antiterror13
Brigadier
Well, a few Chinese companies could be a strong competitor to ASML
... I don't see why
Last edited:
Trade War with China
- Thread starter Ultra
- Start date
- Status
Well, a few Chinese companies could be a strong competitor to ASML
... I don't see why
Jura The idiot
General
now noticed the tweet
China will continue to promote China-US trade negotiations as well as trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, a government work report said, adding: "We faithfully honor our commitments and are resolute in safeguarding our lawful rights and interests."
China will continue to promote China-US trade negotiations as well as trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, a government work report said, adding: "We faithfully honor our commitments and are resolute in safeguarding our lawful rights and interests."
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
"So much winning that it become a bore" says who?. The most authoritative study on the effect of trade war on US economy. Just ask Apple, Caterpillar, Starbuck etc
Evidence Grows That Trump's Trade Wars Are Hitting U.S. Economy
By
March 4, 2019, 11:32 AM CST
President Donald Trump regularly declares that he’s winning his trade wars. Yet evidence is growing that the U.S. economy is a net loser so far.
In two separate papers published over the weekend, some of the world’s leading trade economists declared Trump’s tariffs to be the most consequential trade experiment seen since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs for worsening the Great Depression. They also found the initial cost of Trump’s duties to the U.S. economy was in the billions and being borne largely by American consumers.
published on Saturday, economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton University and Columbia University found that tariffs imposed last year by Trump on products ranging from washing machines and steel to some $250 billion in Chinese imports were costing U.S. companies and consumers $3 billion a month in additional tax costs and companies a further $1.4 billion in deadweight losses. They also were causing the diversion of $165 billion a year in trade leading to significant costs for companies having to reorganize supply chains.
Significantly, the analysis of import price data by Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding and David Weinstein also found that almost all of the cost of the tariffs was being paid by U.S. consumers and companies. That contradicts Trump’s claim that China is paying the tariffs.
“This is kind of the worst-case scenario in terms of consumers,’’ Weinstein said in an interview. “It’s pretty unclear that this trade war is a net win for the economy at this point.’’
The trade war was only one factor affecting the U.S. economy, Weinstein said, and with the U.S. less exposed to trade than other major western economies such as Germany, it was not having as much of an impact as it might.
Delayed Investment
But the numbers were still consequential, he insisted. They also did not capture all of the costs to the U.S. economy. The three economists are now working on quantifying the amount of investment that has been put on hold as a result of the heightened uncertainty caused by the trade wars, Weinstein said.
In a separate published on Sunday four economists including Pinelopi Goldberg, the World Bank’s chief economist and a former editor-in-chief of the prestigious American Economic Review, put the annual losses from the higher cost of imports alone for the U.S. economy at $68.8 billion, or almost 0.4 percent of gross domestic product.
A cargo ship at the Port of Savannah in Savannah, Georgia.
Photographer: Ty Wright/Bloomberg
That was offset by the gains from protectionism derived by U.S. producers benefiting from the tariffs, the economists found. After accounting for the impact of higher tariff revenue and the benefits of higher prices to domestic producers the study found the aggregate annual loss for the U.S. economy fell to $6.4 billion, or 0.03 percent of GDP.
The study by Goldberg, Pablo Fajgelbaum of UCLA, Patrick Kennedy of the University of California, Berkeley, and Amit Khandelwal of Columbia also found that consumers and U.S. companies were paying most of the costs of the tariffs.
But it also went a step further: After factoring in the retaliation by other countries, the main victims of Trump’s trade wars had been farmers and blue-collar workers in areas that supported Trump in the 2016 election.
Retaliation Costs
“Workers in very Republican counties bore the brunt of the costs of the trade war, in part because retaliations disproportionately targeted agricultural sectors, and in part because U.S. tariffs raised the costs of inputs used by these counties,’’ the authors wrote.
Soybeans are loaded into a grain cart during harvest in Wyanet, Illinois.
Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
The studies are the most authoritative yet to document the negative effect of Trump’s tariffs on the U.S. economy, though others have shown the negative consequences. Economists at the Institute of International Finance last week Chinese retaliatory tariffs alone were causing roughly $40 billion a year in lost U.S. exports.
Official trade data due to be released on Wednesday also are expected to show the U.S. trade deficit in goods with the world hitting a new record in 2018 because of the combination of a surge in imports to get ahead of the new tariffs last year and slowing exports.
A spokeswoman for Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers declined to comment on the new papers and referred inquiries to the office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Spokespeople for USTR did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a speech Saturday to conservative activists Trump dismissed criticism of his tariffs and boasted that he was simply following what he argued was a glorious history of using import taxes in American history.
“I found some very old laws from when our country was rich -- really rich -- the old tariff laws. We had to dust them off. You could hardly see, they were so dusty,” Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference.
At a minimum, Trump said, tariffs were “the greatest negotiating tool in the history of our country,” pointing to talks now underway with China which appear increasingly likely to result in a deal in the coming weeks.
