Micron will do packaging of both Mature and advanced nodes and Tower will do ground up manufacturing of Mature nodes. TSMC will have to be roped in in the future to work on advanced nodes but that may take some time. Meanwhile our domestic startups are already involved in research in compound nodes.
No, it's incentive to bring production facility and supply chain inside India, so that we can skip few decades , and don't have to start from zero ( anicent node).
Not just that, it will also get our workforce trained in the field. If you look at the larger perspective those 10B $ are nothing in semiconductor world.
No, it's incentive to bring production facility and supply chain inside India, so that we can skip few decades , and don't have to start from zero ( anicent node).
Not just that, it will also get our workforce trained in the field. If you look at the larger perspective those 10B $ are nothing in semiconductor world.
Exactly, also all of $10 billion is not going to single company as a direct cash handout.
And I don't see how we give away market share with this, we don't have any indigeneous industry to give away market share anyway. And other players (including new ones) are not blocked.
Aka they want market share and want india to pay for their company to set up there as well. Basically India told them No, by saying nothing. Always read the fine print.
Giving $8 billion away and then the company fails to deliver on its promises wastes the opportunity that could have been extended to a better qualified company.
The issue was and about the terms of the incentive structure. You might think it’s weird for me to ask so closely but in about 10 years when our copy paste babus get around to proposing the same incentive structure, I want there to be some details so we know how good or bad of an idea it actually is.
You really don't seem to understand how any of this works. Indian situation is very far from ideal (relative to its potential), but its improving.
Your "copy and paste babus" wont be able to do anything of this sort decades from now, forget 10 years later.
The long and short of it is Pakistani's are better off focusing on their own RnD issues first (especially the extremely heavy anti-intellectual current entrenched in their establishment) than worrying about India.
If you divide these by 6 (population ratio), we should have a basic reference for Pakistan right?
But if it requires division by 20, 40, 60 even 100 or so.....why would there be a "10 years later" thing on the table by default for your babus?
We can get into specific RnD numbers next.
Smartest Pakistani friend I have (who will finish his whole tier-A acumen career in Canada for a reason with absolutely no intersection with Pakistan, given his father's experience) long told me everything I need to know about the anti-intellectual edifice deep inside Pakistan's core establishment and the heavy costs it impacted decades ago already....that look set to continue a long time.
i.e its clearly not case of Pakistan's potential (he illustrates his acumen in sizeable way here in Canada, like his father tried with Pakistan's establishment in the 80s and part of 90s).....but its specific case of the system deliberate squelching of acumen for system's own absolute power status quo preserving.
If things don't change there, why would things change noticeably in the outer layers, that too ones you want to talk about with other countries? Best understand yours (if you are way behind) before you try understand another and pooh-pooh what they do so casually.
You really don't seem to understand how any of this works. Indian situation is very far from ideal (relative to its potential), but its improving.
Your "copy and paste babus" wont be able to do anything of this sort decades from now, forget 10 years later.
The long and short of it is Pakistani's are better off focusing on their own RnD issues first (especially the extremely heavy anti-intellectual current entrenched in their establishment) than worrying about India.
If you divide these by 6 (population ratio), we should have a basic reference for Pakistan right?
But if it requires division by 20, 40, 60 even 100 or so.....why would there be a "10 years later" thing on the table by default for your babus?
We can get into specific RnD numbers next.
Smartest Pakistani friend I have (who will finish his whole tier-A acumen career in Canada for a reason with absolutely no intersection with Pakistan, given his father's experience) long told me everything I need to know about the anti-intellectual edifice deep inside Pakistan's core establishment and the heavy costs it impacted decades ago already....that look set to continue a long time.
i.e its clearly not case of Pakistan's potential (he illustrates his acumen in sizeable way here in Canada, like his father tried with Pakistan's establishment in the 80s and part of 90s).....but its specific case of the system deliberate squelching of acumen for system's own absolute power status quo preserving.
If things don't change there, why would things change noticeably in the outer layers, that too ones you want to talk about with other countries? Best understand yours (if you are way behind) before you try understand another and pooh-pooh what they do so casually.
You are right that I assume Pakistan can catch up, on a relative basis, in only 10 years. I don’t Pooh-pooh what India is doing, but think if Pakistan is to even try to catch up it needs to really think big, major reforms, especially the anti-intellectualism that you rightly point out. India has had many generations of intellectuals that have actively guided the country, while Pakistan… no so.
