Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China Businesses Government The Almighty Buck United States

China Plans $47 Billion Fund To Boost Its Semiconductor Industry (wsj.com) 120

Posted by BeauHD from the throwing-it-against-the-wall-and-hoping-it-sticks dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: In a move that could further heighten tensions with the U.S., China is poised to announce a new fund of about $47.4 billion (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) to spur development of its semiconductor industry as it seeks to close the technology gap with the U.S. and other rivals, according to people familiar with the matter. The new war chest by the government-backed China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Co. follows a similar fund launched in 2014 that raised $21.8 billion, largely funded by central and local government-backed enterprises and industry players. Among other efforts, the fund would be used to improve China's ability to design and manufacture advanced microprocessors and graphic-processing units, one of the people said. Specific details including the amount could change, another person said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Plans $47 Billion Fund To Boost Its Semiconductor Industry More

China Plans $47 Billion Fund To Boost Its Semiconductor Industry

Comments Filter:
  • one bubble to the next in china, all with public funds.

    • Too much public funds isn't self sustaining, it is just as having venture capitalist putting money into a startup. It gives you the money to get going, but you will need to pay the piper after a while. Also government funds are not unlimited and not without consequences. Also like any country, if you take government funds, you will need to play by the government rules, and have extra rules tied to that money, which often makes growth more difficult.

  • good for china (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 )
    Seriously, this is what America USED to do by investing into America. Now, we send our money out to whomever is buying off (bribing) our politicians. These days, it is whoever putin says.
    • The US still invests plenty in technology. This is in response to the US crack down on Chinese engineers working on high tech projects and sending the technology home. Now China will have to try and develop it themselves.

    • There are a lot of problems in play. But on the politics side, the two party system is taring the country apart. The Left is getting more liberal pushing towards a socialized government that most Americans do not want, and are afraid of. The Right is getting more conservative pushing towards an evangelical christian state. When either side gets in power they putting increasing effort into punishing the minority, which in turns makes the minority side even more likely to unify towards their leaning, so the

      • Re: good for china (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @09:24AM (#56566476)
        Actually, the last election suggested that more Americans are fed up with income inequality and poor or no access to healthcare. Teachers in deeply red states are moving to the left politically because they see what the conservative politician is doing to their income. They're finally seeing that the right is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Most Americans confuse socialism with communism because they've been indoctrinated by the right. In reality, more socialist policies are good for the middle and lower classes. They're not so good for the wealthy. If you want to fix America, start really manufacturing here and stop the tide towards a service economy. Third world countries are largely service economies.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          None of your comment reflects reality. The poor have full access to healthcare, teachers have always been at the left end of the political spectrum and the economy is doing fine. Americans don't want either socialism or communism.

        • You lost me at those last two sentences, if anything the tertiary sector, i.e. services, requires a local customer base, able and willing to spend money on a service, i.e. something you probably could do yourself in most cases.

          How is this a hallmark of an economy where you have very few people with disposable income?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DMJC ( 682799 )
          You're statement about service economies is wrong. Most third world countries rely entirely upon Primary Production (e.g Farming/Mining) to base their economies. Hence we see a complete basket case like Venezuela emerge when their primary resources the economy was based on (oil) crashed in value. Advanced countries have diversified economies with Manufacturing, Service, and Primary Production. To fix the US economy we need to move away from the idea that service sector jobs are the bee's knee's and move tow

      • Re:good for china (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @09:47AM (#56566634)

        The problem here is that the rhetoric is required for politicians to get elected. It would seem logical for politicians to move towards the center because they try to cater to voters on the other side of their fence, knowing that they will get the votes from their side anyway, but that doesn't take primaries into account. Primaries mean that only the most radical and most insane ones actually have a chance to run for an office because in primaries, you will primarily see the fringe voters go to support "their" candidate.

        And then you're sitting in an election with two complete lunatics to choose from, so you pick the one that is at least not as completely insane as the other one.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          In terms of the presidency what you describe isn't very common.Very few of our presidential candidates from the last several decades weren't centrists.

        • that is why we desperately need a new 3rd party with a focus on real centrist policies that put America first and not their GD politics.

          • We're living in a world that gets more radical by the minute. New parties do emerge in Europe where 5% of the votes is already something you can work with, but all of them are of the radical kind. Moderation is on the way out and we're getting more and more entrenched in our positions, not giving an inch for everyone's afraid to lose a yard in the process. Compromise is seen as weakness, cooperation as betraying your position.

            You want to establish a party of moderation and sensibility in this climate? Good

  • Details of the plan revealed! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @08:11AM (#56566098) Journal
    They will fund the US semi conductor industry with 40 billion dollars and fund 7 billion dollars in the 701st Cyber Warrior Division, The Red Weasels, to steal the secrets from those companies.
  • China has been stealing Western technology for decades. I don't believe they could advance as fast as they plan to without using stolen technology. Now, we'll need to wait and see if their "new" chips have the same security holes as recently unveiled Intel processors do.
    • It isn't stealing because there is no law against it. Information wants to be free.
    • I don't know the first thing about manufacturing computing hardware. Now I see why, Chinese students have stolen all my knowledge.

    • Buying a steel plant in Germany.
      Disassembling it, putting numbers on every part, assembling it back in China, hiring the original crew to school the new crew: that is not stealing! That is business.