Evidence Grows That Trump's Trade Wars Are Hitting U.S. Economy
By
March 4, 2019, 11:32 AM CST
Authoritative studies point to net loss for U.S. from tariffs-
U.S. consumers and companies bearing cost of import duties
President Donald Trump regularly declares that he’s winning his trade wars. Yet evidence is growing that the U.S. economy is a net loser so far.
In two separate papers published over the weekend, some of the world’s leading trade economists declared Trump’s tariffs to be the most consequential trade experiment seen since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs for worsening the Great Depression. They also found the initial cost of Trump’s duties to the U.S. economy was in the billions and being borne largely by American consumers.
published on Saturday, economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton University and Columbia University found that tariffs imposed last year by Trump on products ranging from washing machines and steel to some $250 billion in Chinese imports were costing U.S. companies and consumers $3 billion a month in additional tax costs and companies a further $1.4 billion in deadweight losses. They also were causing the diversion of $165 billion a year in trade leading to significant costs for companies having to reorganize supply chains.
Significantly, the analysis of import price data by Mary Amiti, Stephen Redding and David Weinstein also found that almost all of the cost of the tariffs was being paid by U.S. consumers and companies. That contradicts Trump’s claim that China is paying the tariffs.
“This is kind of the worst-case scenario in terms of consumers,’’ Weinstein said in an interview. “It’s pretty unclear that this trade war is a net win for the economy at this point.’’
The trade war was only one factor affecting the U.S. economy, Weinstein said, and with the U.S. less exposed to trade than other major western economies such as Germany, it was not having as much of an impact as it might.
Delayed Investment
But the numbers were still consequential, he insisted. They also did not capture all of the costs to the U.S. economy. The three economists are now working on quantifying the amount of investment that has been put on hold as a result of the heightened uncertainty caused by the trade wars, Weinstein said.
In a separate published on Sunday four economists including Pinelopi Goldberg, the World Bank’s chief economist and a former editor-in-chief of the prestigious American Economic Review, put the annual losses from the higher cost of imports alone for the U.S. economy at $68.8 billion, or almost 0.4 percent of gross domestic product.
A cargo ship at the Port of Savannah in Savannah, Georgia.
Photographer: Ty Wright/Bloomberg
That was offset by the gains from protectionism derived by U.S. producers benefiting from the tariffs, the economists found. After accounting for the impact of higher tariff revenue and the benefits of higher prices to domestic producers the study found the aggregate annual loss for the U.S. economy fell to $6.4 billion, or 0.03 percent of GDP.
The study by Goldberg, Pablo Fajgelbaum of UCLA, Patrick Kennedy of the University of California, Berkeley, and Amit Khandelwal of Columbia also found that consumers and U.S. companies were paying most of the costs of the tariffs.
But it also went a step further: After factoring in the retaliation by other countries, the main victims of Trump’s trade wars had been farmers and blue-collar workers in areas that supported Trump in the 2016 election.
Retaliation Costs
“Workers in very Republican counties bore the brunt of the costs of the trade war, in part because retaliations disproportionately targeted agricultural sectors, and in part because U.S. tariffs raised the costs of inputs used by these counties,’’ the authors wrote.
Soybeans are loaded into a grain cart during harvest in Wyanet, Illinois.
Photographer: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
The studies are the most authoritative yet to document the negative effect of Trump’s tariffs on the U.S. economy, though others have shown the negative consequences. Economists at the Institute of International Finance last week Chinese retaliatory tariffs alone were causing roughly $40 billion a year in lost U.S. exports.
Official trade data due to be released on Wednesday also are expected to show the U.S. trade deficit in goods with the world hitting a new record in 2018 because of the combination of a surge in imports to get ahead of the new tariffs last year and slowing exports.
A spokeswoman for Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers declined to comment on the new papers and referred inquiries to the office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Spokespeople for USTR did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In a speech Saturday to conservative activists Trump dismissed criticism of his tariffs and boasted that he was simply following what he argued was a glorious history of using import taxes in American history.
“I found some very old laws from when our country was rich -- really rich -- the old tariff laws. We had to dust them off. You could hardly see, they were so dusty,” Trump told the Conservative Political Action Conference.
At a minimum, Trump said, tariffs were “the greatest negotiating tool in the history of our country,” pointing to talks now underway with China which appear increasingly likely to result in a deal in the coming weeks.
Ultra
Junior Member
Did you know, SMIC is now co-run by a Taiwanese?
SMIC only caught up to TSMC on 14nm node because they poached quite a few TSMC's best engineers, including their senior director of R&D Liang Mong-song. For years SMIC could only get a pityful 3% yield rate at 14nm node, but after Liang Mong-song joined SMIC he turns it right around in less than 300 days as SMIC suddenly announced they can start taking orders with a yield rate up to 95%.
For years China simply couldn't even get remotely decent yield and last year they suddenly announced the breakthrough a year after they poached Liang. Co-incidence?