But as they say, dream big. So, I’m trying to understand the incentive model. 10 years is a short time but also a long time, and semi-conductors are in everything. There is a thing such as leapfrogging, so what might be a $10 billion investment now maybe a $1-2 billion investment in a decade.
Case in point, an Indian company (Tata?) bought up a British steel producer when there was a glut some decades ago. Why can’t a Pakistani joint venture do the same with a Chinese company if there is a glut of semiconductor manufacturing?
You are right that I assume Pakistan can catch up, on a relative basis, in only 10 years. I don’t Pooh-pooh what India is doing, but think if Pakistan is to even try to catch up it needs to really think big, major reforms, especially the anti-intellectualism that you rightly point out. India has had many generations of intellectuals that have actively guided the country, while Pakistan… no so.
But as they say, dream big. So, I’m trying to understand the incentive model. 10 years is a short time but also a long time, and semi-conductors are in everything. There is a thing such as leapfrogging, so what might be a $10 billion investment now maybe a $1-2 billion investment in a decade.
Case in point, an Indian company (Tata?) bought up a British steel producer when there was a glut some decades ago. Why can’t a Pakistani joint venture do the same with a Chinese company if there is a glut of semiconductor manufacturing?
Taipei, Dec. 6 (CNA) Taiwan's Economic Minister Wang Mei-hua (王美花) tried to ease concerns Wednesday over the future of a Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) plan to build a foundry in Germany, saying the German government was working to solve a funding problem.
focustaiwan.tw
The two fabs together will require investment of more than $20 billion and create 3,400 high-tech professional jobs in and around Kumamoto prefecture on the southern Japanese island, TSMC said
I understand giving a company money to set up a plant, aka an incentive, I’m not that “out of my depth”, but what are the guaranteed ROI for the investor; I.e. the government. Is it primarily for export, so the company is just helping to create an eco-system? Or are there specific Indian industries that India normally imports for, and this would just onshore and shorten the supply chain?
Have you ever invested in anything?, There is no guarantee in this business. Do some market research You will understand what a "portfolio" means. Its about not putting all eggs in single basket.
We are not giving away 10B $ to a single random company ..
And yes,
did you not see the delayed deliveries in automobile industry due to chip shortage , these are everywhere and EVs might have multitude more semiconductor compare to IC cars .
I will just tag you when I feel its merited to make it easier for you. Fora to me are about keeping quality sticking together and not caring about the quantitative blah blah too much.
I curate and filter out a lot. Those that live by sword can die by it after a point.... as telling them swords are no good used excessively gets stale, at some point folks have to be left to reap what they sow, shrug....
When all macroeconomic analysis of the world has shown to get 5+% growth rates consistently need GFCF as high as possible (well into the 20s, 30s and even 40s % wise of GDP)....given importance of capital formation (the core investment in the end for any economy).
Then when we come to RnD numbers, we find that Pakistan files about 2 patents to the PCT international patent regime on a good year:
If India is commensurately filing ~ 2600 right now in comparison....and we divide that by 6 we get about ~ 430 for Pakistan to have as the "in 10 years time" reference.
From 2 to 430 needs a growth rate of about 70% per year.
Is that likely or are the filings going to be stuck in the single digit range in those 10 years instead? You can see for yourself in the end I suppose.
You see, there is very low level of public trust in the system in Pakistan (clearly explaining the low GFCF to begin with) given the sheer level of acumen that has been thrown away to make way for the power at all costs in the status quo establishment and what this means for anti-intellectualism deep in the core. Both when it comes to direct thinking capacity of this kind of power setup and how it values, judges and promotes those that can think. Given every small % here counts immensely for a developing country given how these need to be networked, organised and comfortable long term (it cannot afford to throw away the little it has in some snapshot so recklessly.....only deep-thinking knows best how to grow more of it, and needs means and resources front and centre as far as possible.....rather than swatting away and squelching because its not on the same exact page about power-dynamic status quo + blowhard vengeance stuff).
IMO, Long form of this conversation is probably best suited to this other thread to analyse (given I already started there a bit earlier), and over time tagging folks like jamD, quwa, oscar, vcheng etc to impart their thoughts, its a thread you started as well:
The underlying issue facing Pakistan, at least the way I see it, is its political system. It has caused instability since direct military dictatorship ended, and if analysts are to be believed, a hybrid system was introduced. In such a system, the struggle for power is almost inevitable, and...
defencepk.com
But we can continue here if you want too and bring it there later maybe.
