TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

Geopolitically this makes a lot of sense. Will be interesting to see how China reacts as it moves forward.

If Intel is serious this time about letting third parties into their fabs then it could be quite the reversal of fortune. However, as I've said in the past Intel is most likely to do this with "alternate" process streams, in order to not expose their full capabilities to competitors.

High hopes but low expectations. Real estate in AZ could be a good investment though.

As a first pass, wouldn't this be good for China? TSMC was strategic for Taiwan, as a military takeover of Taiwan (where the plants will likely be damaged or scuttled) would be economically damaging for the US. That might be a bit different if the US has enough high-the fabs internally.

I'd love to hear better analysis; I'm not confident of my understanding here.

China will do everything it can to keep the factories in a war, it’s likely the US would offer a lot of Taiwanese US visas especially those in tech, it’s likely the Taiwanese people will have a general strike and the whole place will be very unpleasant to live in after probably many hundreds of thousands of Chinese dead due to choke points getting onto the island. It’s likely after an invasion most production for the West will have to move to other cheaper countries. I can’t see how we can do business with a country that invaded a democratic country.

I really don’t get why China care so much or the CCP see their hold over China as so weak they don’t want to be a part of the world system. But it’s their loss and America will have a clear competitor to focus minds and have a Cold War with again.

>I can’t see how we can do business with a country that invaded a democratic country.

Where do we draw the line? Because there is one country in the western world that would be banned from trade if destroying democracies are not allowed. It is also the only country in the world that has toppled governments so many times it has its own Wikipedia article. So unless you define it as only "full-scale invasion" the US would have to be put outside.

As someone from Africa with knowledge of USA involvement in toppling some governments here, I sometimes wonder who's worst? A country I know for certain it has invaded unilaterally others (USA) or a country with potential of one day in the future for invading countries (China).

I can't say which outcome will be better but I do personally like China's way of buying their way in with money, roads, etc. better than the "old way" with selling guns to rebels, using CIA agents etc. I wish both would stop meddling in Africa though. Such a horrific history of greed. I'm curious how you see the difference though?

Small correction... China’s belt & road initiative is more about lending than buying.