Tag Archives: markets

US Chip Export Restrictions

Posted on by
Reply

They’re beginning to bite in the People’s Republic of China, according to “people familiar.”

Shortages of advanced semiconductors are so acute that the government has begun intervening in how the output of China’s largest contract chip maker, Semiconductor Manufacturing International, is distributed, according to people familiar with the matter. Chinese authorities are trying to give priority to the needs of tech conglomerate and national champion Huawei Technologies, which uses SMIC technology to make artificial-intelligence chips, the people said.

Say the report is accurate, the mythical nature of the source notwithstanding. What is the PRC doing about it besides allocating domestic production from the center?

Up against restrictions, some semiconductor companies such as Shanghai-based MetaX are designing chips on older, more available technology, bundling two or more smaller chips together to compensate for more limited computing power. Bundling strategies at Chinese companies have resulted in electricity-guzzling data centers, prompting multiple local governments to start subsidizing their power bills, people familiar with the matter said.

And they smuggle American chips that have been banned from export to the PRC. The PRC also will solve its data center energy problem.

The correct answer to this, though, is not to remove the export restrictions. The correct answer is to do our own workarounds of this type, learn the details of the PRC’s workarounds, and learn how the PRC solves its own data center energy shortage problems at the same time we work out solutions to our own data center energy shortage problems. Doing that would better prepare us for future such shortages, and it would enable us to better target restrictions on American goods, not just chips, headed for the PRC, whether directly or via third (and fourth) party nations.

Interesting Idea

Posted on by
2

This one from President Donald Trump (R), who has one on occasion.

I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over[.]

The idea wants study to identify any hidden implications, good or bad. It also wants a couple of criteria attached. One is a means test for eligibility for the payments. The Federal Poverty Guidelines do a good job of locating the threshold for poverty. Anyone or any family with income above the poverty guideline is, by definition, not living in poverty, and so should be ineligible.

The other criterion is a sunset clause. The subsidies, even as direct payments to the individuals, should have a hard expiration date beyond which they end, irrevocably (or as nearly so as a Congress can make a statute, which frankly isn’t much). The duration of the payments should be only long enough to allow the individual and family make their own budgetary adjustments, plus what might be called an engineering slop cushion—perhaps six months.

All in all, though, this is a good initial consideration.

A Mixed Message

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s (R) tariff program is before the Supreme Court (oral arguments were heard last Wednesday), it appears to be in trouble, and I claim it’s due to his mixed messaging to us in the public.

I have long argued, especially during Trump II’s tariff implementations, that there are two purposes for tariffs, and so two kinds of tariffs. One kind is protectionist tariffs, tariffs implemented to protect domestic industries, especially those in their nascent stages and those that are national security critical. Protectionist tariffs are, in the main, badly mistaken for a variety of reasons; although, an argument can be made that protectionism related to national security is a cost of national security that must be paid if we’re to remain free as a nation.

The other kind of tariff is that used as a foreign policy tool, tariffs applied in order to persuade another nation or bloc of nations to desist from their unfair trade practices, viz., dumping product at below cost, unfair subsidies of their own domestic industries, withholding export of products critical to the importing nation’s economy or national security, or other policies to which the tariffing nation might object.

Trump has been busily touting both the revenue raised by all of his tariffs, of both kinds, while also insisting that they’re necessary foreign policy tools intended to get other nations to leave off their unfair trade practices, to “stop ripping off America,” and to mend their ways on other matters.

Which brings me to the present article by The Wall Street Journal‘s Greg Ip.

Lawyers often stretch the facts to make their case, but even so, this was quite the howler from US Solicitor General John Sauer in defense of President Trump’s tariffs at the Supreme Court on Wednesday: “They are not revenue-raising tariffs.”

Ip, with that lede, stripped his Sauer sentence of its context. The rest of what Sauer was saying is that their purpose, as a foreign policy tool, is to persuade the targeted nations to change their ways. That these foreign policy tools also happen to produce money is deeply secondary. Ip later acknowledged that, but not until deep into his piece. Sauer again, originally:

“The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental. The tariffs would be most effective, so to speak, if no person ever paid them,” because they would have achieved their goal of changing another country’s behavior, or diverting all American purchases away from imports to domestic goods[.]

And that’s the problem with Trump’s rhetoric here. He’s made no distinction in his program between tariffs as protectionism and revenue-raising, the latter which is a Congressional prerogative and not Executive, and tariffs as foreign tools, which is an Executive prerogative and not Congressional.