But as they say, dream big. So, I’m trying to understand the incentive model. 10 years is a short time but also a long time, and semi-conductors are in everything. There is a thing such as leapfrogging, so what might be a $10 billion investment now maybe a $1-2 billion investment in a decade.
Its not that difficult. The govt consults subject matter experts in consultancy role for policy.
They have the basic snapshot of the HR and capital situation (in the various tiers) present in A relative to B.
This dictates what is the rough starting incentive amounts needed to re-allocate in some time frame....either for transferring or generation (depends on the capital and HR).
This was done across the board by Deng's teams in the 80s for example for light manufacturing in PRC. Asian Tiger economies before that too. Thailand, Vietnam you name it.
The greater disparity, the more you need to offer. But its tied to raw amounts you have to put up as incentive that you can afford to do so without too much
That is the bind Pakistan finds itself as its much lower-trust society it has formed over time in its system as a bunker state first in its power dynamic. It squandered far more than India and this has void costs now....just like India has with China and others but has certain options to harness increasingly with what it does have as there are competency trusts and institutions of sufficient note, capacity and reliability. Things you can do without having to worry if total unwarranted knock on door arrives later. Its matters in all Tier A endeavours that look to pull up whole society from some morass.
The point is you cannot assume costs will simply decline for the same chunk of relevancy for this.
If cost on something decreases 5 or 10 times like you suggest (1-2 billion 10 years downroad for "same stuff" to "leapfrog").... it means the supply side is that much more assured worldwide and there are new tiers of relevancy that fill in for the "10 billion". You get out what you put in as early as you can and you grow your HR and capital expertise to be in best position long term.
But you cannot shortcut that HR and capital growing (and reputation + reliability + competitiveness) whatever the terms and numbers are around it.
Case in point, an Indian company (Tata?) bought up a British steel producer when there was a glut some decades ago. Why can’t a Pakistani joint venture do the same with a Chinese company if there is a glut of semiconductor manufacturing?
These are all hypotheticals on multiple roulette wheels going right.
Bringing in another like China is always the question "whats in it for them"? w.r.t what they want to hold onto increasingly (if you look at what precipice thats coming into view).
Are they expediently deploying light manufacturing in Pakistan right now where they can? To then finance logistics from that inside out with the forex that brings? Or logistics first with promise of something later (i.e reversing order what Deng et al did inside China)....however that is supposed to fall into place however it does and with the (USD only) bills to pay on the infra+logistics on top.
If not, why not?
Best to focus on own competency and wherewithal....trust, investment, basic forex and fiscal maths....and doing this over and over again for a decade and then another.
Then everyone more genuinely sees reason for win-win w.r.t augmenting and helping as makes sense.
That is the bind Pakistan finds itself as its much lower-trust society it has formed over time in its system as a bunker state first in its power dynamic. It squandered far more than India and this has void costs now....just like India has with China and others but has certain options to harness increasingly with what it does have as there are competency trusts and institutions of sufficient note, capacity and reliability. Things you can do without having to worry if total unwarranted knock on door arrives later. Its matters in all Tier A endeavours that look to pull up whole society from some morass
This is a bind made possible only by the choices we have made and are continuing to make. Our sekortee state mindset is the prison of our own making that we insist is the fault of others. Sigh. This will end as predictably as the sun coming up tomorrow.
When all macroeconomic analysis of the world has shown to get 5+% growth rates consistently need GFCF as high as possible (well into the 20s, 30s and even 40s % wise of GDP)....given importance of capital formation (the core investment in the end for any economy).
Then when we come to RnD numbers, we find that Pakistan files about 2 patents to the PCT international patent regime on a good year:
If India is commensurately filing ~ 2600 right now in comparison....and we divide that by 6 we get about ~ 430 for Pakistan to have as the "in 10 years time" reference.
From 2 to 430 needs a growth rate of about 70% per year.
Is that likely or are the filings going to be stuck in the single digit range in those 10 years instead? You can see for yourself in the end I suppose.