  • China is announcing all sorts of investments in science and engineering. Following through is uneven. They have huge numbers of scientists and engineers. As someone who got a Ph.D. in Chemistry at a top university back in the 1990s, I can tell you that the Chinese students that came here were top-notch, and many wanted to return to China.

    We have been kept afloat by many of these Chinese students staying. I don't think the U.S. could have done what it has on Americans alone. How do we make sure our top peopl

    • hmmm.
      I was in school both in the 80s and 90s. Sorry, but the Chinese did NOT impress me. Saw a lot of cheating. Read a few papers from some and realized that they had BSed back then. That is why at this time when I see a science paper coming from China, I do not believe it, until it is replicated elsewhere.
      OTOH, The Indians did. They were hard workers and willing to put in similar time on studying and working on projects, thesis, etc.

      However, in general, anybody that comes to American schools, esp fro
  • Software controls the world.
    Hardware controls the software.
    China controls the hardware.

  • investment choices (Score:2, Insightful)

    by swell ( 195815 )

    The US invests in 19th century priorities- weapons. Vast quantities of weapons which they not only use to excess, but they sell to others freely. Weapons have not won the US many friends around the world or even within its own population. This massive misspending of resources will continue to isolate the US and eventually destroy its economy.

    China's investment in technology is another sign of progressive thinking. The world will become more dependent on digital technology and supremacy in that area will bri

    • Ignoring that this whole argument is just a thinly veiled slight at the US (and it completely ignores where most of the US economy's spending actually goes, including the fact that most of the world is utterly and hopelessly dependent upon US developed non-weapons technology) I really don't think weapons are a poor choice of investment. At least in the case of weapons, you have a practical use for research and development for the more expensive of technologies, and what's more, you have a discriminator for

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by swell ( 195815 )

        The US spends more on war and the machines of killing than the rest of the world combined. It doesn't seem to have produced useful results. When was the last time they won a war? Why does most of the world hate America?

        Imagine a scenario where the US spent that money on improving lives at home and around the world: building shelters, fighting disease, distributing food, educating everyone, coordinating resources with other countries instead of bombing them... They might earn some respect, and wouldn't have

        • I already showed that you're stupid, now you're about to look much worse.

          The US spends more on war and the machines of killing than the rest of the world combined.

          False. The combined global spending on militaries is 1.7 trillion. This puts the US at about a third of the combined world.

          It doesn't seem to have produced useful results. When was the last time they won a war? Why does most of the world hate America?

          Do you even know a single fucking thing about history? Who am I kidding, of course you don't, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

          But I'll sum up a few recent things: If you're in Europe, the US is the biggest reason you aren't a former USSR state (we were, and still are, by far the largest milit

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by swell ( 195815 )

            Sorry I've made you so angry.

            So the combined spending is 1.7 trillion. How much is it with the US removed? You see, it is much smaller. Yes, higher math can be confusing. And note that the publicly acknowledged military budget does not include the secret stuff- ask Oliver North over at the NRA.

            I live in the present. WWII was before you were born. Tell me how much the world enjoys our military bases- Philippines, Japan, Germany, Middle East... You seem to have enjoyed the cool-aid. Now grow up, learn to spea

    • you think China doesn't make and sell weapons to other countries? my are you silly

  • Freedom of thought is something the West should be happy to share. While some students will return to their repressive governments and be exploited to Western economic detriment they are hope for change from within else we have more North Korea totalitarian regimes. Further, if we can move past this zero sum game economics, tech advances can benefit the broader global socioeconomics. Many advanced educated foreigners would like to stay, if they are good perhaps should accommodate.

  • Their system ensures that they'll win (Score:3)

    by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @10:25AM (#56566916)

    China is showing one of the positives that having tight control over the economy can have. If something needs to be done, it's done and there is zero debate. There's also no begging educational institutions and private companies to please comply...it's a top-down order.

    Unless there was another world war at hand, something like this or any of the other investments China has made in the recent past could never happen in the US. There's too much infighting and zero initiative to get something massive done.

    Like it or not, the Chinese system does have the ability to make massive changes with very little friction. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, the Chinese plowed money into infrastructure to basically offset the recession. At an even more macro level, they're using their control to effectively manufacture a middle class by moving people from the countryside to cities. These are things that we'd never get done in the US even if there were an imminent need.

  • Ya, so good luck with that (Score:3)

    by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Monday May 07, 2018 @10:56AM (#56567210)

    Given that the cost of state-of-the-art fab is about $20 billion and that China is behind, a $47 billion investment is not a threat. EE times reports [eetimes.com] that by 2020 a state-of-the-art fab will cost about $20 billion and wikipedia [wikipedia.org]says that TSMC predicts the same.

    There is a reason why semiconductor giants such as ARM, Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, Qualcomm and even super-rich Apple are fabless; State-of-the-art fabs are insanely hard. The successes here, such as Intel, have generations of accumulated in-house expertise and have spent decades attracting, training and retaining the best experts in the world. Not to mention the elusive engineering management culture necessary for that. Maybe it is impossible to enter at that level and you have to evolve your way there over decades.

    So China needs to build a modern fab, but also fund the R&D to get to that point and fund development of modern CPU architectures so they have something to make. By the time China succeeds with all of that, if they can, they might be at least a generation behind.

    Finally, it's not like the world would be made worse-off by increased state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing capacity. More better chips are a good thing.

    • Intel used to be a great engineering company, not for 20 years now. CPU is commodity, Intel is now a marketing company.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close