This is a milieu where Trump’s studied vagueness in his rhetoric may well backfire. Keeping adversaries suitably confused as to our intentions through ambiguity can be highly useful. However, American law, and so our courts—especially our Supreme Court—deal in clearly stated specifics within each case that comes before them. Vague, especially, internally conflicting, speech is properly disdained by judges and Justices.

Trump’s contaminating his use of tariffs as foreign policy tools with his use of tariffs as protectionist policy may well produce the elimination of his tariff program in toto. That would be to our nation’s economic ill, and to our nation’s national security detriment.

Weasel Words

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s governing claque of men and women are engaging in them. Again. Or still. This is The Wall Street Journal‘s lede:

China will loosen its export restrictions on semiconductors made by Nexperia, its Commerce Ministry said….

However.

China will allow exports of Nexperia chips for eligible cases, the Commerce Ministry said Saturday, without specifying the criteria.

Meaning, I fearlessly predict, that Nexperia’s exports from the PRC will be slow-walked, blocked, and otherwise interfered with for the foreseeable future. Just as with any other non-PRC company doing semiconductor business from inside the PRC. Lacking export criteria, the PRC has left itself wiggle room for blue whale pods in which to employ those weasel words. The PRC’s Commerce Ministry also made no mention at all regarding loosening export restrictions on rare earth magnets or rare earth ore.

Nexperia—and everyone else outside of the PRC—would do well to move their raw material production, assembly, and manufacturing facilities—all of them, not just those related to rare earths—entirely outside of the PRC.

That, too

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats are keeping the government shut down over their demand to extend—permanently, no negotiations—the Obamacare subsidies that the Progressive-Democrats during the Biden reign had scheduled to expire in November of this year, pretending at the time that the subsidies were just temporary, to tide people over during the Wuhan Virus situation. Their core claim on this aspect is that Obamacare premiums, as paid by the policy holder (carefully excluding, per those same Progressive-Democrats, the premium costs paid for by us taxpayers via those subsidies), will explode.

What the press, with equal care, ignores is that the purported need for those subsidies is a direct result of the cost of the government-run health care coverage program that is the Affordable Care Act. Government-run because these are coverage policies whose coverage suites are mandated by government, including the worst mandate of them all: the requirement to charge premiums (within narrow government set bands) for ailments and potential ailments without regard for the risk of the ailment being covered, and for some of those ailments at no cost to the policy holder at all.

The Wall Street Journal has pointed out an additional price to us average Americans:

If Republicans don’t extend the turbocharged subsidies, she [Minnesota Progressive-Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar] warned, “early retirees like Bill & Shelly [who live in Meridian, ID] will see their health insurance premiums increase nearly 300%—from $442 to $1,700.”

And [emphasis added]

This is a tacit admission that ObamaCare encourages Americans to stop working. The Biden subsidies turbocharged that incentive by making subsidies larger and available even to those with incomes above 400% of the poverty line. The couple in Ms Klobuchar’s example had north of $130,000 of income in 2024….

This demand for permanentizing the ObamaCare subsidies is just one more aspect of big government taking over our lives, reducing individual liberties (the health coverage industry does not exist in a free, competitive market where individuals can make their own choices of what coverages they want, at prices that competition would make possible) and taking the flip side of individual liberties, individual responsibilities, away from the individual and, instead, spreading them across all of us together, as brokered by Government.

The editors offer some solutions that would be a good beginning toward correcting the failure that is the ObamaCare essay into socialized medicine.

  • codifying association health plans that let small businesses join up to form a larger risk pool to improve the economics of offering insurance
  • continuing to expand plans that can be paired with tax-preferred health-savings accounts
  • fix[ing] some ObamaCare regulations like the medical-loss ratio that obliges insurers to spend 80% of premiums on claims, which in practice is a profit cap

Also needed, I claim:

  • allowing health coverage plan providers to sell policies that cover preexisting conditions at premiums consistent with the risk involved. The risk here is not certainty since the preexisting conditions will not all flare up and require medical intervention simultaneously; the risks can be amortized across time, if government only got out of the way
  • allowing individuals to choose from, and insurers to offer, tailored coverages: only primary care—annual exams, for instance, and the occasional flu or broken bone
  • coverages only for catastrophic health potentialities
  • reducing the regulatory burden on doctors who want to eschew being reimbursed via health coverage providers by doing cash reimbursements, perhaps by annual subscriptions

But to do any of that, it’s necessary for the Progressive-Democrats to end their extortionate demand on subsidies as a condition or reopening, so those discussions can begin; it’s necessary for the Progressive-Democrats to release from their basements us American people, especially the poor and their children, whom they’ve taken hostage against their demand.