- Joined
- Jan 26, 2025
- Messages
- 2,783
- Reaction score
- 706
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The operative word is, "were." This country has large reserves of the rare earth minerals needed for the processes, operating in California and unexploited sites in Texas and Montana. Add that to new or expanded chip making factories such as Nvidia, Micron, TSMC and our dependence on Asian sources is markedly diminished...but guess where all of the parts were sourced from and where the rare earth minerals used to make the chips were from.
None of this has any bearing on the devices you mentioned since those were produced before any talks of manufacturing more of those devices here even started. Our dependence on Asian sources is not markedly diminished yet, and based on the deal framework this administration worked out with China, it looks like that won't be that drastically diminished either.The operative word is, "were." This country has large reserves of the rare earth minerals needed for the processes, operating in California and unexploited sites in Texas and Montana. Add that to new or expanded chip making factories such as Nvidia, Micron, TSMC and our dependence on Asian sources is markedly diminished.
That, my friend, is why I emphasized the word, "were."None of this has any bearing on the devices you mentioned since those were produced before any talks of manufacturing more of those devices here even started
We'll just have to hope that the environuts (as distinguished from sincere environmentalists) don't get in the way so that our recovery from Biden can proceed.Our dependence on Asian sources is not markedly diminished yet,
The China deal doesn't prevent anything we want to do here.based on the deal framework this administration worked out with China, it looks like that won't be that drastically diminished either
No, but it certainly signals that we will still be sourcing from them because the reality is we can't just magically replicate what's taken them years to build.That, my friend, is why I emphasized the word, "were."
We'll just have to hope that the environuts (as distinguished from sincere environmentalists) don't get in the way so that our recovery from Biden can proceed.
The China deal doesn't prevent anything we want to do here.
You don't say?No, but it certainly signals that we will still be sourcing from them because the reality is we can't just magically replicate what's taken them years to build.
"The longest journey begins with a single step." Lao Tzu, Tao Te ChingNo, but it certainly signals that we will still be sourcing from them because the reality is we can't just magically replicate what's taken them years to build.
Lest we forget the CHIPS Act."The longest journey begins with a single step." Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
We now have a President who's willing and able to take that step, and to encourage the investment to make it successful. Just three chip manufacturers have committed $800 billion to make the journey.
The CHIPS Act was a $280 billion government spending program, just over half of the $500 billion Nvidia will be spending of it's own money, and not to mention what other chip, supercomputer and AI companies have already lined up to do. CHIPS was nice, but tiny. Oh, and it did nothing about rare earth minerals.Lest we forget the CHIPS Act.
As opposed to what this administration's done? As for rare earth minerals, that's not ramping up any time soon and companies are going to go where there is already a supply which right now is China. Given rare earth minerals are part of the proposed trade deal with China, the US will still be competing with China for them.The CHIPS Act was a $280 billion government spending program, just over half of the $500 billion Nvidia will be spending of it's own money, and not to mention what other chip, supercomputer and AI companies have already lined up to do. CHIPS was nice, but tiny. Oh, and it did nothing about rare earth minerals.
Yes, bidens chip act was a step forward"The longest journey begins with a single step." Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
We now have a President who's willing and able to take that step, and to encourage the investment to make it successful. Just three chip manufacturers have committed $800 billion to make the journey.
Nvidia will be spending? Or.. could beThe CHIPS Act was a $280 billion government spending program, just over half of the $500 billion Nvidia will be spending of it's own money, and not to mention what other chip, supercomputer and AI companies have already lined up to do. CHIPS was nice, but tiny. Oh, and it did nothing about rare earth minerals.
Not even close on Nvidia.The CHIPS Act was a $280 billion government spending program, just over half of the $500 billion Nvidia will be spending of it's own money, and not to mention what other chip, supercomputer and AI companies have already lined up to do. CHIPS was nice, but tiny. Oh, and it did nothing about rare earth minerals.
