Comment by palmotea
8 hours ago
That's over-optimistic.
> Why do you think the US has encouraged TSMC foundries, now inside Arizona ? It's obviously to protect against the scenario that China takes Taiwan. In that case, give it 6 months or less for US TSMC foundries to produce the finest.
American business culture works pretty strongly against "give it 6 months or less for US TSMC foundries to produce the finest."
I think it's most likely those fabs will stagnate and the American MBAs running them will just milk them for short-term profits. Why invest in technology when you can buy back shares? After all, your only goal is number-go-up.
> China taking Taiwan will likely not result in the CCP getting any technology, certainly Taiwanese have "contingency plans" to vaporize all tech in the event they are invaded.
Not necessarily. Technology isn't so much the machines, it's the know-how. TMSC employees will still need jobs, post invasion, and I'm sure China will pay them very well. Some fraction will go to work for Chinese fabs, and teach them TMSC's tricks and knowledge.
>American business culture works pretty strongly against "give it 6 months or less for US TSMC foundries to produce the finest."
>I think it's most likely those fabs will stagnate and the American MBAs running them will just milk them for short-term profits. Why invest in technology when you can buy back shares? After all, your only goal is number-go-up.
The same American business culture that produced Apple/Amazon/Alphabet/Microsoft/Meta/Tesla/etc? They seem to invest quite a bit in "technology".
> The same American business culture that produced Apple/Amazon/Alphabet/Microsoft/Meta/Tesla/etc? They seem to invest quite a bit in "technology".
Yeah. There can be sparks of innovation, but the overall trend seems to be squandering advantages for short term financial gains. And honestly, some of your examples aren't great: Telsa's probably going to lose to the likes of BYD (but for unusual leadership reasons); Microsoft seems to be losing former capability, which is reflected in many of its products (https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/windows-11/windows-...); and I don't think Meta has done much besides sell ads.
IIRC, Chinese companies, on the other hand, tend not actually make very much money for their investors.
The sentiment I was countering was that American businesses do not invest in technology, nor do American business leaders think about the long term, and the examples surely show that. Successful or not, and selling something detrimental or not, they do spend many, many billions of dollars on bets that may not pay out.
You can even look to pharmaceutical companies for American business that have development timelines measured in the decades and investments measured in the billions. These aren't plays that executives profit from in 6 months, or maybe even 60 months. Real estate development is another business where investment timelines are in the decades.
I don't know enough about Chinese businesses, but I assume I cannot compare the motivations of Chinese business leaders to American business leaders, as Chinese business leaders seem less free than American businesses to capture profits for their investors.
No, the same idiot MBAs that almost destroyed Intel and Boeing and General Electric.
There certainly are idiot MBAs (and non MBAs), and perhaps the ratio is too high in the USA, but based on the pre-eminent businesses in the USA, I wouldn't say it's "the" culture.
One of the reasons Intel failed and TSMC succeeded is because Intel was unwilling to pay what the other big tech companies were paying (and part of that pay is with RSUs which stock buybacks help offset). However, for workers in Taiwan, TSMC was the best option, so TSMC could pay less.
1 reply →