14 ms·

Say what you want about China, but their ability to weaponize capitalism and make multi-billion dollar companies cower and self-censor in ways they would never

• bravo22 5y ago
  Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. So Intel is doing what it is supposed to do -- operate in accordance with wishes of the shareholders.
  • 4ggr0 5y ago
    I think the shareholders who have this power would probably also be included in OPs quote.
  • burkaman 5y ago
    Counterpoint: the human beings that run Intel are not "supposed to" do everything possible to make their shareholder more money, regardless of the cost. I accept that they're going to do that, but there's nothing forcing them to, there's just a general cultural acceptance of greed.
    • FredPret 5y ago
      Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. Having said that, someone at Intel, owners or managers, are way off track here and in need of severe consequences. They picked the wrong side.
      • michaelt 5y ago
        Shareholders haven't resolved that Intel must or must not use slave labour. And a court isn't going to second-guess the management if they judge the cost savings of using slave labour don't outweigh the potential for reputational damage. As such, management are free to act either way.
        • FredPret 5y ago
          A flaw in the system to be sure. As a former INTC owner, I dumped my stake a while ago. I think there should be far more shareholder involvement in general. We are far too acquiescent as a group. If you polled every direct and indirect INTC holder (you may be one, unknowingly) about slavery and concentration camps, you’d walk away with a near 100% mandate for taking all measures against it.
        • Loughla 5y ago
          I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations, because many don't even know they are shareholders. Think about Joe Blow from the US. He has a managed 401k or some such investment. He has no idea the 'low-risk' fund offered through Edward Jones invests in Intel or Google or whoever. He has no idea he plays a part in this.
          • reaperducer 5y ago
            I would argue that 'shareholders' aren't able to influence these decisions at multi-national mega corporations There's such a thing as activist investors, and they seem to be gaining influence lately. From what I read in the newspaper, they're behind a lot of the changes that are starting to happen at certain multi-national oil companies.
          • FredPret 5y ago
            Very true. Public shareholding is like a parallel democracy, where almost none of the voters are paticipating or voting. I strongly believe we need more voter participation here.
      • reaperducer 5y ago
        Management is very much supposed to do whatever the owners tell them to do. If they don’t like it, they can resign in protest. It's not a one-way street. Management can do things, and if the shareholders don't like it, they can sell their shares in protest. Happens all the time.
    • bravo22 5y ago
      No one is saying that. They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Shareholders can say screw China, take a stand and they will. They can't unilaterally say screw the shareholders we're going in this direction. A company is a group of people coming together for a purpose. Management can't destory the group in pursuit of their own values. A ship's captain can't risk the ship because of their own values.
      • burkaman 5y ago
        > They do what the shareholders want They haven't even asked what the shareholders want. They don't think they need to, because they believe that everyone will naturally share their belief that money is their highest priority.
        • bravo22 5y ago
          Management doesn't ask shareholders for approval on every decision. They have a duty to act in the best interest of the shareholder. Generally that means not having reduced revenue. This is what most people accept. If shareholders want them to do something different they can let them know.
          • burkaman 5y ago
            > Generally that means not having reduced revenue. I think this is the fundamental disagreement we have, and it's probably too big of a conversation for a comment thread. In my philosophy of determining "best interest", revenue is an important consideration, but not the only one and not the most important one. There is certainly no legal duty to increase revenue or stock price or anything like that.
      • reaperducer 5y ago
        They do what the shareholders want because that's who they legally work for. Under which law? Plenty of corporate boards do things their shareholders don't like every day.
  • baybal2 5y ago
    > Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Good question, who are Intel shareholders?
    • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > who are Intel shareholders? https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/institutional-holdings https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/intc/instituti...
    • bravo22 5y ago
      Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.
      • baybal2 5y ago
        That's even worse, as this means somebody takes your money, and pay somebody to stooge for China without you knowing.
        • bravo22 5y ago
          Well you presumably know what is in your portfolio or can find out if social issues are that important.
