[thiago_fm]

More like the opposite, by making ties with other countries, Taiwan will win some geopolitical points.

TSMC alone has no control over if the Chinese government will commit such aggression, if they would do their whole company strategy based on fearing the CCP, there's no way they can be successful.

[Vespasian]

I think this is true. China is working really hard to get it's domestic semiconducter industry up to speed.

They are willing to burn a lot of money and time to reach their overall political goal of annexing Taiwan even if it takes a very very long time.

Ultimately it's unrealistic to assume that a country of 1.4 Billion people can not catch up eventually espescially if they would otherwise have to rely on a global competitor (US) or a military target which factories are rigged to blow (Taiwan).

The best thing Taiwan can do (once their semiconductor lead is no more) is to make themselves into a strategic ally located on Chinas doorstep.

[MengerSponge]

China is willing to point a firehose of resouroces at development targets, but that doesn't guarantee success. Semiconductors are really stinking hard!

East Germany famously tried really hard to develop a native capability, but failed and wound up smuggling parts from the west and running years behind western firms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxrkC-pMH_s

China is more willing to both reward and hold senior stakeholders responsible, as long as they aren't too closely allied with Xi

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's unrealistic to assume that a country of 1.4 Billion people can not catch up eventually

Why? By 2100, each of Pakistan, the D.R.C. and Kenya are forecast to have larger populations than America [1]. Is it unrealistic to assume they won’t be at parity with the west in eighty years? (Note: not saying dismiss entirely. Just baselines.)

China has a lot going for it in semiconductors. Demography isn’t one of them. The population is aging and shrinking. That, ceteris paribus, reduces surplus capital for R&D.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...

[mschuster91]

> By 2100, each of Pakistan, the D.R.C. and Kenya are forecast to have larger populations than America. Is it unrealistic to assume they won’t be at parity with the west in eighty years?

Pakistan has the best chances to rise, at least assuming religious / ethnic tensions can be somewhat placated, it doesn't become a hotbed of natural disasters like last year's floods and they don't either get into open war with India or suffer from some sort of coups by the military or secret services.

Kenya and especially Congo? That's a different game entirely. Climate change, utter poverty and endemic corruption are just a couple of the hurdles to pass.

[guiriduro]

Climate change is already having the bigger impact on Pakistan - aside from 48C Karachi, last year saw incredible flooding.

[dirtyid]

>Why?

Because PRC is not systemically comparable to those countries just like Japan isn't comparable to a larger Nigeria.

Only the most cognitively challenged demographic determinists argue larger population = more capability. Useful demographic analysis more than naive reading of demographic pyramid, it's recognizing unlike most developing countries, PRC has established record to upskill/cultivate and coordinate human capita at scale. And is projected to have multiple times more skilled talent than US by 2050s, moving from current 25% high skilled workforce to 60/70/80% to reflect workforce composition of advanced economies over time.

>Demography isn’t one of them

More than anyone, demography is PRC's greatest advantage for semi and other high tech industries in relevant timelines we're talking about. The workforce for high skilled talent is exploding for another 30+ years. Short/medium term PRC has by relevant measures, the greatest skilled demographic divident ever, and even in stagnation they'll be settling with largest (or second largest relative to India) pool of skilled workforce, with again proven ability to coordinate (i.e. not India performance).

Even 2100 PRC working age population is still ~2x of 2100 US if you tally up pyramid projections of 20-65 yr olds. Except PRC's 2100 workforce will likely have more than 2x current skilled talent instead of being dragged down by 100s of millions of farmers and surplus informal workers who will age out post 2050s to be replaced by better educated/more productive cohorts. Same way other Asian tigers grew despite "bad demographics" - by continuously upskilling % of workforce initially dominated by peasants over time.

This is why current analysis of US semi workforce project 80k short term shortage to balloon to 300-400k medium term. SKR, TW both have current/short term 50-100k shortage. The TLDR is SKR, TW (and JP) have nearly satuated their workforce in terms of skilled talent, and can't replace at parity. US expanding fabs as rate their talent pipeline can't catch up, and the ability to import/brain drain is limited because they'll be taking from other CHIP4 partners also undergoing shortage. Which leaves PRC, who after elevating semi to first-level dicipline in 2018 is pumping out about 30k IC graduates per year. They're still about 200k short, ~520k/720k (400k in 2018) out of what IC talent 2018 white paper estimated PRC needed for completely indigenous semi industry, which US isn't currently even trying to pursue, still ultimately relying on east asian semi supply chains. Long term US may to get there, but right now only PRC is sent to close semi labour force gap within the decade. Ultimately, talent is just as important in industrial policy as money. PRC has both. Their biggest shortcoming is being behind, which will likely be addressed by investing sufficient talent and money.

[The_Colonel]

Even endless money is no guarantee of a success, especially with a rampant corruption and preference for loyalty as opposed to competency.