I believe you, but one of my basic beliefs is everyone is pushing something. I do not think you will find an intelligent person alive who would argue with the fact that all U.S. publications are inherently biased towards the U.S. That is what I based my comment off of.
IMO, Intel is ahead of China in some ways while it's behind in other ways. As severely critical of Intel as I have been, and I stand behind every word, I absolutely believe in the Intel 18A process. By 2026, Intel has a very good chance of having 18A (1.8nm) dialed in and yielding well enough to be viable. I'm skeptical of their mid 2025 schedule but you never know. The reason Intel isn't talking about 20A (2nm) is because 18A is just as viable. If they can lithograph just as well at the smaller pitch, it doesn't make sense to work on the larger pitch. I'm told they are developing 20A, non commercially, as part of 18A development. Meanwhile, TSMC claims to have their 1.6nm (name, not feature size) process nearing production ready. They are already sending out engineering samples made with their 2nm process, from what I understand. While I have absolutely no data of any kind showing TSMC ahead of Intel with their sub-2nm process, I base my respective confidence on each of them entirely on the reputation and past success. I have no specific data on the TSMC 1.6nm process, other than it exists and they have internal samples backed by a long history of success. Lastly, there seems to be some yield related issues with 3nm process that nobody has fully solved. 3nm production is good enough but not great and that goes for every fab of which I have read. It looks like 2nm will be more reliable than 2 year older 3nm process from early in the 2nm production cycle. So, can Intel catch up? Of course but it won't be easy. Don't forget, making wafers is only the beginning. Intel plans to bump and package 18A wafers internally so those process will also need to be stabilized at that pitch.
I totally agree. Smokie for the win. Instability is poison in global trade. Throwing around tariffs like a beer funnel at a frat party is not the way to do it. I've never said I like how Trump implemented tariffs. What I have said is that I acknowledge tariffs may and probably are necessary, on some level and on some products. Yes, I absolutely think Trump is a clown but I also feel there is a tiny kernel of validity in what he is doing in such brutal fashion.
If you look back at semiconductor history, TSMC was the first company to break out of the G450 consortium and focus on EUV, back in 2015-2016. G450 (450mm wafer production) collapsed, perhaps partially because of reduced support, perhaps partially due to it being a bad decision at the time. I do not claim to understand well enough to portion blame. TSMC has a long history of good decisions. TSMC has technically out performed Intel. How are you going to tariff against that? Even if Intel had also dropped G450 and had a substantial tariff in 2017, they would have been creating 14nm parts while TSMC was making 10nm parts. TSMC parts had better performance and better power efficiency. A tariff won't solve that. This is the situation China is in. China is trying to force use of their own products, and that's a good strategy, but their technology platform is well behind the leading edge in essentially every metric.
Just gonna leave this riiiight here: Trump says Hollywood 'dying'; orders 100% tariff on non-US movies to save it https://www.reuters.com/business/me...tariff-movies-produced-outside-us-2025-05-04/
And one for the white male Boomer crowd: Though I am not a Boomer, I do own LGB, so of course this is on my Youtube feed
I'm still catching up on this thread. Not sure if @StockJock-e mentioned it. The stance of the site has always been it's ok to talk politics as long as the conversation is substantive and not just calling each other idiots with 2-line posts.
My position on tariffs is that they can serve a few purposes, and should be used for those purposes. In industries that we feel are vital to national security, targeted tariffs can be useful to encourage the manufacturing of said goods in our own borders in case we ever need them faster, or even at all if we're in conflict with another country that manufactures those goods. Another time they can be useful is to help transition to - or away - from specific industries that would result in massive economic change. For example, if every auto company in the US decided they're leaving by the end of this decade, there would be a lot of high-paying jobs with good benefits lost, as well as downstream suppliers, etc. that are all out of work with not much of a lateral transition spot. Specific locations in the US would never recover. Tariffs on specific industries or locations can help prevent rapid degradation of areas in the US. There are other times they can be useful. It is not due to trade imbalance. Watch something like Shark Tank and every time someone tells the sharks that they are manufacturing in the US, someone like Kevin O'Leary asks why they are still in the US. I've seen Tom talk about it before too. He's working on some business or something and has said that bringing the part he does in China back to the US would not be at all profitable, even with a 100% tariff. There are certain industries that make no sense to bring back to the US, because other countries can do them more efficiently for the wages they need to be manufactured at to be profitable. Nobody will admit it, but they don't want certain goods to cost more just to be made in America. I don't want to pay $100 to buy a 2-pack of plain white t-shirts I wear under a hoodie or something. Companies will never cut their profit margins, and investors would be pissed if they "did what many view as right" and lowered their profit margins to build in the US, while still making some money, just less. Unlike many, I am massively in favor of American labor, Union jobs, etc. I practice what I preach and in many cases buy what I can from American-owned or American-manufactured companies. I have spent hundreds to thousands more on things I "believe in" which is protecting good paying jobs, even if it means I pay more. I've purchased new vehicles made by UAW members, when I can just get a used foreign car for far cheaper. I've