[sudosysgen]

> Yes, but it's not a CapEx investment (as in upfront capital taken out of a treasury and invested), and is subject to public notices so there at least is an auditable trail. And unlike China, municipalities and States in the US can directly raise capital via bonds.

This is also true for Anhui. Out of the ~5 billion about 2.6 billion was in direct funding, the rest is in debt/equity swaps which aren't going to be upfront costs.

Similarly in the US, for this kind of project you can expect about half of the funding to be a direct grant and the other half to be deferred.

> Because that stake in one venture is 10% of Anhui Province's entire Revenue in 2022 - Anhui's total revenue was only $49B in 2022 but it's expenditures were $115B in 2022 [0]. And that's just one venture.

Ohio's situation is similar, with ~8% of yearly revenue spent on that one single TSMC building. Ohio's direct revenue is only around 25B/yr, with the vast majority of the budget being funded by the federal government (mostly pass through, for example Medicare)

> It does though. Even though YMTC was under the Tsinghua Unigroup umbrella, it's primary capital came from a separate government and remained autonomous of Tsinghua Unigroup, and Unigroup's larger failures impacted actual deliveries and roadmap items for YMTC [1]

Again, the argument from the start was about outcomes in funding for the industry. I have not argued anywhere that Unigroup's leadership deserves any credit, just that some of the funding allocated to Unigroup - chiefly the one earmarked for YMTC - ended up with decent outcomes.

[alephnerd]

> the rest is in debt/equity swaps which aren't going to be upfront costs

Those are still an upfront cost on Anhui's treasury as it is counted as a liability, and a liability with limited ability to service due to the relatively weak municipal and provincial bonds market due to the ongoing LGFV crisis.

> Ohio's situation is similar, with ~8% of yearly revenue spent on that one single TSMC [Intel, not TSMC - good catch selimthegrim] building. Ohio's direct revenue is only around 25B/yr, with the vast majority of the budget being funded by the federal government (mostly pass through, for example Medicare)

Ohio only gave $0.6B - ie. 2.4% [0] (and even that was controversial [1]). The rest of the $7.4B came from the CHIPS Act.

Furthermore Ohio has a AAA credit rating score [2] meaning it can borrow at low-to-no interest, which doesn't really exist as an option at scale in most Chinese provinces.

And finally, this investment by Ohio generated jobs within Ohio. The Tsinghua Unigroup bag-holding isn't allocating Capex for Anhui, as most of Tsinghua Unigroup's assets are not in Anhui.

That said, a capex-to-jobs case could be made for JAC Group and Volkswagen China which have Anhui government ownership stakes, but then again they themselves are losing marketshare to BYD - a privately funded company - like just about every other car manufacturer in China (the majority of whom are SOEs or have an ownership stake from Provinces or Central Ministries).

It's not so say American states haven't made similar mistakes before (eg. the NY Corruption indictments following the Buffalo Billions Scandal), but the fact that Buffalo Billions was news is itself a major deal - corruption and misallocation of capital within the BigFund and SOEs is sadly the norm in China, and everyday I can see CCDI arresting yet another person, while ignoring others until they piss off the wrong guy (and occasionally, even CCDI themselves are found to be corrupt).

> Again, the argument from the start was about outcomes in funding for the industry. I have not argued anywhere that Unigroup's leadership deserves any credit, just that some of the funding allocated to Unigroup - chiefly the one earmarked for YMTC - ended up with decent outcomes

And my argument is that this leads to a "to big to fail" situation which is extremely risky at the provincial and local level because of the lack of fiscal fallback options for local and provincial governments in China as well as the fact that all that capital could have been better spent by provinces to uplift their population's living standards instead of essentially acting as a wealth transfer to much richer coastal provinces or the 3 provincial level cities.

Tsinghua Unigroup is not a one-off example of this risk, plenty of similar crises and failures have happened in recently in China. And Anhui is not the only Chinese province faced with this situation - almost all are (except Guangdong, as usual).

Those tens of billions Anhui has spent not just on Tsinghua Unigroup in 2022, but the dozens of other similar ventures like JAC Group, Volkswagen China, etc could have been better spent on building it's human capital. For a government that should be the primary "decent outcome".

It's a middle-of-the-pack province in China with developmental indicators comparable to Ecuador, Cuba, and Peru and well behind Thailand's poorest region (Isaan). Think about how many more cars JAC could sell, how many more electric toilets RSD Group could sell, and how much more chicken 老乡鸡 could sell if Anhui's ytd median disposable income per capita was greater than $4,100 [3], and if Anhui's rural median disposable income per capita was greater than $2,500 [4].

You can argue purchasing power all you want but more of the high value goods that a company like Tsinghua Unigroup, JAC Group, etc are producing and intending to sell are at price points that are unaffordable at that level of disposable income.

By every standard it is a misallocation of capital, and sadly a very common one across China.

[0] - https://www.policymattersohio.org/files/assets/odod-intelons...

