Apple chip maker TSMC planning bond sale to fund Arizona expansion

AppleInsider

Apple Silicon maker TSMC plans to raise over half a billion dollars in bonds as it attempts to expand its operations to Arizona while facing a worldwide chip shortage.

TSMC plans on using a bond sale to fund expansion, including an Arizona plant

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) reportedly plans on offering around NT$16 billion (US$565.25 million) of bonds in the auction. The chipmaker will face a global rate hike, as many corporate bond yields have recently risen from record lows.

The bonds will help fund an advanced U.S. chip factory in Arizona, which could be up and running by 2023. It's currently unclear if the company will receive financial incentives from the U.S. in addition to the bond sale. A factory producing 5nm chips could cost more than $10 billion.

Taiwan-based TSMC is the world's largest contract manufacturer of silicon chipsets and has long been Apple's primary supplier of A-series chips. The company makes chips in iPhones and iPads and the M1 chips in the latest Macs. TSMC is also reportedly working on chips for the "Apple Car."

In January, TSMC announced that its 2021 capital expenditure could add up to as much as $28 billion. That would be a significant rise over its $17 billion in 2020 spending.

The bond offering is happening during a drought that has Taiwan's reservoir levels below 20% capacity. The China-U.S. trade war contributes to the water shortage, as local factory expansion has exacerbated the already diminishing water supply.

There is also a worldwide shortage of critical rare-earth materials used in processors exacerbating the chip supply globally. President Biden plans on signing an executive order to address chip shortages. The Biden administration has also pressed Taiwan to step up silicon production that has affected the auto industry and other supply chains.

lkrupp

It would be nice for Apple to have a U.S. supply chain source for its M1 series chips. Except for the construction of the facility itself this move wouldn’t be a job driver. These chip plants are highly automated and the few employees needed have to be highly skilled and specialized, something the U.S. labor market cannot provide at this point. So the jobs would go to foreign workers with special visas. 

jdgaz

Intel Fabs are here in Arizona. Plenty of highly trained talent around here. 

melgross

lkrupp said:

It would be nice for Apple to have a U.S. supply chain source for its M1 series chips. Except for the construction of the facility itself this move wouldn’t be a job driver. These chip plants are highly automated and the few employees needed have to be highly skilled and specialized, something the U.S. labor market cannot provide at this point. So the jobs would go to foreign workers with special visas. 

There shouldn’t be a oroblem hiring the people they need. There are plenty. It’s not as though massive numbers of chips aren’t being produced here already.

commentzilla

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

GeorgeBMac

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

Yeh, one of the lessons we learned from the 2008 Economic Catastrophe was that organizations had have some of THEIR blood in the game.

Back then banks were profiting from betting other peoples money.  For them it was a win-only bet:  They used other people's money to place the bet -- then they collected the winnings.   When it all came crashing down, it was the other people who took the biggest hit.   Here we have a similar situation.

melgross

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

melgross

GeorgeBMac said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

Yeh, one of the lessons we learned from the 2008 Economic Catastrophe was that organizations had have some of THEIR blood in the game.

Back then banks were profiting from betting other peoples money.  For them it was a win-only bet:  They used other people's money to place the bet -- then they collected the winnings.   When it all came crashing down, it was the other people who took the biggest hit.   Here we have a similar situation.

The only way banks make money is to invest deposited money. That’s always been the truth since the Middle Ages when banks actually charged to hold money, rather than giving interest. Don’t make that out as something sinister. Everyone knows how it works. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t. The problem was that the rules governing what banks could do had been considerably weakened during the Reagan administration, deliberately, and then under the Clinton administration, the republicans again forced more relaxation of the rules in a compromise in other areas. The Bush administration didn’t listen to the warnings given them, and so we fell into that big recession.

but banks can’t stay in business while paying people to keep their money there while paying their staffs and rent and mortgages for property for headquarters and branches. How do you expect the banking system to work? It’s easy to criticize, but difficult to come up with a good working alternative.

GeorgeBMac

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

Yeh, one of the lessons we learned from the 2008 Economic Catastrophe was that organizations had have some of THEIR blood in the game.

Back then banks were profiting from betting other peoples money.  For them it was a win-only bet:  They used other people's money to place the bet -- then they collected the winnings.   When it all came crashing down, it was the other people who took the biggest hit.   Here we have a similar situation.