bought American-manufactured brands for lawn mowers for multiple hundred dollar markup compared to the one sitting right next to it. I can do this because I have a good-paying American job, my wife has a very good salary as an ER nurse, and we make sacrifices in certain areas to live our values. So while I'm about as anti-Trump as a person can be, I'm more OK with his tariffs than most "on my side". I've had arguments with my dad in the past about how greedy corporations move production overseas in the name of mass profits for the rich (so you can get an idea on my ideological evolution over the past few years). Now I am largely in favor of the free market, because I've given up on the idea of companies doing what I view(ed) as more ethical (stop offshoring and just make a little less profit, you already make X%, you don't need to make more). I've now modified that view a little and have discovered that maybe it's not horrible to lift other areas of the world up to stabilize them, provide us those goods for cheaper so we can innovate, have less global conflict saving us money, etc. Macro economics is massive, and changing one part of it changes a lot. My issue with the tariffs is the handling of the tariffs, the conflict-implied way they are announced, and the seeming lack of foresight or strategy. The American experiment has been so successful and we've become the greatest country in the world (IMO) because we have great relationships with most countries, they know where we stand, we have alliances, etc. We've been the light on the hilltop for the world to see. They know what they can count on from us. The way the tariffs have been announced and other countries (especially allies) have been talked about will undoubtedly change our relationships with those countries for decades at minimum. At first I figured most countries would just be like "Whatever, he'll be gone soon", but the American people's support has probably shown those countries that there is an appetite for it in the US, so even when Trump's 2nd term is over, they won't know if the America they used to know can be trusted again. There's been reports of nearly all countries looking for other trading partners and lowering reliance on American goods. That means the things we still do assemble and export will have less demand worldwide, meaning the little bit of manufacturing we still have is now at jeopardy, probably permanently. The biggest issue to me is our global position as leader. The biggest issue to me isn't the few remaining months of tariffs before our supply of goods dries up and people can't afford them anymore, but the lasting damage worldwide. When you basically emit to the world that you no longer want to be the global leader, someone else will fill that void. Will America still be the world's greatest country with the most power and the most money and the most comfortable lives for the citizens in a decade or two if our relationships with our trading partners isn't repaired? This could all end up being next to nothing, or it could be the end of American hegemony. The risk-reward to me is not there at all for an already thriving country.
To add to the confusion about how these trade deals are being implemented or what "process" there may/may not be regarding them. The president responding to some questions about these "deals." On Sunday aboard Air Force One, Trump said there “could very well be” trade deals announced this week. “We’re negotiating with many countries but at the end of this I’ll set my own deals because I set the deal, they don’t set the deal, I set the deal,” he told reporters Sunday. “This is not like a big deal that’s gonna be signed — in some cases we’ll sign them, but we don’t have to sign them. I’ll be setting the deal, I’ll be setting the tariff.” To me, this makes absolutely no sense. This almost sounds like some weak MOU type stuff. Maybe that is what they want, something that can be basically not enforced, but touted as some sort of accomplishment. I suppose from the comments above, we could get to the end of it and the administration just announces a flat rate or varying rates for countries. Trade agreements take time, much longer than what has been described since the start of this whole ordeal. To think that they can deliver 100 or whatever number is floated out weekly, was not even believable in the beginning. I'm beginning to think the whole shebang may end up being an agreement scribbled out on a big chief tablet with crayon. If they truly believe this is how the process works, then yes it is a disaster performance. The other possibility is they know it themselves and it is all for fluff and show, which makes it almost as short sighted as the other.
Apparently the Canadian Prime Minister and the President are meeting today. Looks like they are not getting along too well. Who would have thought that? President Donald Trump’s trade talks with Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney are off to a rocky start after Trump signaled Tuesday there will be no tariff deal. A reporter asked Trump, who was sitting in the Oval Office next to Carney, if the Canadian leader could do anything to change Trump’s mind on tariffs over the course of the day’s meetings. “No,” Trump said. “That’s just the way it is.” On trade deals, Trump suggested the onus was on other countries after the US puts "a number" in front of them: "We don't have to sign deals ... they have to sign deals with us. They want a piece of our market. We don't care about their market." He added: "They'll either say, 'Great,' and they'll start shopping, or they'll say, 'Not good.' That's OK. You don't have to shop."
Scott Bessent: Trade deals could come as soon as this week "Many of our trading partners have approached us with very good offers, and we are in the process of renegotiating those," Bessent said, noting that the US is currently in talks with 17 of its 18 key trading partners, with China as the exception. "I'd be surprised if we don't have more than 80% or 90% of those wrapped up by the end of the year, and that may be much sooner than I would think. Perhaps as early as this week we will be announcing trade deals with some of our largest trading partners," he added. "They have come to us with very good offers." Do these guys even talk to each other?