[1] - https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/28/chips-act-fou...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_credit_...

[3] - https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/income-per-capita/disposab...

[4] - https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/disposable-income-per-capi...

[selimthegrim]

Since when is the TSMC fab in Ohio? You mean the Intel one?

[alephnerd]

Kek. I knew I forgot something in my response. Good catch!

[maxglute]

>building it's human capital. For a government that should be the primary "decent outcome

>Province in China with developmental indicators comparable to Ecuador, Cuba, and Peru

Disproportionate resources was concentrated to built Hefei, Anhui, new tier1 city with ~10 million people and per capita income of ~$20,000 build off 2600% growth in last 20 years because local gov focused on making it tech/innovation centre. The one elevated by Western Development Strategy, that built out industrial clusters and R&D hotspots like USTC to raise and retain human capital. The entire point is _UNEQUAL_ development so a few 100 millions of disproportionately affluent / educated urbanites with $20000+ income can buy high value goods that would have no market if everyone was elevated to 10000 per capita doing less advanced work, they already sell enough 老乡鸡. Still waiting on OLED panels from Ecuador, Cuba and Peru.

E:

And as I've responded in the past, you don't get to decide what I reply to. This is the internet, you are not the only audience in a conversation. I make effort to ignore you posts, and have, but when it needs to be called out on, I will. And again, my custom HN CSS doesn't even display screen names, but your identifiable writing pattern and questionable use of stats makes it obvious.

Questionable in this case, as in the past, you're using selective stats and omitting useful context to insinuate Anhui is somehow cuba tier shithole (no offense to fellow Cubans) who failed to develop / exploit human capita. An claim that can only be made by dancing around the development AND mere existence of Hefei, Anhui, one of PRC's innovation hubs that specifically and successfuly developed on the back of building human capital and high tech, which makes comparisons to Ecuador, Cuba and Peru even more perplexing. One simply doesn't drop stats about Anhui without knowing Hefei. You are not a stupid person. Your omissions in these arguments can only be interpreted as intentional by me, and while I try to avoid interacting with you (rather comments that reads like yours), I'm still going to call out bad analysis/arguments. I will edit original response for tone and stop relying here. But I encourage other readers to look up Hefei and how it grew in last 20 years, and understand that is the deliberate result of industrial policy (not just semi, but high tech).

[alephnerd]

Your tone is horrid.

I am having a discussion with GP, and while GP and I may disagree, we are still maintaining a civil tone with each other.

This has been a common behavior of yours. If there was block functionality or reporting functionality on HN, I would have done it in a heartbeat.

As I have told you before, stop replying to me. We do not agree and we have had heated conversations at multiple occasions.

----------

> This is a lot of words and numbers about Anhui to skirt around the existence of Hefei

A city with an urban population of 5 million people - so only 10% of Anhui's population.

What about the other 56 million who do not live in that urban core?

If I am to use your metric, then we should treat Turkiye, Brazil, Mexico, and Thailand as developed first world countries.

> The entire point is _UNEQUAL_ development so a few 100 millions of disproportionately affluent / educated urbanites with $20000+ income can buy high value goods that would have no market if everyone was elevated to 10000 per capita doing less advanced work

Yet the median disposable income per capita of urban households in all of Anhui is $6,500 a year [0].

> The entire point is _UNEQUAL_ development

This is completely contrary to Xi's policy of Common Prosperity (something which I agree with him about, but disagree about his implementation).

A first world or "developed" country is not only a country with skyscrapers or EVs. It is a country where the bottom 10% and the top 10% can drink tap water, have similar life expectancies, similar educational indicators, have private toilets, etc.

> This is a lot of words and numbers

You mean, I shouldn't make a thesis and argument based on quantitative as well as qualitative data?

I can make an argument based on vibes and still make it solid?

/s

[0] - https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/disposable-income-per-capi...

[aspenmayer]

> Your tone is horrid.

> I am having a discussion with GP, and while GP and I may disagree, we are still maintaining a civil tone with each other.

> This has been a common behavior of yours. If there was block functionality or reporting functionality on HN, I would have done it in a heartbeat.

> As I have told you before, stop replying to me. We do not agree and we have had heated conversations at multiple occasions.

Your original post pre-edit had self-censored profanity. Your desire to not receive replies from a specific user seems entirely hostile to the HN guidelines and its assumption of continually exercising good faith, especially if you feel that replies to you lack it. If you have a problem with a user, notify HN mods directly. I don't see how you expect others to keep track of when you decree that they aren't worthy of your replies, or why you would subject the rest of HN to the degradation of public debate that such a block feature would result in on HN, but respectful replies should be the norm and the goal all the same in either case.

If you don't want to engage someone in conversation or debate, then don't reply to them. To seek to preemptively forestall debate before it even begins via blocking a two-way dialogue is contrary to entering into such debate by making your own first post to begin with. If the only winning move is not to play, why insist on having the first and/or last move/word?