The only way banks make money is to invest deposited money. That’s always been the truth since the Middle Ages when banks actually charged to hold money, rather than giving interest. Don’t make that out as something sinister. Everyone knows how it works. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t. The problem was that the rules governing what banks could do had been considerably weakened during the Reagan administration, deliberately, and then under the Clinton administration, the republicans again forced more relaxation of the rules in a compromise in other areas. The Bush administration didn’t listen to the warnings given them, and so we fell into that big recession.

but banks can’t stay in business while paying people to keep their money there while paying their staffs and rent and mortgages for property for headquarters and branches. How do you expect the banking system to work? It’s easy to criticize, but difficult to come up with a good working alternative.

It becomes sinister -- or worse -- when they abuse it and crash the economy into a near 1930's style depression.  The only thing that saved us from it was the massive fiscal and monetary stimuli.

During the Bush administration the banksters were writing bad mortgages, then they securitized them, had them rated AAA and sold them -- and used that money to write more bad mortgages.  Then they rinsed and repeated that upwards of 75 times.

Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

How do I expect the banking system to work?   Pretty much the way it did both before and after the Bush administration -- responsibly under a strong regulatory environment to prevent the abuses that occured during the Bush administration.

gatorguy

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

Yeh, one of the lessons we learned from the 2008 Economic Catastrophe was that organizations had have some of THEIR blood in the game.

Back then banks were profiting from betting other peoples money.  For them it was a win-only bet:  They used other people's money to place the bet -- then they collected the winnings.   When it all came crashing down, it was the other people who took the biggest hit.   Here we have a similar situation.

The only way banks make money is to invest deposited money. That’s always been the truth since the Middle Ages when banks actually charged to hold money, rather than giving interest. Don’t make that out as something sinister. Everyone knows how it works. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t. The problem was that the rules governing what banks could do had been considerably weakened during the Reagan administration, deliberately, and then under the Clinton administration, the republicans again forced more relaxation of the rules in a compromise in other areas. The Bush administration didn’t listen to the warnings given them, and so we fell into that big recession.

but banks can’t stay in business while paying people to keep their money there while paying their staffs and rent and mortgages for property for headquarters and branches. How do you expect the banking system to work? It’s easy to criticize, but difficult to come up with a good working alternative.

It becomes sinister -- or worse -- when they abuse it and crash the economy into a near 1930's style depression.  The only thing that saved us from it was the massive fiscal and monetary stimuli.

During the Bush administration the banksters were writing bad mortgages, then they securitized them, had them rated AAA and sold them -- and used that money to write more bad mortgages.  Then they rinsed and repeated that upwards of 75 times.

Most of the regulations and regulators were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

How do I expect the banking system to work?   Pretty much the way it did both before and after the Bush administration -- responsibly under a strong regulatory environment to prevent the abuses that occured during the Bush administration.

FWIW in November of 1999, then-President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate". Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's (Gramm-Leach Bliley) repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008." So both Democratic and Republican presidents were spectacularly wrong.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

By your age George I would have thought you had figured out the names may change but not necessarily the influencers,  politics, and rationale.

crowley

GeorgeBMac said:

Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

avon b7

melgross said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

melgross

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

Yeh, one of the lessons we learned from the 2008 Economic Catastrophe was that organizations had have some of THEIR blood in the game.

Back then banks were profiting from betting other peoples money.  For them it was a win-only bet:  They used other people's money to place the bet -- then they collected the winnings.   When it all came crashing down, it was the other people who took the biggest hit.   Here we have a similar situation.

The only way banks make money is to invest deposited money. That’s always been the truth since the Middle Ages when banks actually charged to hold money, rather than giving interest. Don’t make that out as something sinister. Everyone knows how it works. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t. The problem was that the rules governing what banks could do had been considerably weakened during the Reagan administration, deliberately, and then under the Clinton administration, the republicans again forced more relaxation of the rules in a compromise in other areas. The Bush administration didn’t listen to the warnings given them, and so we fell into that big recession.

but banks can’t stay in business while paying people to keep their money there while paying their staffs and rent and mortgages for property for headquarters and branches. How do you expect the banking system to work? It’s easy to criticize, but difficult to come up with a good working alternative.

It becomes sinister -- or worse -- when they abuse it and crash the economy into a near 1930's style depression.  The only thing that saved us from it was the massive fiscal and monetary stimuli.

During the Bush administration the banksters were writing bad mortgages, then they securitized them, had them rated AAA and sold them -- and used that money to write more bad mortgages.  Then they rinsed and repeated that upwards of 75 times.

Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

How do I expect the banking system to work?   Pretty much the way it did both before and after the Bush administration -- responsibly under a strong regulatory environment to prevent the abuses that occured during the Bush administration.

