Thread

1. bsoqk · 1790205152 · focus · HN ↗

   > So far, however, the law has done little to spur the construction of new semiconductor factories in Europe. The European Court of Auditors concluded last year that the EU is unlikely to achieve its goal of doubling Europe’s share of the global chip market by 2030.

   They should make another law and probably a few more commissions of auditors.

   1. Epa095 · 1790431691 · focus · HN ↗

      I get the sarcasm, but its not like e.g. TSMC popped up in a environment of pure libertarian free market capitalism. It was, from the beginning, a project of the Taiwanese state, and without significant public influence there is no way it would have become what it is. Are the EU laws what's needed? IDK. But without a proper public industrial policy besides "low taxes and few regulations" there is no way Europe will be able to get significant semiconductor-production up, the rich-get-richer phenomenon is just to strong.

      1. brookst · 1790432613 · focus · HN ↗

         I think the point is that laws alone mean nothing. As you note, Taiwan was more active than just having commissions and signing papers.

         Airbus proves the EU can do this. It remains to be seen if they still have the ability to take constructive action, or if “add more bureaucracy” is the only tool remaining in the toolbox.

         1. egorfine · 1790433348 · focus · HN ↗

            > Airbus proves the EU can do this

            *could.

            Airbus has been grandfathered into the current legal situation. Today a future Airbus would not be able to even start collecting data for its initial Environmental Impact Study.

         2. overfeed · 1790443962 · focus · HN ↗

            > Airbus proves the EU can do this

            And Boeing's rampant carelessness proves European laws can be beneficial. "Hurr durr, how about them European laws" is a low-effort comment that adds nothing to the discussions.

            The argument that a slack regulatory environment is sufficient was disproven when the US government subsidized new fabs via the CHIPS Act (a new law!), and then went further and partially nationalized a failing Intel to prop it up.

         3. lm2s · 1790444138 · focus · HN ↗

            I’ve seen someone explaining why it’s not as easy with semiconductors: Airbus can spread several different factories for different components around the EU. For semiconductors that’s not as feasible. Thus countries would fight which one would have the semiconductors factory. I think it was more or less this argument, which seems to make sense.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.