A small one, but a step.Yes, bidens chip act was a step forward
Or, "NVIDIA announced Monday that it will invest up to $500 billion over the next four years to build artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure in the United States. " This reporting and the Fortune article indicate that Nvidia will spend $500 billion to build products for sale. That reads as if the $500 billion will be the cost, to Nvidia, of goods to be sold for a larger number.The $500 billion figure refers to the combined value of all the goods Nvidia anticipates selling in to the supply chain for AI.
My number on the CHIPS Act was $280 billion. According to your comments, that is the correct amount of money the government will invest because of the CHIPS Act.Also, your numbers on the CHIPS act are not accurate either.
Hmm. Some companies have pledged to invest, but that's very different from actual money in the bank. Furthermore the chaos and volatility Trump has created with his tariff flip flops has resulted in a great deal of stock market uncertainty about the future.Our phones were built in Vietnam. My laptop was built in India.
Since the first of this year, many companies are investing trillions of dollars to establish or expand manufacturing in this country. Because of the tariffs and the new, lower tax rate on US manufactured products, their products will have a pricing advantage.
Up to.Or, "NVIDIA announced Monday that it will invest up to $500 billion over the next four years to build artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure in the United States. " This reporting and the Fortune article indicate that Nvidia will spend $500 billion to build products for sale. That reads as if the $500 billion will be the cost, to Nvidia, of goods to be sold for a larger number.
My number on the CHIPS Act was $280 billion. According to your comments, that is the correct amount of money the government will invest because of the CHIPS Act.
As for the other figures you refer to, they would be great if they happen. Your source is a year-old study that forecasts those results but, as you point out, only $450 billion in investment had been announced.
Yes, that was the case in early April. However, news about trade with the EU and China have pretty well settled that down.Furthermore the chaos and volatility Trump has created with his tariff flip flops has resulted in a great deal of stock market uncertainty about the future.
Of course it's "up to." If costs go down over the next four years and the company can accomplish the desired results while investing something less, why wouldn't they?Up to.
So no commitment
Cost of goods sold is not an investment by Nvidia. Are you unaware of the difference between cost of goods sold and investment or are you just trying to amplify the con game that the Trump administration is trying to sell to the American people?Or, "NVIDIA announced Monday that it will invest up to $500 billion over the next four years to build artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure in the United States. " This reporting and the Fortune article indicate that Nvidia will spend $500 billion to build products for sale. That reads as if the $500 billion will be the cost, to Nvidia, of goods to be sold for a larger number.
$280 billion is the total bill, but only $39 billion is earmarked towards actual semiconductor manufacturing investments.My number on the CHIPS Act was $280 billion. According to your comments, that is the correct amount of money the government will invest because of the CHIPS Act.
Yes, you are correct. The Semiconductor Industry Association had forecasted a year ago what we are seeing now. The only thing they did not forecast was Trump trying to claim that he had waved some magic wand that cased what everyone knew was going to happen with AI progress.As for the other figures you refer to, they would be great if they happen. Your source is a year-old study that forecasts those results but, as you point out, only $450 billion in investment had been announced.
I'm very aware of the difference between a capital investment and the cost of goods sold. However, you muddied that water when you described your version of the Fortune article and wrote, "The $500 billion figure refers to the combined value of all the goods Nvidia anticipates selling..." Income from sales can't be considered an investment. However, the cost of goods to be sold (inventory) can be loosely considered an investment in anticipated, but not yet contracted, business. Obviously facilities, equipment and other start-up costs are.Cost of goods sold is not an investment by Nvidia.
Hence, my comment that it was "tiny."$280 billion is the total bill, but only $39 billion is earmarked towards actual semiconductor manufacturing investments.
$39 billion is the amount of cash. An unknown amount is the tax avoidance. Most of the $450 billion, however, is the necessary cost of being involved in a technology that's inescapable. And that raises the issue of whether the US will be involved heavily in that technology, By lowering manufacturing taxes and imposing tariffs on imported products, Trump has incentivized US involvement.What you call only $450 billion in investment as of last year due to $39 billion of seed money is not a bad return.
