TSMC says no plans to make chips in America, for now

TSMC to make chips in the U.S.? Apple's A13 Bionic chip photo
Apple’s A13 Bionic SoC

Apple chip supplier Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) says they have no “short term” plans to make chip in America, but the company may do so in the future.

TSMC says they have no plans to make chips in America, for now, but “the feasibility is being evaluated.”


In response to reports indicating Washington has increased its pressure on TSMC to have a plant in the US for the fabrication of high-security products, the Taiwan-based foundry said that it has no such plans in the short term but the feasibility is being evaluated…

The global IC foundry market is forecast to increase 17% in 2020, outpacing the overall semiconductor sector’s 8% growth, according to TSMC CEO CC Wei. TSMC will continue to see its sales increase outperform the overall IC foundry market growth this year, said Wei.

MacDailyNews Take: Feasibility studies can (be made to) take a long time. Certainly long enough to outlast U.S. administrations, even if they are in 8-year blocks — which is a negative aspect of the U.S. Presidential term limit*.

*We’ve rethought term limits. The U.S. Presidential term limit gives the rest of the world a hard and fast end date they can shoot for while stringing along U.S. officials with vague promises. If there were no term limits and a U.S. President were young enough and popular enough to achieve reelection, more things would get done more quickly, as nobody would know for sure how long the administration would run. There’d be no “running out the clock,” which has been endemic since the Twenty-second Amendment was ratified in 1951. We often wonder if this is what China tries to with U.S. trade talks.

The Presidential term limit, in effect, handicaps the U.S. President, since U.S. Congresspeople, Senators, career government officials, and world leaders can, and do, simply wait them out. There would also not be a years-long second (and last) term “lame duck” period every four years during which pretty much nothing much seems to happen.

This goes for any President, regardless of party; they should not be handicapped by term limits. The benefits of a term limited U.S. Presidency are outweighed by the inaction it naturally induces. The Twenty-second Amendment should be repealed effective for a Presidency to occur eight (8) years from the time of passage in order to eliminate any hint of partisanship.

The U.S. system has always had the ultimate term limit: the voting booth.


  1. The 22nd was nothing more than a power grab by Congress and it needs to be repealed or joined by another amendment placing equivalent limits on Congressional terms.

    1. Please ad to your amendment; Congress will be removed from their cadillac insurance plans and will now enroll in the same plans used by their subjects. They will also be required to go through the registration process themselves…no congressional staff assistance.

    2. Power grab by Congress? LMFAO

      Do you understand the process for a Constitutional Amendment, C.O.D.?

      “The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.<\b> The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

      The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

      A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).”<\b>

      George Washington, himself, set the precedent for only two consecutive terms. George was so loved and respected that he could have assumed the role of King of the U.S. without much opposition. At this point, POTUS term limits might become the only thing that save us from King Trump. Just writing that appellation makes me want to projectile vomit on 38% of the voting public.

  2. MDN, once a Democrat is president.

    MDN, once a Republican is president,

    I find it hilarious that they didn’t hit upon this epiphany until THIS president. 🙂 But you know, they’re old and that problem will sort itself out.

    1. Two questions:

      Which part of “This goes for any President, regardless of party’ didn’t you understand?
      Can you refute any of MDN’s very valid points about the detrimental effects of U.S. Presidential term limits or dis you just want to sound foolish?

      1. Awww, you believe folks when they say things! 🙂 I think that’s precious! You actually believe that the good folks at MDN are such strident and powerful purveyors of fairness that they would advocate for the US to be led indefinitely by a single liberal president.

        Quite gullible you are!

        1. Which part of “The U.S. system has always had the ultimate term limit: the voting booth” didn’t you understand?

          The U.S. won’t “be led indefinitely” by anybody. Hence, MDN’s “young enough and popular enough to achieve reelection” qualification.

          What are you, twelve?

          1. No, but YOU must have been a model child. 🙂 It’s very easy to write some pretty words that you’ll buy into with no critical thinking.

            Anyone putting forth ANY ideas about ending Presidential term limits AND by extension, anyone supporting those views are acting in a way that’s un-American. Say what you want about how they carefully worded the statement so that you can give yourself a warm fuzzy that “oh yeah, that sounds fair”. The basic idea itself is wrong. 🙂

            1. The American Founders did not institute Presidential term limits – likely for the very reasons I listed above. A bunch of fools added it in an overreaction in the 1950’s without considering the issues it would cause. The country did just fine without Presidential term limits for nearly 200 years. Now, we suffer through other countries waiting out administrations and a lame duck presidency basically every four years. It’s stupidity.

              Anyone putting forth ANY ideas about ending Presidential term limits AND by extension, anyone supporting those views are acting in a way that’s un-American.

              So, with your nonsensical statement, you’ve called the Founders of The United States of America “un-American.”

              Our little interaction here has established one thing most clearly: Logic is not your strong suit.

    2. A little triggered, are you? I think the “site bias” that’s gettin you is really gettin you’re bias.

      I believe the extraordinarily biased site happened to make a remark that’s biased with relevance (countries do “wait out” per office term, ya think?)

      “This goes for any President, regardless of party” How dare they say “any” because I know they mean something else. And, their timing…(that I brought up).

      Being a Dr., I’m qualified to say, “you should see someone.”

      1. “I think the “site bias” that’s gettin you is really gettin you’re bias.”
        Written by a doctor… apparently!

        What REALLY goes for any President of ANY party is that you get two terms. Just the fact that an idea like President For Life can be brought up in a conversation in the United States and not universally condemned is sign of some serious fear on the side of those that support Trump.