I suspect most Americans don't realize how dependent they are on China. It's not just about cheaper goods. With the supply chain currently broken, stores will soon have empty shelves. As blissful as ignorance is, I think this will be a good lesson to Americans on the global supply chain power structure. That is a power structure with China at the top. In another month, there will be a country wide re-enactment of Lord of the Flies. That will be a singularity. This absolutely will impact the American eagerness to take on China with regard to Taiwan. If the US could convince a significant number of other nations to stop buying Chinese goods, they might bring China to their knees. The US on it's own can hurt China but not kill it.
Let's stop dancing around the real reason the tariff effort is going to backfire and the US will lose it's dominance. Asian work ethic will beat the life out of North American work ethic. China, Vietnam, and a lot of countries in Southeast Asia have a work ethic we cannot match. They work like North Americans did in the 1940s and 50s. Travel to Asia changed my world view. It was a breath of fresh air. For the most part, when something breaks, they fix it. That may not be the case everywhere but it was in the places I went. An older gentleman in Taipei told me their young people don't like to work. He said they had a pedestrian traffic signal that was out for half a day because nobody came to fix it for a couple of hours. He shook his head. If Mr. Yu Swingpipe saw what goes on in North America, he would fall in love with his country again. BTW, Taipei is my favorite place on earth. I love everything about it but mostly the people. If you get a chance, I highly recommend going before China ruins it.
For what it’s worth…. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer will meet with their Chinesecounterparts in Switzerland this week to discuss economic and trade matters, their offices announced Tuesday
Any thoughts on the outcome? I'd love to read someone's positive outlook and apologize I cannot offer one. The way Trump and Xi have framed this, I don't see how either can budge an inch. I hope they come to an agreement but I don't see how that would be possible.
Well, considering it is not the two leaders in question, I figure it is just each side kind of probing each others strategy. At some point, something is going to cause some movement I would think. Both sides are not going to just close up shop without getting raked over the coals from an economic standpoint. Both have strong personalities and nether are going to accept appearing to be the loser. The longer it takes, the less control both are really going to have in structuring the kind of outcome they believe is achievable. In the end, reality suggests they will have to make a deal on both sides. The problem is how these two perceive what is reality. The little trade delegation being sent is probably a decent idea, but then those delegations have to return and explain it to the two ego’s.
This is how I feel about it to, and I feel is still massively understated. The China tariffs could be a decent strategy if we would have worked with all of our allianced countries (maybe former alliance at this point ....) to cut China off over a multi-year period (say Trump's whole term for example). As it stands right now, China can hurt us WAY more than we can hurt them. They can still sell to the whole world other than us, and manufacture a ton of what we need (meds for example). Why would they even care to make a deal when this is going to hurt the average American a lot more than it hurts the Chinese. This is the thing about our adversaries, they love chaos in their super competitors, and this chaos is going to hurt us a lot more than them in the short-medium term. Long-term it may hurt China more (potentially) because American business might leave China, but until that decade-long move, this will affect Americans far more. If I was Xi, I'd personally be loving weakening America in their global standing in the world, and look to be filling in the opening as world leader. I'm not sure there's even an off-ramp for Trump (though I hope to be wrong). If Trump claimed a "deal" with Xi to go back to 25% tariffs or something, I don't see why Xi would even go along with it at this point.
And to add to my comment about how long-term this might hurt China because American companies leave China, they might willingly take that trade knowing they're losing a major market to sell to, but they've gained world standing by weakening one of their biggest threats, so it might not even be a long-term loss for them when all is said and done.
This above is really what the plan should have been. It amazes me (sort of) that all of the "minds" involved in developing some plan in advance did not even remotely think about this. I don't see any suggestion that it was even considered. That alone makes me very skeptical that this whole debacle will end well. Now, the administration may be forced to change the plan at some point, but only after the obvious has been realized. When you observe and listen to the commentary, it is quite frankly the most uneducated, haphazard explanation I have likely ever heard. The comment about the "US being a large store and you can shop here or somewhere else".....doesn't even make the slightest sense. Do they even realize the US is the largest "importer" in the world??? We are the "shoppers" in this sense. We do not own the "store" as suggested. Their own argument for reshoring some of this defeats their own thesis. Yes, we could improve on some reshoring, but it must be realistic and an attainable plan. You simply cannot just close up and close out others and wave Old Glory until your arms fall weak. It is a global economy and we are extremely wealthy as a result of it. That said, improvements are there to be made, but the implementation of this plan as structured is not it. This whole plan reminds me of some grade school project where you get an "adult type assignment" to learn how the real world works. I think most of us here are in decent agreement about doing some things to better position the US for security reasons....(chip production being one). There are other things as well, but to think somehow "this plan" is going to lead to some type of "glory days" manufacturing in most areas is simply a fond thought and will likely never come to fruition. At times I think they surely cannot be this dense, but then when you see and hear the statements on what they believe and how they think it works..... The only other option might be advisors are afraid to say....this is a bad idea to go about it this way.
