Skip to main content

Gretchen Whitmer's big goal in US-Taiwan perspective

 Without further ado, start here with my friend Simon:


https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/gretchen-whitmers-big-goal-michigan-chip-plant-she-leaves-office


Well, when we consider the silicon supply chain it is all based on water which is plentiful here.  We soak in 20-some percent of the world’s fresh water so we have a bone to pick with Arizona getting the first fabs.  It really would make sense at least for Michigan to be the second most suitable place for chip fabs because while Arizona can make a case for cheap power once solar development ramps up there, Michigan has the water that is necessary for fabrication and options on how to proceed with integration into car and vehicle systems especially the new fields of R&D in electric —sound systems, navigation, entertainment and information take precisely the type of high tech that onshoring chip production and high tech assembly lines truly brings about. 

Big chip manufacturers like TSMC are benchmarks in the tech economy in that any advancement in the technology works to their benefit.  Besides their being situated in a critical role they have the advantage of not being bound by certain outcomes inherent in running an integrated business, but can engage freely as they see fit in their area of specialty.  TSMC sees a lot of corporate overhead as a vanity.  NatSec accounts for some of this and it goes the same for both American and Taiwanese National Security.  How should newer heads to this issue see TSMC, as a corporate entity or something else?  Although it is a corporation its existence is basically one giant manifestation of the government to government cooperation between the United States and Taiwan. That is simply to say that the United States and Taiwan don’t have an official relationship, except for all the ways that they are unofficially best friends.  TSMC and basically anything in the tech supply chain that is still worth innovating on extensively, that is to say stuff governments are working on — It used to be cloud, now it’s AI, soon it will be quantum — is part of the “robust unofficial relationship”, as is TECRO* (Tee-Cro) and AIT*; funny enough the Carl Vinsson, that is to say the USS Carl Vinsson in the Pacific Fleet is an unofficial exchange zone or acts in an official capacity in fostering exchange and trust with Taiwan.  The ways are numerous in which Americans are in the same boat as Taiwanese—delicate democracies in a world filled with authoritarians, free, market societies for what that’s worth, close history of exchange and cooperation, dedication to progress, human rights and equality; what’s more is that this relationship has evolved out of shared history of affiliation with enlightenment principles.  But it has evolved from the history involved.  History cannot be ended by any method that I know of. The new events in history will again bring the unofficial relationship with Taiwan into considerations of bilateral power, with the caveat that time moves on and thus what subjects are considered valid for bilateral agreement and cooperation are added to.  The future will not be like the past, the future will be what it is and it won’t rely on past mistakes, which when it comes to US and Taiwan history, there were many, to decide what happens.  That would be an absurdity.  We are used to saying that to support Taiwan we should focus on tech policy that would be mutually beneficial; that is how you have done it in the past.  Change will be ongoing in that regard.  There will be more ways to think about this trans-Pacific American destiny; a destiny not by destination but by lasting exchange, partnership, cooperation; mutual amity.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We wanted to you see this -- my copy of the Standard

To: Supreme Court, USA Care of: Sonia Sotomayor, A.J.  Attn: Elena Kagan, A.J., Ketanji Brown Jackson, A.J. LIMITED. From: .|Î|.  TrīangłeLāw.  .|Î|.   |. •        :::THE STANDARD::                — all the time; everything; everywhere.. Î.               ;::::::::*::::::================; ,;::*::::*::::*:===============;    the  ;:::::*::::*::::===============;  ;=======================;         Standard:  ;========the Standard..=====;  ;=======================;       å                 ;======================; newšmagåźîné  ı                               of commentary and analysis  ı         ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...
Post a Comment
Read more

beyond necessary

  In the future, we must cleave to a principle of liberation and follow the right of self-determination wherever it might lead. The old saw of “every thing in its right place” has been shown to turn on subjective and not upon truthful measures - whose idea of what is the “right place” prevails, and for whom is it the “right place”? Are questions that after long experience always revealed strength and power, not reason nor rational government, have been behind the propagation of such a saying. The “right place of everything” comes from an ancient time when the mechanism for discovering the truth was still mistaken for the truth itself. It is assuredly not the case that if every “thing” has a “right place” it isn’t constituted in some transparent organizational scheme; and, although the evolution of knowledge may not be at its bitter end, it seems more likely that the proper “place” for every thing will fill space like the thousand points of light in the night sky of the visible univ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Geoengineering rests on shaky foundations and poor social planning.

Geoengineering rests on shaky foundations and poor social planning.  I think there’s evidence of the government trying to obfuscate information by changing the names of programs and initiatives, to try to render information exposed to the public in previous reporting facially out of date.   First off, this is reminding me of Naomi Klein’s chapter on geoengineering, which is very skeptical of the whole idea, as we should all be. Some highlights from that chapter: Alan Robock wrote a paper published in 2008 in Geophysical Research that geoengineering would “disrupt the Asian and African Monsoon and Pacific Monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people.” Computer models show that geoengineering would crash crop productivity in the Sahel, leading to desertification. Further computer models show a 20% reduction in rainfall in the Amazon from geoengineering.   Historical evidence connects volcano eruptions with droughts, meaning we would be risk...
Post a Comment
Read more