4 ms·

Intel apologized specifically for mentioning Xinjiang. This implies that there are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang. Otherwise, there would be no need t

Intel apologized specifically for mentioning Xinjiang. This implies that there are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang. Otherwise, there would be no need to apologize. There are two dimensions to that revised statement. If it had not been accompanied by an apology, then it could be taken as clarification of a genuine position. As it stands, it is a contradictory mish mash of public relations that suggests there are no slave concentration camps in Xinjiang while saying generally Intel is against slave labour. A clarification of the Intel position is in order. More to the point, Intel should be asked whether it deems Xinjiang to have slave concentration camps. What made it explicitly specify Xinjiang as an example of slave labour? Does removing Xinjiang reference mean that Intel now believes there are no slave concentration camps? Hence, the clarification question about Intel's position is in earnest. But, it was just a succinct form of all these follow up questions. Sorry if that was unclear.

vmception 5y ago
Associated Press says those camps are closed and that was back in October. It is entirely possible that the US Congress was just too late on their grandstanding, yet their addition to the US law requires companies to say in/accurate things anyway. So which is true? A Congress operating on outdated information just because they have a laundry list of fairly inconsequential laws to pass for their constituents who also have outdated information, or the Associated Press reporting up to date things with their own limitations on gathering information in Xinjiang. I don't think it matters, same for Intel who just is in a place to respond. Apologizing is the way to maintain standing in China, whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate. The Chinese constitution is being leveraged in a clear way that explains the behavior of everyone that has to make a strange-to-us apology. Specifically, if you read it, is the part about treating China as inseparable and not doing anything that would undermine that idea. It allows for broad interpretations on every action on every facet of life. Think about it like a super-interstate commerce clause, but maintaining status in that society is not that confusing to me. The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do. They're apathetic and respond to regulation. They responded, and then responded better. Everyone else now knows how to respond better, in order to avoid the PR issue. If you think this fiasco requires them to make an opinion, for you, its not going to happen, and hopefully the above explains why.
- network2592 5y ago
  > The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do. You presumably want capable management as leadership of a corporation. The issue is whether Intel really needed to apologize. Most chips are not manufactured in China. Foreign access to Chinese market is heavily restricted by CCP. There does not seem to be much to gain from apologizing for calling out slave concentration camps. When considering this latest Xinjiang issue, as well as growing competition from Arm and the lack of a meaningful response from Intel, from a purely financial perspective, you can question the leadership of Intel. If you are holding some Intel stock, it is probably time to revisit that position regardless of your views about corporations and ethics. Incompetence in public relations statements does not mean there is not general incompetence that can adversely affect the bottom line.
  - vmception 5y ago
    That's an interesting point, I think it comes down to nobody knowing what contractors in their extended supply chain do. This also moves Intel's problem to their first shareholder letter. Basically they should have never said it if it didn't apply to them. Then they chose to apologize to maintain standing in China for who knows what reason. Whats clear to me is that they realize it is basically inconsequential in the US and their other markets, while it is consequential in the China market. It's easy calculus. Sure some people want it to be consequential but nothing is going to happen, a few patriotic fellows are going to put them on the same mental list they have Lebron James on and you'll just hear about it at a party or in a bar a few times. That's the definition of inconsequential to me.
    - network2592 5y ago
      You need to factor in time horizons. Things can be inconsequential for a while and then become very consequential. Yes, in the short term, there are consequences in China for Intel in terms of speaking out against slave concentration camps. Medium and long term, CCP will champion a national chip that will replace Intel. No amount of CCP praising or glossing over slave concentration camps will prevent this outcome for Intel. So choosing to bend the knee for CCP will not net a gain in a longer time horizon. And with the rise of ARM, Intel is no longer the only chip on the block. The Intel leadership may think things are inconsequential outside of China. But, this might push them to not consider alternative supply chains. With increasing trade wars, and the CCP looking to be very aggressive with trade policies as a foreign policy instrument, it is probably a good idea to divest from China supply chains. Yet, Intel seems to really value their China supply chain. So it is reasonable to expect them to face the adverse consequences in the future. This can be very swift just like the sidelining of Jack Ma and AliBaba as well other Chinese tech giants. In other words, just because you do not see the consequences now, it does not mean that there will not be heavy consequences later. You can have some basic human empathy for Uyghurs in slave concentration camps. Or you can evaluate the competence of Intel leadership in a cold manner. Either way, things seem to point to a sell order for Intel stock if you trade.