Leaker of TSMC Secrets Joins SMIC as Co-CEO
Yeh, SMIC Co-CEO is now a Taiwanese. The former TSMC senior director of R&D Liang Mong-song.
Last edited:
Ultra
Junior Member
Back to SMIC surpassing TSMC. I don't think so.
Is EUV Lithography machine a trade sanction item? If it is I dont see how China is going to be able to surpass TSMC when they can't get the equipment they needed. Right now SMIC bought ONE EUV Machine from ASML. It will be years before they figure out what to do with it.
China’s ability to make computer chips still ‘years behind’ industry leader
Rising costs of R&D and manufacturing create new hurdles
Edward White in Taipei January 22, 201
"SMIC has spent $120m on an EUV tool, according to a Nikkei report, but Arete’s Mr Fontanelli forecast it would not be used for commercial production for “many years”. SMIC did not comment on its equipment purchases. “It’s a bit like buying an F1 engine with no F1 chassis, suspension or aero and expecting to go racing,” Mr Fontanelli said. “EUV will be an important part of leading-edge production over the next decade but there is a huge amount of non-lithography work that goes hand-in-hand with EUV to bring a leading-edge chip through manufacturing.”
Are you somehow saying that as if China cares whether it's a Chinese or Taiwanese who contributes to China's progress? Over 1 million Taiwanese are working and/or living and/or studying in China. It is simply a matter of Taiwan's best and brightest finally coming together to raise the ceiling of Chinese civilization. I and many others are thankful to have their help. Also, I have no problem with continuing to rely on TSMC for semiconductors, for as long as it takes to catch up, so long as they are willing to continue selling instead of hypothetically allowing themselves to be used by Western politics to cut off our supply chain in a case of conflict or tensions with the West.
China makes the machines and materials, but this is a very work intensive low profit margin industry, aside from having a few factories laid aside for national security purposes, it has not caught on with most companies.
improved technology may allow profit margins to be pushed. Alternatively, the government can use tariffs as well as the risk card to force private companies to obey it.
Most important now is to make sure there are future markets for the stuff they create.
China’s goal is to reach the same GDP/per capita as the US (which may be severely inflated, but that’s another topic). To do so right now would either require China to take half of all American incomes and give it to their people, or it will need to find new routes to grow it’s economy. Since the former is pretty much impossible, China must create new wealth in the form of new markets.
improved technology may allow profit margins to be pushed. Alternatively, the government can use tariffs as well as the risk card to force private companies to obey it.
Most important now is to make sure there are future markets for the stuff they create.
China’s goal is to reach the same GDP/per capita as the US (which may be severely inflated, but that’s another topic). To do so right now would either require China to take half of all American incomes and give it to their people, or it will need to find new routes to grow it’s economy. Since the former is pretty much impossible, China must create new wealth in the form of new markets.
Last edited:
The most relevant part:
The U.S. and China are said to be to a trade deal that could lift most or all U.S. tariffs as long as Beijing follows through on pledges ranging from better protecting intellectual-property rights to buying a significant amount of American products.
For a country that sees its future in leading the world on R&D and being the top holder of revenue-generating IP in all the revolutionary tech fields, it makes absolute sense to enforce IP at home and abroad. As for buying a significant amount of American products, 200bn in American semiconductors (details exposed in other articles) plus 1 trillion of agro, capital equipment, gas, and petro products over 6 years is roughly in line with growing demand in China. Oppo + Vivo + Xiaomi rely on Qualcomm and will likely need very large quantities of semiconductors over 6 years for both their domestic and global sales of phones.
There is also news from other sources that the administration is taking aim at Japan (over autos and agro mostly) and India (over a wide range of issues).
The mainland won't be limited to TSMC's level of funding. Just as important, the mainland's talent pool will be far larger. For both of these reasons, the mainland is likely to progress faster than TSMC did. I remember saying, "Soon, TSMC's biggest competitor will be some mainland company". Perhaps I should revise that: Soon, TSMC's biggest competitors will be SEVERAL mainland companies.
If mainland companies grab market share, TSMC must lose some. I do agree with you to the extent that TSMC will probably survive, though as a smaller company.
Did you know, SMIC is now co-run by a Taiwanese?
SMIC only caught up to TSMC on 14nm node because they poached quite a few TSMC's best engineers, including their senior director of R&D Liang Mong-song. For years SMIC could only get a pityful 3% yield rate at 14nm node, but after Liang Mong-song joined SMIC he turns it right around in less than 300 days as SMIC suddenly announced they can start taking orders with a yield rate up to 95%.
For years China simply couldn't even get remotely decent yield and last year they suddenly announced the breakthrough a year after they poached Liang. Co-incidence?
The fact is that SMIC is catching up fast. The hiring of Liang Mong-song is proof that mainland companies have access to Taiwan's talent as well as the larger talent pool in the continent. I think several mainland companies will soon become the world's largest semiconductor foundries.
- Status