[maxglute]

>do not live in that urban core

Like rest of rural PRC, they can wait for the trickle down common prosperity. When it comes.

>disposable income per capita

That's dispoable per capita, double more for household. Move up to top 1-2 quantiles, and you have reasonble market for high end goods. And you know it's dispoable income.

>Common Prosperity

It is, but it's also reality, i.e. Xi not aiming a welfare state. But that's also secondary to national security issues like hammering semi conductor even if it means some provinces gets burnt. Hence also CCDI kick doors and take.

Xi's timeline for developed country is like 2049+, even then it's fully developed / modestly prosperous. In mean tie still has to balance common prosperity with strategic autonomy, and if that means farmers and informal workers have to take a back seat like they did under previous admins then so be it. Best he can do is throw them a few more bones. But not at the expense of growing "comprehensive power". A strong country can build high end tech to compete with other strong countries, even if parts of it developed to be strong.

>tap water

Yes, yes and developed countries definitely wouldn't neglect places like flint or first nations communities. I guess not so 1st world after all. Which is getting off topic, the point is planners need to plan for plan, somethings gets prioritized over others things, i.e. this is a thread about semi industrial policy, not poverty alleviation. Yes resource is limited, pouring money in chips can come at expense of common prospertiy. But there's a geopolitical competition happening, and if the competitor is not selling you chips, you need to prioritize making your own, even if at expense of building a lot of water pipes, for hollowing non productive villages.

[sudosysgen]

> Those are still an upfront cost on Anhui's treasury as it is counted as a liability, and a liability with limited ability to service due to the relatively weak municipal and provincial bonds market due to the ongoing LGFV crisis

The same is true for tax credits and indirect subsidies.

> Furthermore Ohio has a AAA credit rating score [2] meaning it can borrow at low-to-no interest, which doesn't really exist as an option at scale in most Chinese provinces.

So did Unigroup when most of it's debt was issued and now assigned to Anhui's investment vehicle, so in fact for this transaction they may as well have a AAA rating.

> Ohio only gave $0.6B - ie. 2.4% [0] (and even that was controversial [1]). The rest of the $7.4B came from the CHIPS Act.

Ohio really did earmark 2 billion dollars for the fab, not 600 million. The existence of one grant for 600 million is not evidence against the other 1.4.

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/tax/articles/chips-act...

> For example, Ohio has publicly announced more than $2 billion of state grants, credits, and incentives to construct a new semiconductor manufacturing plant in Ohio.

>> And finally, this investment by Ohio generated jobs within Ohio. The Tsinghua Unigroup bag-holding isn't allocating Capex for Anhui, as most of Tsinghua Unigroup's assets are not in Anhui.

> And my argument is that this leads to a "to big to fail" situation which is extremely risky at the provincial and local level because of the lack of fiscal fallback options for local and provincial governments in China as well as the fact that all that capital could have been better spent by provinces to uplift their population's living standards instead of essentially acting as a wealth transfer to much richer coastal provinces or the 3 provincial level cities.

They are not too big to fail in the sense the word is commonly used. If they fail, the investment vehicle is bankrupt and Anhui doesn't incur any liabilities (remember that they can't issue bonds).

Sure, and if Intel eventually leaves before Ohio makes money from the jobs, nothing is seen - this happens often. On the other hand if Unigroup is succesful, Anhui has equity.

> Those tens of billions Anhui has spent not just on Tsinghua Unigroup in 2022, but the dozens of other similar ventures like JAC Group, Volkswagen China, etc could have been better spent on building it's human capital. For a government that should be the primary "decent outcome".

The primary outcome of semiconductor investment is to prevent an external dependency that is already being exploited to cause a general slowdown on the economy which will affect everyone.

> It's a middle-of-the-pack province in China with developmental indicators comparable to Ecuador, Cuba, and Peru and well behind Thailand's poorest region (Isaan). Think about how many more cars JAC could sell, how many more electric toilets RSD Group could sell, and how much more chicken 老乡鸡 could sell if Anhui's ytd median disposable income per capita was greater than $4,100 [3], and if Anhui's rural median disposable income per capita was greater than $2,500 [4].

No matter what speeches Chinese officials make, the truth is that China is not and cannot at this stage execute equal development in economic terms. The absolute medium-term priority of the Chinese government is to create high quality development in key cities in order to move up the value chain before it is too late. In the meantime, redistribution is the most efficient way to deal with less productive regions - it is simply not viable to invest in rural communities at the current stage of Chinese development. China is not a unique countries, many other countries have tried either strategy and it turns out that investment in less productive localities in the name of equality simply does not work for a dozen different reasons.

If your understanding of either the CHIPS act or the Big Funds is that they are vehicles trying to uplift the median standard of life, there is no point having this discussion. It just isn't the purpose. The purpose is strategic, and cannot be understood using the same metrics as, say, countercyclical investment into medium businesses after a recession.