| HN Mirror

Those charts seem to indicate a spike after the CHIPS act was passed, rather than when it was proposed by the two bipartisan US senators in 2019.

> I don't really see the value in debating the details of the policies

> Trump made rebuilding industry his #1 message

Not debating policy. I don't see the evidence that Trump is linked to the CHIPS act. While that might be his message (as you claim), the evidence of him doing anything for that relative to the CHIPS act is lacking. The attribution beyond two bipartisan senators proposing the CHIPS act in 2019 is so far without evidence. Further, when the CHIPS act did pass, it was despite Republican opposition. In essence, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Trump had anything to do with the CHIPS act other than holding office while it failed to go anywhere in congress.

> I also take issue with the idea China's success in manufacturing was a result of the gov choosing winners = a good thing.

My claim is that without Chinese government support, China would not be producing 80% of today's solar panels. According to 'ucigcc', the Chinese government played a big role in creating a domestic market (demand) for solar panels. [1] Further: "Credit lines to expand manufacturing capacity were brokered and backed by local governments and state-owned firms, even in the years after the global financial crisis when the collapse particularly of European markets led to overcapacity in global solar markets. " [1]

Taking stock from [1], the Chinese government induced demand for solar panels (subsidized them), and supported the industries producing the solar panels.

From the same reference: "In 2015 the central government launched a so-called Top Runner program. Top Runner projects injected incentives to deploy advanced solar PV technologies and retire the production of dated technologies. Module cost continued to fall because of these incentives, while module efficiency continued to increase. Particularly installations of high-efficiency panels in Western China were able to achieve grid parity because of those incentive changes, yet broader issues, including the perpetual underfunding of the renewable energy fund, the low profitability of domestic manufacturers, overcapacity, and broader trade tensions remained unresolved."

The reference does not 100% back my claim, but I would say strongly supports it. It's hard to see the Chinese solar industry being the same without all of the government support.

> Gov as a giant VC sounds like a horrible idea

On its face, sure. Though, when there is a war or during the pandemic this cames into play. That is an extreme example, there are less extreme examples. In these extreme examples, the government shifts market forces by implementing price caps and forcing production. Governments do similar in less heavy handed ways all the time.

Reference [2] supports this notion, there is a history of governments selecting strategic industries, supporting them, creating demand for that industry - and then once seeded the industry has legs to run on its own. To do this, Governments can create entire markets, which in turn creates enough demand for suppliers to come online.

From [2]: "The emerging U.S. advanced battery industry represents a bold experiment by the federal government in direct financial support of private companies to establish a domestic manufacturing industry."

"The photovoltaic industry is an example of a U.S. high-tech sector that has lost global share but has a solid opportunity to re-emerge as a leader with the right mix of federal and state policy support. In the case of solar power, a deciding factor will be whether the United States will become a big enough market to support a large-scale, globally competitive manufacturing industry. Federal and state incentives will be essential for the next few years, until the cost of solar energy can compete against electricity generated from fossil fuels without subsidies. Another question is whether U.S. companies that focus on products incorporating promising new technologies will be able to survive surging imports of low-cost photovoltaic cells and modules based on mature technologies long enough to attain economies of scale. "

"This turn of fortunes is primarily due to strategic moves and investments in new technologies by U.S. semiconductor manufacturers. Yet, their success also rests on the important contributions of U.S. policy that was driven by an engaged industry. There were two additional interrelated elements to the U.S. success:10 The research consortium SEMATECH, a $200 million-a-year research effort co-funded by the federal government and most large American chip companies, accelerated productivity and innovation in semiconductor manufacturing based on a common technology roadmap and enabled a rapid decline in prices.11 Persistent trade negotiations and enforcement of previous agreements won commitments from Japan to open its market to U.S. semiconductors and curtail dumping in any world market.12 This was deemed essential to prevent the United States from becoming a high-priced island in a sea of underpriced semiconductors. Had that occurred, it would have severely disadvantaged downstream American electronics equipment producers compared with competitors producing abroad utilizing lower-priced dumped chips."

"The decline and resurgence of the U.S. semiconductor industry offers many useful lessons for policymakers and industrialists grappling with how to bolster other American high-technology sectors facing intense international competitive pressure. It shows that erosion of U.S. leadership in manufacturing is not irreversible as long as both industry and government are committed to cooperative action, both on trade policy and in well-designed research programs that will lead to innovation"

What are some examples of this? Tax-credits is a big one. Think of Tesla, sales were boosted because there was an EV tax-credit. Further, there is actually no Tesla without the US department of Energy. "In January 2010, the Department of Energy issued a $465 million loan to Tesla Motors to produce specially designed, all-electric plug-in vehicles" [3] Without that loan, Tesla would have been toast.

> China's mass urbanization, huge cheap labour base, a culture of hard work, and the West happily destroying their own industry...it's easy to 'pick' winners in a flush market.

While that might all be true - when China was building its solar panel industry - the market was not flush. To your point, the Solyndra example and the subsequent divestment are good examples of the US destroying its solar industry. The lack of subsidies for solar panel meant demand and production remained anemic, meanwhile there were strong subsidies given directly to oil companies. The USG effectively cut-off the tap before demand picked up, why would then any US company produce very expensive solar panels with nobody really to buy them? Now that the price has come down, China just dominates, it was their innovation and supports that created the conditions for that to happen.

> I also take issue with the idea China's success in manufacturing

I am being specific to the solar industry. A broader generalization to all of manufacturing would need its own evidence. Yet, there are broad over time and across many governments, examples of industries that got their roots from government support. The solar example is very salient because it was so notable with Solyndra and then the US not strongly supporting renewables, and then lost out big on that industry.

[1] https://ucigcc.org/blog/how-solar-developed-from-the-bottom-...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100307/#

[3] https://www.energy.gov/lpo/tesla