    • michaelt 5y ago
      Intel is chopped up into tens of millions of tiny slices, and everyone with any form of retirement savings has a handful through some sort of fund. Generally these people barely know they're shareholders, they receive none of the paperwork needed to vote at the AGM, they have a slice several orders of magnitude too small to exert any influence, and they have no way of identifying or contacting other shareholders to take any sort of coordinated action. Anyone who expects X to be done by shareholders is going to be disappointed.
      • 5y ago
  • vmception 5y ago
    Those shareholders are going to sell to shareholders that have other priorities. Fun in theory but too bad only Americans tolerate those PE multiples. So, look out below!
    • bravo22 5y ago
      Which again goes to my point. People who care about Intel taking a stand against China should actually buy shares from the existing investors and make them. If no one wants to do that then what is all these kvetch about "capitalism" and "greed" corrupting companies and our values when it is the people who do not care. Certainly not enough to pay up for the shares.
      • vmception 5y ago
        ha, a classic prisoner's dilemma. in my case I was waiting for disgruntled shareholders to sell because an aggregate stance was not taken by management or other shareholders, and then when sold it goes to people more or less apathetic. in your case you want people to buy the shares at any price but likely a premium, in order to exercise a goal, which I frankly think is absurd. so guess the market has priced everything in well enough, as an aggregate opinion on its own.
        • bravo22 5y ago
          Interesting take. Here is my view: If the American consumers of Intel chips -- the people and government actors -- are unhappy with Intel's stance then they can also not buy their chips. This is basically what the Chinese are doing (without owning shares). Now granted the Chinese people have little say in it but the government is ostencibly acting on their behalf. Even if China was a democractic country and the CCP could not ban Intel outright then the government or the people could say that they would not buy Intel chips. So if Americans did the same to uphold their own belifes then Intel would suffer here and that would reduce the stock price, which would make it easier for people who want to take them to take the progressive position to buy the stock and force them to reverse their position. The key take away is that there is no scenario in which both sides actuall care about the issue and Intel stock doesn't drop. Since it doesn't it means that Americans do not care about it as much as the Chinese, or do not know how to express their displeasure :)
  • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Intel shareholders can now vote to ensure Intel takes a stand against China, if they choose. But it seems those individuals do not want that. Too early to conclude this. These tensions present not only a reputational risk for Intel, but financial ones as well, particularly if tensions escalate. Managers might not care, but there is precedence for shareholders taking a longer view [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engine-no1-activist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/09/business/exxon-mobil-engi...
    • bravo22 5y ago
      I think the shareholders SHOULD take a stand, at Intel, Disney and other companies. The point I was making was that the power is in their hands, not management.
      • JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > the power is in their hands, not management Management absolutely has a say.
  • avgcupofcoffee 5y ago
  • Steltek 5y ago
    Collective action problems are not solved through capitalism. Unfortunately, Western countries are gripped by misguided reactive individualism right now and governments are very hamstrung.
• SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Intel wouldn’t massage the wording of their shareholder report to avoid criticism from the American public? I’m skeptical. They almost certainly have review processes designed to anticipate and prevent that from happening in the first place.
  • vmception 5y ago
    Now they have better review processes. Its pretty clear what happened, Intel doesn't have an aggregate stance on anything, US legal saw the new US federal law regarding Xinjiang and wanted it included in US securities regulatory risk statements and also needed that in circulars. That happened, then reality set in that there are consequences - something lawmakers are shielded from - and at that point Intel took a look at the circumstance holistically and reworded it. Companies are going to have to hire geopolitical experts to play cross cultural word games now that they are being saddled with it the consequences.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• sorethescore 5y ago
  Who do you think taught them how to do that?
• jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Where did that quote come from?
  • smachiz 5y ago
    Karl Marx or Lenin, Gretzky, or Michael Scott. It's often attributed to Lenin and Marx, but no actual evidence that I've seen.
    • jonnycomputer 5y ago
      The best quotes are usually non-attributable. lol.
  • wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Quote Investigator says that Major George Racey Jordan was the source of this wording in 1955, but he attributed it to Lenin. In 1931, however, S. Dmitrijewski wrote something similar (while talking about Maxim Litvinov): > In the autumn of 1905 he founded, together with Krassin, the newspaper New Life; the necessary money being given by millionaires, who thereby helped weave the rope from which many of them should hang later on. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/02/22/rope/
• toolz 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you blaming capitalism for the moral failures of a communist regime? Maybe you're just suggesting capitalism isn't capable of "solving" the wrongdoings of communism? If so I would agree. A society that accepts the evils of communism is a difficult thing to solve externally.
  • GavinMcG 5y ago
    I think they're blaming capitalism for the moral failings of the capitalist companies who willingly submit to immoral demands.
  • me_me_me 5y ago
    what he is saying is that chinese gov adopted capitalism but state is actually controlling it them - semi indirectly. And they are big enough to be able to influence other big countries and foreign corporations to the point that they are now setting directions of where things are going. Case and point Holywood and self censorship in movies to pander to chinese market They are not saying comunism is good or bad, just stating reality of what is happening
    • toolz 5y ago
      The Chinese gov't adopted capitalism? I'm not sure I can believe that anyone believes that, much less agree with it. This is a very direct example of a communist government controlling the messaging of a company, which is antithetical to capitalism. As I understand it, this is happening because Chinese corporations are coerced by the communist regime such that Intel would lose business if they didn't follow the rules coming thru their Chinese partner corporations. Intel is still very much capable of freely choosing to obey those demands or not, which makes them capitalists, but the Chinese corporations being coerced into doing PR for the CCP is not capitalism.
      • 4ggr0 5y ago
        Yes, their party has communist in its name and socially they portray (Authoritarian!-)Communist ideals. But calling their economy communist is really not the whole truth.
• f00b4r_ 5y ago
• syki 5y ago
  In China the government tells companies what to do in the furtherance of state aims. In America and elsewhere companies tell government what to do in furtherance of corporate aims. For instance the overthrow of governments on behalf of banana companies and oil companies. What we see now is China exerting influence and power and we aren’t accustomed to having another country do this toward our companies/interests.
  • mlindner 5y ago
    This is a rather skewed and incorrect view of history. In America and elsewhere companies do not dictate policy. They can help edge it in a direction they want, but the large swings of policy are out of their control. More so you're generalizing America to the entire west and excluding other Asian countries like Japan.
    • syki 5y ago
      Clearly what I wrote was a broad over simplification but I think the essence is roughly correct. As it stands now companies in China are definitely subservient to the state. The communist party there is definitely in the driver seat. In America corporate interests dominate policy making. U.S. foreign policy has definitely been bent to serve corporate interests and domestic policy in many areas are enacted to serve corporate interests. There are many instances of corporations mostly dictating policy in the U.S. I don’t claim all policy is at the behest of corporations. Roughly speaking one can view the difference between China and the U.S. as follows. In China corporations serve CCCP interests and in the U.S. government serves corporate (highest bidder) interests. I should not have said “other countries” in my original post. There are, currently, no other countries than China and the U.S. in terms of scale and influence.
      • nicoburns 5y ago
        > I should not have said “other countries” in my original post. There are, currently, no other countries than China and the U.S. in terms of scale and influence. One might perhaps reasonably compare the EU, which I would suggest is somewhere between the US and China on the where the control lies.
• eunos 5y ago
  And this happens when the Chinese economy is still smaller than the US along with their lack of mastery in certain state-of-the-art semiconductor and aerospace tech. When the Chinese economy and tech hopefully match the US, the pressure gonna be enormous. Can't wait to see that day, my newsfeed will be so exciting.
  • mlindner 5y ago
    Your newsfeed will tell you want to hear and nothing else while the world destroys itself around you and you blissfully ignorant of it.
    • eunos 5y ago
      > while the world destroys itself I don't realize how vain the America is (I assume). Losing advantage in aero and semiconductor tech means destruction of the world? really?.
  • ISL 5y ago
    On that day, your newsfeed might be free of dissent.
• Aunche 5y ago
  My previous comment got flagged, so I'll rephrase in a way that's less sarcastic. Intel is doing the exact same thing to help Xinjiang as the government which is absolutely nothing. Yet somehow anti-capitalists will only focus on the former. Governments do tend to virtue signal more, but that's because they don't face any negative repercussions for doing so.