Terrific discussion. Ben displays a level of optimism and positivity often sorely lacking from beaten-down government officials!
Whatever faults it may have, I fully expect that the CHIPS Act will be viewed in hindsight as one of the most important examples of industrial policy in the early 21st century.
I appreciate Jordan's insights and am glad the CHIPs Act Program Office is doing interviews. Bipartisanship support and a long-term perspective will be critical for any industrial policy to ever have meaningful results. However, from the different interviews staffers have given, I get the sense that they're unrolling the Mission Accomplished banner without actually explaining why. I want to like the CHIPs Act, but the more I hear, the more questions I have.
I am still confused by Ben's championing the BAE deal. BAE, a defense contractor that only does semis for government contracts, has the sole supply of critical DoD chips. They can't expand the line despite backlogs because...? DoD won't give them the money? Can't give them the money? The chips aren't that profitable for them so they don't want to do it? So DoD decides to ask for funding from DoC in the interest of national security to fund their line expansion? And this is good for me the taxpayer because now the chips are rolling? Weren't taxpayers going to be responsible either way, and now there's less money for commercial development? Worse, is this not just another story of DoD acquisitions being broken and the CHIPs Act being a big bag of money for DoD to fund more special projects? And then he proudly cajoled another leading-edge producer into being restricted by the same broken DoD acquisitions project in order to get funding, making it harder for them to make leading-edge chips in the US? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I am yet to see a CHIPs Act Program Office staffer get pressed on any of these decisions. Maybe I'm expecting too much candor from anyone that isn't a presidential appointee, but they don't fill me with confidence that they have achieved much beyond subsidizing the status quo.
Read this after listening. Well done and will echo the comment about Ben’s optimism. Wondering if the CHIPS program office benchmarked against any other governments in terms of how they design for policy outcomes? China, yes, but also others?
It was striking during APEC week in the Bay Area last November to see how Japan’s METI lined up with both Dept of Commerce and Dept of Energy.
Epic piece. So much to take, an eye opener on how policy shapes long term outcomes. Sometimes governments need to get involved to push for the larger good of the economy.
Terrific discussion. Ben displays a level of optimism and positivity often sorely lacking from beaten-down government officials!
Whatever faults it may have, I fully expect that the CHIPS Act will be viewed in hindsight as one of the most important examples of industrial policy in the early 21st century.
This was excellent.
1. More of this
2. Share more broadly
3. More people working on this
We need it
Great coverage of the CHIPS Act and how it relates to national security. This was really informative.
I appreciate Jordan's insights and am glad the CHIPs Act Program Office is doing interviews. Bipartisanship support and a long-term perspective will be critical for any industrial policy to ever have meaningful results. However, from the different interviews staffers have given, I get the sense that they're unrolling the Mission Accomplished banner without actually explaining why. I want to like the CHIPs Act, but the more I hear, the more questions I have.
I am still confused by Ben's championing the BAE deal. BAE, a defense contractor that only does semis for government contracts, has the sole supply of critical DoD chips. They can't expand the line despite backlogs because...? DoD won't give them the money? Can't give them the money? The chips aren't that profitable for them so they don't want to do it? So DoD decides to ask for funding from DoC in the interest of national security to fund their line expansion? And this is good for me the taxpayer because now the chips are rolling? Weren't taxpayers going to be responsible either way, and now there's less money for commercial development? Worse, is this not just another story of DoD acquisitions being broken and the CHIPs Act being a big bag of money for DoD to fund more special projects? And then he proudly cajoled another leading-edge producer into being restricted by the same broken DoD acquisitions project in order to get funding, making it harder for them to make leading-edge chips in the US? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I am yet to see a CHIPs Act Program Office staffer get pressed on any of these decisions. Maybe I'm expecting too much candor from anyone that isn't a presidential appointee, but they don't fill me with confidence that they have achieved much beyond subsidizing the status quo.
Read this after listening. Well done and will echo the comment about Ben’s optimism. Wondering if the CHIPS program office benchmarked against any other governments in terms of how they design for policy outcomes? China, yes, but also others?
It was striking during APEC week in the Bay Area last November to see how Japan’s METI lined up with both Dept of Commerce and Dept of Energy.
Epic piece. So much to take, an eye opener on how policy shapes long term outcomes. Sometimes governments need to get involved to push for the larger good of the economy.