        It’s no longer the Republican Party, it’s the party of Trump. When Trump goes, so does everything they’ve worked for, so now, unsurprisingly, they’re putting their little minions to work to spread yet another un-American idea.

        “This goes for any President, regardless of party” How dare they say “any” because I know they mean something else.”

        I KNOW you know they mean something else. And I do, too! 🙂 Hope that doesn’t bother you. LOL

        1. Triggered: thankfully we live in country where we have the freedom to talk about anything…that is, until the time when those deeming a view as not proper, or unacceptable to their paradigm. When that happens, our country will be greatly degraded. I don’t for a moment brush it off as impossible, btw. I wonder if you might like to control such a conversation…prevent, or limit those that might want to discuss/consider a topic you abhor, or think absurd?

          I’m not sure what world you live in and conversations you experience, but in all my years of political discussion, there’s been absolutely zero serious discussions re: removing the presidential term limits. There’s such a thing as meeting a force with an equal force and if there’s no real “opposing” force, coming out with energy to “universally condemn” is a bit of over reaction. In other words, triggered. Remember, I’m talking about a serious discussion, with intent…not merely having the discussion.

          No, I take the word simply as it was used. “Any” means any…no hidden messages here. No minions planning an uprising to make a new constitution. You must be getting information from a unique source to have such a suspicion.

          1. I’ve always found the first person to mention being triggered usually does so because they’re SO very familiar with the idea of being triggered. I mean, what I posted was a funny jab at a website that leans conservative thinking that right now would be just a swell time to get rid of term limits.

            Most folks read and either chuckled or ignored it BUT that joke must have REALLY triggered you and poor Sarah. Sorry, buuuut, not sorry 🙂

          2. Doc, you must be Doogie Howser to be so naive. Or you must Nobel a complete noob to the internet, much less the MDN forum and MDN Takes. MDN has pulled hard right for so long that the “MDN staff” (whoever they are) see any reasonable idea as being far left.

  3. IIRC the indue of term limits came up when FDR died and the country was at a bit off a loss at what was going on. Harry Truman stepped in with idle problem personally, but had to catch up on all the secret “things” (like the atom bomb) that had been kept hidden from him.

    Nixon had his staff talk about removing Term limits for the Presidency, but that died pretty fast – just like any effort by Trump will face. Basically Trump really needs a third term to keep him protected from Prosecutors.

  4. Regarding term limits, I would refer MDN to Steve Jobs’s famous Stanford Commencement speech. There have been plenty of presidents who accomplished plenty of domestic and foreign policy in only four years.

  5. AAPL will crash when China bombs the TSMC plants in Taiwan.

    Or, China hires TSMC’s staff and steals everyone’s IP. Which is the current plan in operation.

  6. Good Lord, this idea of removing term limits on the presidency is right in line with what Putin has just begun in Russia with his new constitutional changes. If Trump gets a second term he will force changes in the Constitution, and term limits is one of the first changes he and his followers are already planning on going after.

    Trump has the earmarks of a fascist dictator. He will become Mussolini in his second term. He’s uninformed and dangerous. (Can you believe he didn’t even know why he was going to honor the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor other than it was a big battle. In many ways, the man is a simpleton, and that is being kind.)

    1. You are obviously experiencing a challenge in perceiving reality.

      I say with ABSOLUTE certainty, it would be the conservatives that would revolt if Trump moved to remove the Executive term limits. There would be no liberal needed because the reaction from the conservative sector would be ferocious and sustained.

      It’s not going to happen. The discussion, as if it will, is perverse. This is talk of a f-g nutcase.

  7. “it would be the conservatives that would revolt if Trump moved to remove the Executive term limits.”

    Ronner, you should probably have a word with Sarah and Medical Authority… and probably with the conservative staff of MDN. Because they seem to like the idea and I don’t get the feeling there will be anything ferocious coming from them other than a ferocious salute to the President For Life.

    Of course, they could be liberals… I didn’t ask. Although I don’t know ANY liberals that would say, “Ya know, we’ve rethought term limits.”

    1. The Twenty-second Amendment should be repealed effective for a Presidency to occur eight (8) years from the time of passage in order to eliminate any hint of partisanship. – MacDailyNews (above)

  8. There are people with views that have no intent to act/work for change. If any of the above are interested in changing the law legally/legislatively, I’ll guess they’re hardly aware of the function of the current law and the value as stated in the Constitution. Those hardly aware are rarely the people with the fortitude to follow change through to the end.

    My thought remains, conservatives would ardently fight against this. With that said, to think the above thoughts imply there’s a SERIOUS movement afoot to make the change is absolutely absurd.

    There’s complete truth in saying terms “handicap.” This is one circumstance where being handicapped is a good.

    1. “This is one circumstance where being handicapped is a good.”

      Thing is, there are zero liberals you have to convince of this. There are conservatives like MA and Sarah (and MDN and many others spreading this thought) that you’re going to have to educate. Unfortunately, you’re one rational thinker in a sea of folks who, more than anything, just want to “win”.

      1. The Twenty-second Amendment should be repealed effective for a Presidency to occur eight (8) years from the time of passage in order to eliminate any hint of partisanship. – MacDailyNews (above)

      2. Mr. Pres f Life:

        Stop using my words (replying to others) to anyway support your own perspectives/interests. Do you have any sense of boundaries, or ownership?

        It appears this issue has you frothing at the mouth by your own design.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.