TSMC is still trying to hire people for that US site.
I'm not sure how much I buy the 'The Hill' article, the authors sound like someone is paying them to push that narrative. The narrative could easily still be true, and I do think it sounds plausible and credible.
State departments of environmental quality can actually be a bit functional. Basically, it can be a place to park bureaucrats to fight for local industry against the feds. Back in the day, the federal organization was run by human hating greens, but some of the state organizations were either saner, or much more interested in crooked 'good old boy' business dealings. But, maybe all the state bureaucracies have since been captured? I dunno.
Arizona is controlled by Democrats now, so that could explain problems.
Foreign investment in US plants now seems to have the same problems that occurred with some of the indian tribes. Some times an indian tribe decided it wanted to make a peace agreemetn. So, who did they make it with? The basic problem with that is that DC, the local army, and the local civilian population were each people who could make an agreement, but whichever party would not be able to ensure that the other two 'white' parties were delivering on an agreement made by any one of them.
So, siting the TMSC plant in Arizona was a deal made by national politicians, and valued for whatever ends those national politicians had. But, there is no 'unity of command', and no effective control, and so those deal makers could not deliver enough cooperation by state and local officials.
Relocations inside the US seem more functional, folks can maybe pick out a destination state slowly enough to verify that the state and local governments will cooperate.
However, there are crazy people in every state, and any of them could get very interesting, very quickly.
"Matt Cole is CEO and Chief Investment Officer for Strive Asset Management, an Ohio-based firm with over $1 billion in assets under management, where Chris Nicholson is head of research."
I'm not sure anyone is paying them directly, but I suspect they have investment positions that are impacted by the failures of the CHIPS act
Critical theory seems to believe that peace and civilization are evil magics worked in the distant past.
Communism seems to think that if you have something you like, it must have come about by way of inherently destructive magic, that required hurting other people.
The result seems to be a bit more third world, people who will on principle try to destroy what you are doing if they are not being paid off enough, or are not being coerced.
Of course, state and local factions have often enough been provincial, and wanted to trouble anyone who was not paying them enough. So I may be catastrophizing to speculate that now is qualitatively different.
It is a big country. Wide range of groups, very separated in distance.
The ability to actually control what a distant group does is pretty weak. You get various parties not feuding a bunch with particular groups when there is a consensus across a lot of local groups.
How much some people really did not like the railroads is mostly a historical curiosity /now/.
We've had different periods with different degrees of deep disputes being acted on.
If I can see now that I correctly forecast, years ago, some little detail that others did not want to see, I am gonna be overconfident in the rest of my judgement no matter how many of my other forecasts were never validated by reality.
Right now, we seem to be heading into, or perhaps leaving already, a period of greater disputes. We shall see.
There are reasons us companies move abroad. There is a whole “compliance industry” that makes money helping businesses in the US comply with the multitude of regulations, laws and rules they must operate under.
TSMC is still trying to hire people for that US site.
I'm not sure how much I buy the 'The Hill' article, the authors sound like someone is paying them to push that narrative. The narrative could easily still be true, and I do think it sounds plausible and credible.
State departments of environmental quality can actually be a bit functional. Basically, it can be a place to park bureaucrats to fight for local industry against the feds. Back in the day, the federal organization was run by human hating greens, but some of the state organizations were either saner, or much more interested in crooked 'good old boy' business dealings. But, maybe all the state bureaucracies have since been captured? I dunno.
Arizona is controlled by Democrats now, so that could explain problems.
Foreign investment in US plants now seems to have the same problems that occurred with some of the indian tribes. Some times an indian tribe decided it wanted to make a peace agreemetn. So, who did they make it with? The basic problem with that is that DC, the local army, and the local civilian population were each people who could make an agreement, but whichever party would not be able to ensure that the other two 'white' parties were delivering on an agreement made by any one of them.
So, siting the TMSC plant in Arizona was a deal made by national politicians, and valued for whatever ends those national politicians had. But, there is no 'unity of command', and no effective control, and so those deal makers could not deliver enough cooperation by state and local officials.
Relocations inside the US seem more functional, folks can maybe pick out a destination state slowly enough to verify that the state and local governments will cooperate.
However, there are crazy people in every state, and any of them could get very interesting, very quickly.
The article was written by
"Matt Cole is CEO and Chief Investment Officer for Strive Asset Management, an Ohio-based firm with over $1 billion in assets under management, where Chris Nicholson is head of research."
I'm not sure anyone is paying them directly, but I suspect they have investment positions that are impacted by the failures of the CHIPS act
That was the detail I thought about.
Your analysis makes a lot more sense to me.
I think the fundamentals now for investment suck.
Critical theory seems to believe that peace and civilization are evil magics worked in the distant past.
Communism seems to think that if you have something you like, it must have come about by way of inherently destructive magic, that required hurting other people.
The result seems to be a bit more third world, people who will on principle try to destroy what you are doing if they are not being paid off enough, or are not being coerced.
Of course, state and local factions have often enough been provincial, and wanted to trouble anyone who was not paying them enough. So I may be catastrophizing to speculate that now is qualitatively different.
This is probably the best, in a nutshell, description of the regulatory system in the US I have ever read.
Thanks.
It is a big country. Wide range of groups, very separated in distance.
The ability to actually control what a distant group does is pretty weak. You get various parties not feuding a bunch with particular groups when there is a consensus across a lot of local groups.
How much some people really did not like the railroads is mostly a historical curiosity /now/.
We've had different periods with different degrees of deep disputes being acted on.
If I can see now that I correctly forecast, years ago, some little detail that others did not want to see, I am gonna be overconfident in the rest of my judgement no matter how many of my other forecasts were never validated by reality.
Right now, we seem to be heading into, or perhaps leaving already, a period of greater disputes. We shall see.
There are reasons us companies move abroad. There is a whole “compliance industry” that makes money helping businesses in the US comply with the multitude of regulations, laws and rules they must operate under.
And with OFAC and other related bits of US government, even foreign businesses have to have compliance departments that care about US regulations
Yep. Non US banks certainly do and they must comply even in their homelands.