;)
> It would be in the mainland's interest to keep TSMC running as smoothly as possible, like they did in HK.
Well, maybe, but they surely would redirect the output to China instead of selling it worldwide. Which is why the US would rather nuke the TSMC factories themselves than let them fall into Chinese hands. So, no matter who wins a military conflict for Taiwan TSMC most likely gets nuked by the losing side.
The thing however is TSMC will suffer because once the US recognizes it as Chinese controlled territory, TSMC will be unable to buy EUV machines so their production will basically freeze at its current spot
TSMC fabs in Taiwan would NOT belong to TSMC after an invasion, except maybe in name only.
Anyone who believes otherwise is blind to reality.
This is frankly silly. Democracy has many issues, but that doesn't mean there's a cabal pulling strings behind choosing the candidates.
The above is the typical excuse of autocrats and dictators that want to discredit democracy, even though it's by far the best governance model compared to the nonsense they want.
Any military farting too loud in the vicinity of those machines and they don’t even freeze
Diversifying the fab locations has no profit or business motivation. Seems to me the only reason we are doing it is to make it "less risky" to start a trade war.
The problem is a trade war will never be "less risky" for any country than the kind of nice, harmonious, trade we've had with China for the past 25 years. Its kept U.S. inflation low, enabled massive technological and manufacturing advances, and has lifted hundreds of millions of people into the middle class.
Its one of the best things that's ever happened in history. Why are we so eager to throw all that away?
Frankly, instead of making it easier for everybody to pick a fight with each other, it would be better if we just remember the fact that we actually are friends.
I love being able to design a circuit board, hit a button and have it manufactured in China and delivered to my front door in 5 days for $25. Let's just all go back to making money hand over fist, what say?
It'd be calibrated support like we're seeing in Ukraine but no direct engagement.
This isn't the 1950's, and a proxy war with China now would be nothing like the Korean war.
It would be nothing like a proxy war with Russia either. China has an order of magnitude more people, and the amount of trade between the U.S. and China is stupendous. If that trade were to abruptly stop, the whole world would be plunged into a depression deeper and longer than anything the world has ever seen. Tens of millions would die, just from the economic dislocations alone.
Calibrated. Please don't try to minimize, contextualize, or legitimize any kind of war with China. We'd have to invent a new word, because "disastrous" or "cataclysmic" would even begin to describe it.
God forbid anything like what is happening in Ukraine ever happens anywhere in the world again. We are 1/4 through the 21st Century for chrissakes there's no reason we can't resolve these things by negotiation. Its time for the human race to grow up.
I mean, look, I'm not in favor of a shooting war between the US and China. But I'm not as sanguine as you are that it can't happen.
We're not talking about the first world war, we're talking about what would be the final world war. We can't be sanguine about it not happening, sure--we need to ensure it doesn't happen.
It would also be in the mainland's interests to not be engaging in a massive military build-up. Similar for quite a few major policies and behaviors which they've been indulging in for years now.
Perhaps the CCP is not a rational actor, at least as we might prefer to account such things?
Except any executive or employee not willing to bend the knee and gargle will be fired or perhaps a re-education retreat.