DefiantTostada

The wafer equipment market has more US roots than the fab market, as many tools are designed here (even if built in Asia). Their supply chains are different than TSMC/Samsung and less localized to “home country only”. Also, TSMC was bringing their supply chain with them for AZ.

Two points:

1. It’s the fiscally responsible thing for these pension funds to do. They have diversified investments, including S&P500 stocks. I hope the police and firefighter pension realized all those TSLA gains.
2. Institutional investors have POWER, and we don’t want all institutional investors to be investment banks. Why isn’t it good news that a union pension fund is holding a greedy board accountable for outsized executive pay? These guys saw a material impact in their investments at TSLA due to board BS and sued the board.

While this is inevitable, it’s also terrifying. I don’t think we’re close to Skynet, but I could definitely see needless escalation due to over-relying on AI analysis.

Yeah in fairness the article is making that leap as well. But the $ to build an EV factory or a semiconductor fab are so mind boggling that it will dwarf the new construction spend on some of the more traditional manufacturing industries. That said, there are some beautiful buildings- now vacant- in the rust belt that I wish would get re-purposed. The urban ones have likely turned into loft apartments by now, but the rural factory buildings may not ever get used again. Those old brick and stone buildings with the slanted skylights are iconic. I’m not sure they’ll ever get filled again, unfortunately.

It is interesting that there is a lot of new construction, as it highlights the changing goods that are being produced in the US. I imagine many of those closed down factories in the rust belt/Midwest aren’t coming back, as those jobs (machining, welding, stamping, etc.) might still be done in LCC. The new construction $ is likely driven by biopharma, semiconductor, EV, and other high-tech manufacturing as the article starts to imply.

You’re not a “doomer”, as I read it more like the opposite- your defense of global trade is optimistic. Trade and specialization doesn’t work nearly that cleanly in practice.

Companies and governments saw the disruptions of the past few years and realized that there are unaccounted for costs (and benefits) to the global supply chain. COVID, shipping disruptions (strikes, Evergreen, prices), the chip shortage, etc. all have taught a lesson about the diversification of supply chain risk. Decentralization isn’t less efficient when you include those costs. So it makes more sense now to make goods in America for America, and make goods in China for China. Not all goods, obviously, but the scales have shifted…and that’s a good thing for the health of global supply.