Hacker News Reader

Comment by Epa095 | Hacker News Reader

I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism. It was, from the beginning, a project of the Taiwanese state, and without significant public influence there is no way it would have become what it is. Are the EU laws what's needed? IDK. But without a proper public industrial policy besides "low taxes and few regulations" there is no way Europe will be able to get significant semiconductor-production up, the rich-get-richer phenomenon is just to strong.

View on HN

I think the point is that laws alone mean nothing. As you note, Taiwan was more active than just having commissions and signing papers.

Airbus proves the EU can do this. It remains to be seen if they still have the ability to take constructive action, or if “add more bureaucracy” is the only tool remaining in the toolbox.

> Airbus proves the EU can do this

*could.

Airbus has been grandfathered into the current legal situation. Today a future Airbus would not be able to even start collecting data for its initial Environmental Impact Study.

> Airbus proves the EU can do this

And Boeing's rampant carelessness proves European laws can be beneficial. "Hurr durr, how about them European laws" is a low-effort comment that adds nothing to the discussions.

The argument that a slack regulatory environment is sufficient was disproven when the US government subsidized new fabs via the CHIPS Act (a new law!), and then went further and partially nationalized a failing Intel to prop it up.

I’ve seen someone explaining why it’s not as easy with semiconductors: Airbus can spread several different factories for different components around the EU. For semiconductors that’s not as feasible. Thus countries would fight which one would have the semiconductors factory. I think it was more or less this argument, which seems to make sense.

But why one factory? TSMC has fabs in Taiwan, China, Japan, and the US.

And there’s a supply chain, with packaging often separate from fab.

It seems like a reasonable objection but not a showstopper.

Another interesting fact is that Che-Chia Wei (the man who made TSMC what it is) received zero equity. Everything he has he bought himself at the market rate.

Don't you mean Morris Chang/張忠謀? He was the founder. Also, this near-meme level phrase "received zero equity" is meaningless when you are paying senior executives millions per year. They just buy shares with their earnings. He was one of the highest (if not highest) paid executive in Taiwan for more than a decade.

You're right - I was a little too fast looking it up. I was basing it off of the interview for the Acquired podcast which was awesome.

Hat tip for the Acquired podcast episode reference.

For those unaware, Mo Chang rarely gives interviews, let alone to English language media. This Acquired podcast episode is pretty incredible: https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/tsmc-founder-morris-chang

It was, from the beginning, a project of the Taiwanese state, and without significant public influence there is no way it would have become what it is.

Fun fact in this context: (Dutch) Philips was a major initial investor in TSMC (both in money and IP):

Only Philips was willing to sign a joint venture contract with Taiwan to put up $58 million, transfer its production technology, and license intellectual property in exchange for a 27.6 percent stake in TSMC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSMC#History

> I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism.

Nobody said that. That is a strawman

Reply on news.ycombinator.com