That’s sort of what I said.

melgross

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.

GeorgeBMac

gatorguy said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

Yeh, one of the lessons we learned from the 2008 Economic Catastrophe was that organizations had have some of THEIR blood in the game.

Back then banks were profiting from betting other peoples money.  For them it was a win-only bet:  They used other people's money to place the bet -- then they collected the winnings.   When it all came crashing down, it was the other people who took the biggest hit.   Here we have a similar situation.

The only way banks make money is to invest deposited money. That’s always been the truth since the Middle Ages when banks actually charged to hold money, rather than giving interest. Don’t make that out as something sinister. Everyone knows how it works. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t. The problem was that the rules governing what banks could do had been considerably weakened during the Reagan administration, deliberately, and then under the Clinton administration, the republicans again forced more relaxation of the rules in a compromise in other areas. The Bush administration didn’t listen to the warnings given them, and so we fell into that big recession.

but banks can’t stay in business while paying people to keep their money there while paying their staffs and rent and mortgages for property for headquarters and branches. How do you expect the banking system to work? It’s easy to criticize, but difficult to come up with a good working alternative.

It becomes sinister -- or worse -- when they abuse it and crash the economy into a near 1930's style depression.  The only thing that saved us from it was the massive fiscal and monetary stimuli.

During the Bush administration the banksters were writing bad mortgages, then they securitized them, had them rated AAA and sold them -- and used that money to write more bad mortgages.  Then they rinsed and repeated that upwards of 75 times.

Most of the regulations and regulators were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

How do I expect the banking system to work?   Pretty much the way it did both before and after the Bush administration -- responsibly under a strong regulatory environment to prevent the abuses that occured during the Bush administration.

FWIW in November of 1999, then-President Bill Clinton publicly declared "the Glass–Steagall law is no longer appropriate". Some commentators have stated that the GLBA's (Gramm-Leach Bliley) repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass–Steagall Act was an important cause of the financial crisis of 2007–2008." So both Democratic and Republican presidents were spectacularly wrong.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

By your age George I would have thought you had figured out the names may change but not necessarily the influencers,  politics, and rationale.

Ahhh!  The old "They all do it argument!"

It's become a favorite refuge of the right when they get caught.

GeorgeBMac

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.

Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.

GeorgeBMac

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.

My understanding is that it is unfair tax relief where one EU country undercuts the others using tax incentives as a form of kick back.

avon b7

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.

Well, you explicitly said subsidies:

"all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else"

Tax relief isn't an issue either. Just look at all the tax relief (and other incentives) for people to renew old cars for more efficient vehicles. All the major manufacturers have benefitted from that cooperation.

Or startups... 

https://altar.io/incorporating-startup-eu-overview-tax-reliefs-country/

crowley

GeorgeBMac said:

crowley said:

GeorgeBMac said:

Most of the regulations and regulators that enabled that to happen were gutted during the Bush administration.   He believed that free, unregulated markets couldn't fail.   He was spectacularly wrong.

Gramm–Leach–Bliley was probably the most important deregulatory move, and it was signed by Bill Clinton.  It did have opposition from Democrats, especially in the Senate, but let's not misrepresent and give Bush more blame than he deserves on that one.

Sorry, that was a decade or so prior.

Not everything is the fault of the Clintons.  Sorry.   That old horse has been run hard and worn out.

?

You're talking about deregulation.  The deregulation that large number of economists principally blame for the 2008 financial crisis happened during the Clinton administration.  I'm not blaming Bill Clinton (or the Clintons), the legislation came through Congress and was mostly supported by Republicans.  But I'm certainly not blaming Bush, who wasn't in office at the time.

It being a decade before 2008 is not really relevant, problems take a while to turn into crises.

You're looking for facts to support your biases again Georgey.

melgross

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.

My understanding is that it is unfair tax relief where one EU country undercuts the others using tax incentives as a form of kick back.