Nothing is settled yet; the steel part of the UK has yet to be formalised, and the important rare-earth minerals deal with China is still unresolved.Yes, that was the case in early April. However, news about trade with the EU and China have pretty well settled that down.
How did I muddy the water? My quote in italics is a direct quote copied from the Fortune article. The article you quoted earlier misrepresented the $500 billion as an investment.I'm very aware of the difference between a capital investment and the cost of goods sold. However, you muddied that water when you described your version of the Fortune article and wrote, "The $500 billion figure refers to the combined value of all the goods Nvidia anticipates selling..."
Calling cost of goods sold an investment is a con. Also, cost of goods sold is not equal to inventory. The only way that inventory could even be loosely called an investment would be an increase in inventory and no Nvidia is not planning a $500 billion increase in inventory.Income from sales can't be considered an investment. However, the cost of goods to be sold (inventory) can be loosely considered an investment in anticipated, but not yet contracted, business.
Tiny, but the $39 billion is an actual investment with a multiplier of more than 10 of private capital. Compared to the phantom $500 billion which is not an investment or zero investment.Obviously facilities, equipment and other start-up costs are.
Hence, my comment that it was "tiny."
Government cash towards actual capital expenditure. In other words real investment.$39 billion is the amount of cash.
Not unknown. It’s $24 billion. Which you applaud below when Trump does it.An unknown amount is the tax avoidance.
I’m not sure what your point is. It sounds like you are confused. Unlike your cost of goods sold, the $450 billion is actual private capital investment.Most of the $450 billion, however, is the necessary cost of being involved in a technology that's inescapable.
?And that raises the issue of whether the US will be involved heavily in that technology,
Tariffs result in fewer jobs because of retaliation by other countries depressing exports and higher input costs to manufacturers raising prices resulting in less demand. Bottom line is fewer jobs and higher prices for consumers. No one wins. This was the result of Trump’s tariffs before and will be again.By lowering manufacturing taxes and imposing tariffs on imported products, Trump has incentivized US involvement.
I didn't say that the issues are all settled. I said that the "market uncertainty" has pretty much settled down.Nothing is settled yet; the steel part of the UK has yet to be formalised, and the important rare-earth minerals deal with China is still unresolved.
Not intentionally, I'm sure. The quote from Fortune indicates that the $500 Billion is the expected value of products Nvidia will sell. Other comments about it indicate that it is an "investment" or a commitment of some kind. Without further investigation, I'm content to agree that Nvidia is going to spend money to create new products and in general add to the economy to the extent of half a trillion dollars.How did I muddy the water?
I specifically did not use the term, "Cost of Goods Sold" because I know it's place in accounting.Calling cost of goods sold an investment
No, it's government spending, just as Democrats refer to any controversial government spending as "an investment."Government cash towards actual capital expenditure. In other words real investment.
Tax avoidance in a bill is an estimate, dependent on the private revenue gained.Not unknown. It’s $24 billion.
The $450 billion is not necessarily the result of any government impetus. AI is an emerging technology and corporations that are in that field of business are practically required to invest in it.I’m not sure what your point is. It sounds like you are confused. Unlike your cost of goods sold, the $450 billion is actual private capital investment.
Yes, that's the useful, political line. However, the tariffs Trump has imposed have been delayed, altered or cancelled as part of the negotiations over trade in general. Until tariffs on both sides are firm, they don't have any of the effects you list. For companies deciding where to make investments, however, and along with tax reductions, they show a willingness to provide incentives to manufacture in this country.Tariffs result in fewer jobs because of retaliation by other countries depressing exports and higher input costs to manufacturers raising prices resulting in less demand.
We disagree.This was the result of Trump’s tariffs before and will be again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?