SiFive launched a chinese subsidiary (StarFive) in
2017/2018. And they just announced they were giving
designs for some of their high-end cores to Sophgo (a
company out of Beijing.) My guess is US administrators
want SiFive to apply for export licenses before they do
this again.
I pretty much agree w/ Bunnie on this one. I lived
through the Crypto(graphy) Wars of 90s and still have
my "Sink Clipper" poster around here somewhere. If US
companies are trying to sell products and services
based on technology they can't export, but foreign
countries can easily replicate, the only thing you're
doing is making them (US tech companies) operate at a
disadvantage.
If we were worried about foreign tech dominance, then
maybe we could do what foreign countries do:
a. Develop a national industrial policy.
b. Pay for kids to get EE degrees. (or hell, pay for
kids to get business or art degrees.)
c. Subsidize the chip manufacturing sector the same
way we subsidize farmers or petroleum marketers.
d. Force Samsung and TSMC (both foreign countries) to
form joint ventures with US firms where US
countries own at least 51% of the JV.
Claiming they can close the Pandora's Box of
semiconductor manufacturing knowledge this late in the
game makes them (US Lawmakers) look incompetent. If
they wanted to "save US chip manufacturing" they should
have done something in the 1970s when TI was building
manufacturing plants in Malaysia and Thailand.
Samsung and TSMC may be in foreign countries, but the key thing is both South Korea and Taiwan are very closely aligned with the United States for defense.
This concern is less about the chips being made here, but controlling the ability for enemy powers to get a hold of them. Consider that "bombing the TSMC facilities" has been considered a possible plan if Taiwan is invaded, because a key goal is ensuring China doesn't control that capability.
Do you trade with the enemy? That's a traitor's domain. Or they're rather competitors you are not happy with and scared that they beat you at the game? Get off you butt and do something productive then.
> Do you trade with the enemy? That's a traitor's domain. Or they're rather competitors you are not happy with and scared that they beat you at the game?
Both can be true at the same time, e.g. Europe buying gas and oil from Russia. Realpolitik is often very messy to navigate, not made easier by the fact that we have collectively decided to tie our fates to Russia (for cheap energy) and China (for cheap production) and that decision is coming back home with a vengeance.
If you are looking for traitors, start with those who thought "change by trade" in the 90s/early 00s was a good idea - and check their paychecks. At least here in Germany, we know that disgraced former Chancellor Schröder is a Russian asset (literally, he got a high-paid job for Rosneft, most likely as a thank-you for pushing through Nord Stream), unfortunately he was clever enough to never implicate himself in a criminally chargeable manner.
>"unfortunately he was clever enough to never implicate himself in a criminally chargeable manner."
This just confirms that they were not enemies. Enemies want to exterminate each other. And trading with the official enemy is a crime last time I checked. I do not think Germany or Russia wanted that. They're neither friends nor enemies, both just looking how to exploit each other.
As I understand it, the U.S. does not subsidize petroleum marketers, or at least not very much. Oil companies are generally taxed on net income after expenses and depreciation, same as all other businesses.
Plus depletion, which like depreciation reflects the value of an asset going down over time, making the company in question worth less than it would be otherwise, i.e. the book value is going down.
"Calculating the cost of U.S. subsidies for the fossil fuel industry is complex because the incentives stretch across the U.S. tax code, but estimates range from $10 to $50 billion per year."
"U.S. oil and gas subsidies include provisions ranging from incentives for domestic production, write-offs and deductions tied to foreign production and income, and approved accounting methods that can reduce the stated taxable value of assets."
"One specific U.S. tax break on domestic production, for example, called intangible drilling costs, allows producers to deduct a majority of their costs from drilling new wells. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan panel of Congress, has estimated that eliminating it could generate $13 billion for the public coffers over 10 years."
"Another, the percentage depletion tax break, which allows independent producers to recover development costs of declining oil gas and coal reserves, could generate about $12.9 billion in revenue over 10 years, according to the panel."
Whether tax deductions are subsidies or not depends on whether they are targeted at and benefit particular industries or special interests in a way that others do not qualify for.
