>If they really want to, they can just limit the export of ASML machines only to companies that have a fab here in the EU.
LOL
This would devastate the world economy. Gl getting chips for phones, computers, satellites...
LOL
This would devastate the world economy. Gl getting chips for phones, computers, satellites...
There's only a handful of companies in the world producing chips at scale, so it wouldn't be too out of the question.
You could even invite the Chinese to put their fabs in the EU so that they get a chip sector they control but also make them a bit more dependent on the EU, in stead of the EU on China.
But hey, we can also just handover €30 billion of taxpayer money to TSMC and Intel, I guess.
Don't think you have any idea how complex it is to both set up the fabs and run them. Are you gonna fly half of Taiwan to run these fabs here? How long do you think this process is going to take?
I would think this would all happen the same way it would happen if we lured the companies here with €30 billion.
Data centers already work that way - the economic value of the physical building is quite small because all the actual moneymaking can be done by an office full of software engineers in san Fransisco.
It's time to stop talking about things you don't know anything about.
Comparing a server to an ASML litography machine...
> Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) was supposed to have its first Arizona chip factory operational by late 2024 but now has confirmed significant delays. Primarily due to a shortage of technical workers with critical expertise in the US, TSMC projects to finish construction instead by 2025.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/tsmc-delays-us-c...
So they're simply doing both.
Furthermore, the EU is more expensive than other countries because we have stricter environmental standards and our people don't want to work 50+ hours a week as many in Asia do.
Letting Asian countries simply undercut your own homegrown companies because of these two (dis)advantages seems shortsighted.
This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to. Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality, employee welfare, or environmental impact.
At the cost of seeing people take advantage of the opportunity to add value for their customers.
> This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to
It's not what it comes down to. Someone in the market for the cheapest smartphone possible won't buy a $10 phone even though it's cheaper than the next alternative, because quality also matters. Or at least, value for money matters.
> Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality
Someone might be willing to offer something cheaper, but thanks to the free market, that option will only be popular if people believe it's good value for money and buy it.
> employee welfare
This is mostly a competition issue. If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers.
> or environmental impact
This happens in all types of agreements. The limiter on non-free market countries for environmental impact isn't ethics, it's inefficiency. Only regulations can solve this.
> If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers.
Employees working in a manufacturing facilities in e.g. China and Europe aren't competing for the same jobs. There's one set of standards for employees there, and there's another set of standards for employees here.
We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. [1]
What can we do other than add protectionist rules?
> Only regulations can solve this.
Agreed. And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet.
I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker protections. There are lots of reasons. E.g. there's load more investment capital available in the US; that's not due to Chinese labour laws.
> What can we do other than add protectionist rules?
Worker protection isn't the same as protectionism.
> And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet
Much tighter, more specific rules though. Not "free markets bad so protectionism". Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban.
> Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban.
And how do you propose we enforce that against untrustworthy or even hostile governments that have a history of covering things up and a vested interest to do it again?
What about the US? If 75% of Intel's fabbing is done in the US, that should show us something. An EU-based company that sent 25% of its fabbing off to China would also be much better than protectionist laws. Why can't it be made?
US government had to introduce very similar incentives and decided to just hand out dozens of billions of dollars to get them to move production back home, which is arguably worse than what you're criticizing the EU for.
I'm talking about Intel doing manufacturing in the US.
> I don't know where they currently stand but Intel used to produce the vast majority of their chips in Asia.
Can you cite this? E.g. Intel seems to have said something quite different in this press report[0].
> US government had to introduce very similar incentives and decided to just hand out dozens of billions of dollars to get them to move production back home
Can you cite this?
> which is arguably worse than what you're criticizing the EU for
Anything is arguable. It's also arguable it's better. I think it's better, personally.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20110302101731/http://newsroom.i...
How is it like celebrating that?