Apple joins new coalition lobbying for US chip manufacturing subsidies

Posted:
in General Discussion edited May 2021
Technology giants including Apple, Intel, and Microsoft have formed a new coalition, aimed at getting U.S. processor manufacturing subsidies as the worldwide shortage continues.

Credit: AppleInsider
Credit: AppleInsider


As the Biden administration calls the global chip shortage a national security issue, a new coalition aims to lobby the government to incentivize U.S. processor production. Companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Google, which are key buyers of processors, have joined with producers including Intel.

According to Reuters, the newly-formed Semiconductors in America Coalition, is asking the U.S. government to fund the new CHIPS for America Act. President Biden has already asked Congress to support the act with $50 billion.

"Robust funding of the CHIPS Act would help America build the additional capacity necessary to have more resilient supply chains to ensure critical technologies will be there when we need them," the group wrote in a letter sent to Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses of Congress.

The new coalition includes chip-buyers across multiple industries, such as AT&T, Cisco Systems, HP, and General Electric. The global chip shortage is particularly affecting the automotive industry, but the coalition does not want government intervention.

"Government should refrain from intervening as industry works to correct the current supply-demand imbalance causing the shortage," the group continued.

Separately, the government has been in talks with Intel and TSMC over increasing processor production in the U.S. In February 2021, President Biden also signed an executive order addressing the shortage.

"This is about making sure the United States can meet every challenge we faced in this new era of pandemics, but also in defense cybersecurity, climate change, and so much more," said President Biden at the time. "The best way to do that is by protecting and and sharpen and America's competitive edge by investing here at home."


Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,375member
    I completely agree on the strategic importance of having a reliable organic supply chain for critical components that power the national economy. 

    However, it does strike me as a bit disingenuous that some of the same companies who were more than happy to reap the financial benefits of having the lowest cost supply chains are now looking for the US taxpayers to subsidize their newfound interest in bringing their supply chain back home. 

     I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that nobody was looking at the big picture when the money and chips were flowing freely. We’re creatures of habit and dealing with crises has always been more attractive than preventing them in the first place. Nobody likes Chicken Little, but Chicken Little Atomic Hot Wings are always a popular item. Feel the burn Mr Taxpayer.
    edited May 2021 beowulfschmidtelijahgdysamoria
  • Reply 2 of 8
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,213member
    The coalition is being quite pointed in telling Congress that the auto industry should not receive separate treatment.

    "...the coalition is clearly concerned about the lobbying of the car industry which has asked the government to use national emergency legislation to force chip makers to prioritise car chips."

    “Government should refrain from intervening as industry works to correct the current supply-demand imbalance causing the shortage,” the group said.

  • Reply 3 of 8
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 1,037member
    We do not need to have chips produced in the United States but we do not need to be dependent upon Communist China and never should have become so.

    And big tech companies do not need subsidies. They can make chips in the US profitably and can take a small loss in profit margin for the team.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 4 of 8
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Ugh, the rot keeps getting worse with this corporate welfare bullshit.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 5 of 8
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,253member
    crowley said:
    Ugh, the rot keeps getting worse with this corporate welfare bullshit.
    Actually corporate socialism. Good fit corporations but not for ordinary people. 
    dysamoria
  • Reply 6 of 8
    dewme said:
    I completely agree on the strategic importance of having a reliable organic supply chain for critical components that power the national economy. 

    However, it does strike me as a bit disingenuous that some of the same companies who were more than happy to reap the financial benefits of having the lowest cost supply chains are now looking for the US taxpayers to subsidize their newfound interest in bringing their supply chain back home. 

     I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that nobody was looking at the big picture when the money and chips were flowing freely. We’re creatures of habit and dealing with crises has always been more attractive than preventing them in the first place. Nobody likes Chicken Little, but Chicken Little Atomic Hot Wings are always a popular item. Feel the burn Mr Taxpayer.
    Errr... Intel has always produced chips in the U.S, currently 12 of their 17 fabs are in the U.S. Samsung and TSMC  have fabs in the U.S. but mostly in Asia, you know because that is where the companies are based. The idea that people are pushing to bring semiconductor fabrication "back home" is inaccurate. These companies didn't leave the U.S, they started and grew outside of the U.S. The push is to get them to expand to here. 
  • Reply 7 of 8
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    rob53 said:
    crowley said:
    Ugh, the rot keeps getting worse with this corporate welfare bullshit.
    Actually corporate socialism. Good fit corporations but not for ordinary people. 
    No, it's very much not socialism.  If it were socialism then we'd all share in the profits, not just be liable for costs.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    crowley said:
    rob53 said:
    crowley said:
    Ugh, the rot keeps getting worse with this corporate welfare bullshit.
    Actually corporate socialism. Good fit corporations but not for ordinary people. 
    No, it's very much not socialism.  If it were socialism then we'd all share in the profits, not just be liable for costs.
    It’s not meant in a literal sense. It’s a way of talking to conservatives and democrats who are obsessed with Cold War propaganda, where the word “socialism” is an absolute and always-bad word. “Socialism for the corporations, rugged capitalism for the people”.

    It’s meant to show the hypocrisy of capitalism’s staunch defenders and antisocial “small government” types who hate on, and sabotage, social programs, but then promote rescuing corporations from their own self-inflicted injuries (via our taxes, which they don’t pay into themselves AND also get rebates for). Conservatives hate on citizens for “looking for handouts”, but where’s the rage when corporations come looking for handouts? Laissez-faire capitalist types actively celebrate using the system’s loopholes, which is considered “smart” and “playing the game well”.

    In a literal sense, we are propping up a failed economic system by using tax money to rescue corporations who have been parasites to society. That’s a one-way type of socialism: society pays to let corporate greed continue. None of these monster corporations need help setting up US-based chip fabbing; they just take every opportunity to exploit the society as possible so they can keep those profit margins high and never spend more than they can get away with not spending.

    So if they’re going to rail against bailing out individuals and attack them for not taking “personal accountability”, we have to use the same language for when big corporations ask for handouts, because they literally have the wealth, but not the will to hold themselves accountable. “Socialism for the rich; rugged capitalism for the poor.”

Sign In or Register to comment.