You see, there is very low level of public trust in the system in Pakistan (clearly explaining the low GFCF to begin with) given the sheer level of acumen that has been thrown away to make way for the power at all costs in the status quo establishment and what this means for anti-intellectualism deep in the core. Both when it comes to direct thinking capacity of this kind of power setup and how it values, judges and promotes those that can think. Given every small % here counts immensely for a developing country given how these need to be networked, organised and comfortable long term (it cannot afford to throw away the little it has in some snapshot so recklessly.....only deep-thinking knows best how to grow more of it, and needs means and resources front and centre as far as possible.....rather than swatting away and squelching because its not on the same exact page about power-dynamic status quo + blowhard vengeance stuff).
IMO, Long form of this conversation is probably best suited to this other thread to analyse (given I already started there a bit earlier), and over time tagging folks like jamD, quwa, oscar, vcheng etc to impart their thoughts, its a thread you started as well:
The underlying issue facing Pakistan, at least the way I see it, is its political system. It has caused instability since direct military dictatorship ended, and if analysts are to be believed, a hybrid system was introduced. In such a system, the struggle for power is almost inevitable, and...
defencepk.com
But we can continue here if you want too and bring it there later maybe.
Its not that difficult. The govt consults subject matter experts in consultancy role for policy.
They have the basic snapshot of the HR and capital situation (in the various tiers) present in A relative to B.
This dictates what is the rough starting incentive amounts needed to re-allocate in some time frame....either for transferring or generation (depends on the capital and HR).
This was done across the board by Deng's teams in the 80s for example for light manufacturing in PRC. Asian Tiger economies before that too. Thailand, Vietnam you name it.
The greater disparity, the more you need to offer. But its tied to raw amounts you have to put up as incentive that you can afford to do so without too much
That is the bind Pakistan finds itself as its much lower-trust society it has formed over time in its system as a bunker state first in its power dynamic. It squandered far more than India and this has void costs now....just like India has with China and others but has certain options to harness increasingly with what it does have as there are competency trusts and institutions of sufficient note, capacity and reliability. Things you can do without having to worry if total unwarranted knock on door arrives later. Its matters in all Tier A endeavours that look to pull up whole society from some morass.
The point is you cannot assume costs will simply decline for the same chunk of relevancy for this.
If cost on something decreases 5 or 10 times like you suggest (1-2 billion 10 years downroad for "same stuff" to "leapfrog").... it means the supply side is that much more assured worldwide and there are new tiers of relevancy that fill in for the "10 billion". You get out what you put in as early as you can and you grow your HR and capital expertise to be in best position long term.
But you cannot shortcut that HR and capital growing (and reputation + reliability + competitiveness) whatever the terms and numbers are around it.
These are all hypotheticals on multiple roulette wheels going right.
Bringing in another like China is always the question "whats in it for them"? w.r.t what they want to hold onto increasingly (if you look at what precipice thats coming into view).
Are they expediently deploying light manufacturing in Pakistan right now where they can? To then finance logistics from that inside out with the forex that brings? Or logistics first with promise of something later (i.e reversing order what Deng et al did inside China)....however that is supposed to fall into place however it does and with the (USD only) bills to pay on the infra+logistics on top.
If not, why not?
Best to focus on own competency and wherewithal....trust, investment, basic forex and fiscal maths....and doing this over and over again for a decade and then another.
Then everyone more genuinely sees reason for win-win w.r.t augmenting and helping as makes sense.
10 years is far too optimistic, granted, but then we just down to how long would it take for Pakistan catch up to India on a per capita basis. Goldman Sachs thinks so in 50 years but even people in Pakistan are skeptical. Where was india 30 years ago and where is it now (granted it had other structural advantages in place to make the transition to growth easier).
(https://www.dawn.com/news/amp/1727346)
Formalizing the informal economy with the right incentives, positive and negative, would have to be part of the solution, but attracting FDI and cutting wasteful unproductive spending would have to be the two minimal other components.
Formalizing India’s economy has been a long time coming, and the government is determined to capitalize on the improvements made during.....
borgenproject.org
You raise many valid points, and I may have come across as sounding like I think that it will be easier down the road, but considering how underdeveloped the country I realistically think growth rates can be high with the right kind of discipline. Trust will take time, but a solid 5 years can lay the ground for another solid 5 years, and by then 10 solid years of reputation building and decently high growth can make Pakistan an attractive investment destination, allow growth to increase exponential.
focustaiwan.tw
asia.nikkei.com
www.wipo.int
defencepk.com
borgenproject.org