It’s not a kick back. According to EU law, each country is allowed to develop its own tax policy. Supposedly, the stated problem Apple and Ireland had is that the EU claimed that Ireland made a deal with Apple that wasn’t available to other companies. The last EU court disagreed with that, and allowed the deal. But the EU has appealed to their highest court. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the EU commissioner has targeted American companies much more than EU based companies that have done the same thing. The American companies are much bigger, and much more successful. They are an easy political target in the EU.

europe has a problem. Their laws make it very difficult for an entrepreneur to start, and grow the type of companies that thrive here. Labor jaws make it almost impossible to have the flexible work environment that’s needed. It’s also often so expensive to let oeople go, that’s it’s cheaper to keep them on staff even if they no longer serve a function. Then they’re are the financial restrictions on investments, etc.

so here, we have these gigantic companies that those in the EU envy, but also resent. It’s easy, from a political perspective, to target them. But then, individual countries ignore es rules about many things, such as forming “country champions”. Those are companies the governments force into mergers so that they will be too big for foreign entities to buy. It’s illegal there, but France and Germany have been doing it anyway. I haven’t seen anything significant involving breaking those companies up there, or here for that matter.

avon b7

melgross said:

GeorgeBMac said:

melgross said:

avon b7 said:

melgross said:

commentzilla said:

So is this going to be like the Foxconn (con) expansion in Wisconsin where they built a facility with tax breaks and never used it?

We certainly need to bring some of this high-tech manufacturing back to America. It will likely hike the cost but total reliance on Asia with China in the backyard is risky. We certainly don't need to bring all of the manufacturing back, just enough capacity to sustain us in a crisis or embargo. We have a lot of foreign car manufactures who have factories here now, so I'd think it's doable if we we place more long term emphasis on higher education training. We really should be extending guaranteed (free) K-12 into 2-years of community college where people can pickup a trade or prepare them for a 4-year college degree, in exchange for 2-years of public or military service.

TSMC US effort seeking subsidy, similar to Foxconn Wisconsin deal

https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/tsmc-us-effort-seeking-subsidy-similar-to-foxconn-wisconsin-deal

No. Foxconn is an odd company. TSMC has resisted Apple’s appeals before about a USA based plant. Apple wanted a plant devoted to their products, but TSMC refused. Apple was willing to put up half the funds to build, and run it. But a lot of companies don’t want to give up any of their independence, which is what that would have meant.

all companies seek subsidies. It’s the new world. The EU seems to feel as though it is illegal, hence their suit against Apple and Ireland. But it’s common everywhere else. I’d bet it’s done with European companies in the EU too, but we don’t hear about it.

The EU does not consider subsidies to be illegal. The EU has helped with funding of just about everything imaginable. 

I have done work for a company whose sole goal was to find projects from private companies to use EU subsidies.

This project, by way of example, also uses EU funds.

https://blogs.upm.es/rsti/2019/12/18/5g-pilot-project/

The ERDF scheme mentioned in that article had a budget of over 180 billion euros (2014-2020).

Not talking about subsidies. It’s tax relief they are against.

My understanding is that it is unfair tax relief where one EU country undercuts the others using tax incentives as a form of kick back.

It’s not a kick back. According to EU law, each country is allowed to develop its own tax policy. Supposedly, the stated problem Apple and Ireland had is that the EU claimed that Ireland made a deal with Apple that wasn’t available to other companies. The last EU court disagreed with that, and allowed the deal. But the EU has appealed to their highest court. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that the EU commissioner has targeted American companies much more than EU based companies that have done the same thing. The American companies are much bigger, and much more successful. They are an easy political target in the EU.

europe has a problem. Their laws make it very difficult for an entrepreneur to start, and grow the type of companies that thrive here. Labor jaws make it almost impossible to have the flexible work environment that’s needed. It’s also often so expensive to let oeople go, that’s it’s cheaper to keep them on staff even if they no longer serve a function. Then they’re are the financial restrictions on investments, etc.

so here, we have these gigantic companies that those in the EU envy, but also resent. It’s easy, from a political perspective, to target them. But then, individual countries ignore es rules about many things, such as forming “country champions”. Those are companies the governments force into mergers so that they will be too big for foreign entities to buy. It’s illegal there, but France and Germany have been doing it anyway. I haven’t seen anything significant involving breaking those companies up there, or here for that matter.

The EU and its people do not envy the US or its companies.

The companies you speak of simply had a headstart in certain areas and customers in the EU helped make those companies bigger.

In the current climate where some of the larger companies have already been found to be abusing their size within the EU, it makes all the sense in the world to target the biggest potential offenders first - wherever they may be from. Or would you prefer they targeted smaller companies first? 

In the digital services realm, four of them happen to be US companies but the EU isn't just investigating those four companies. A couple of years ago, I read that more than 300 were being investigated - most of them EU companies. The EU has also taken issue with member states too. Yes, EU member states also get fined. 

In terms of setting up companies and thriving, your claims don't make a lot of sense. Companies are being created (and going out of business) every day and there are plenty of EU unicorns too.

Business as usual on that front.


https://2020.stateofeuropeantech.com/chapter/value-creation/article/billion-dollar-companies/