vmception 5y ago

Associated Press says those camps are closed and that was back in October. It is entirely possible that the US Congress was just too late on their grandstanding, yet their addition to the US law requires companies to say in/accurate things anyway. So which is true? A Congress operating on outdated information just because they have a laundry list of fairly inconsequential laws to pass for their constituents who also have outdated information, or the Associated Press reporting up to date things with their own limitations on gathering information in Xinjiang. I don't think it matters, same for Intel who just is in a place to respond. Apologizing is the way to maintain standing in China, whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate. The Chinese constitution is being leveraged in a clear way that explains the behavior of everyone that has to make a strange-to-us apology. Specifically, if you read it, is the part about treating China as inseparable and not doing anything that would undermine that idea. It allows for broad interpretations on every action on every facet of life. Think about it like a super-interstate commerce clause, but maintaining status in that society is not that confusing to me. The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do. They're apathetic and respond to regulation. They responded, and then responded better. Everyone else now knows how to respond better, in order to avoid the PR issue. If you think this fiasco requires them to make an opinion, for you, its not going to happen, and hopefully the above explains why.

network2592 5y ago
> The corporation and the management have no actual opinion and I don't require they do. You presumably want capable management as leadership of a corporation. The issue is whether Intel really needed to apologize. Most chips are not manufactured in China. Foreign access to Chinese market is heavily restricted by CCP. There does not seem to be much to gain from apologizing for calling out slave concentration camps. When considering this latest Xinjiang issue, as well as growing competition from Arm and the lack of a meaningful response from Intel, from a purely financial perspective, you can question the leadership of Intel. If you are holding some Intel stock, it is probably time to revisit that position regardless of your views about corporations and ethics. Incompetence in public relations statements does not mean there is not general incompetence that can adversely affect the bottom line.
- vmception 5y ago
  That's an interesting point, I think it comes down to nobody knowing what contractors in their extended supply chain do. This also moves Intel's problem to their first shareholder letter. Basically they should have never said it if it didn't apply to them. Then they chose to apologize to maintain standing in China for who knows what reason. Whats clear to me is that they realize it is basically inconsequential in the US and their other markets, while it is consequential in the China market. It's easy calculus. Sure some people want it to be consequential but nothing is going to happen, a few patriotic fellows are going to put them on the same mental list they have Lebron James on and you'll just hear about it at a party or in a bar a few times. That's the definition of inconsequential to me.
  - network2592 5y ago
    You need to factor in time horizons. Things can be inconsequential for a while and then become very consequential. Yes, in the short term, there are consequences in China for Intel in terms of speaking out against slave concentration camps. Medium and long term, CCP will champion a national chip that will replace Intel. No amount of CCP praising or glossing over slave concentration camps will prevent this outcome for Intel. So choosing to bend the knee for CCP will not net a gain in a longer time horizon. And with the rise of ARM, Intel is no longer the only chip on the block. The Intel leadership may think things are inconsequential outside of China. But, this might push them to not consider alternative supply chains. With increasing trade wars, and the CCP looking to be very aggressive with trade policies as a foreign policy instrument, it is probably a good idea to divest from China supply chains. Yet, Intel seems to really value their China supply chain. So it is reasonable to expect them to face the adverse consequences in the future. This can be very swift just like the sidelining of Jack Ma and AliBaba as well other Chinese tech giants. In other words, just because you do not see the consequences now, it does not mean that there will not be heavy consequences later. You can have some basic human empathy for Uyghurs in slave concentration camps. Or you can evaluate the competence of Intel leadership in a cold manner. Either way, things seem to point to a sell order for Intel stock if you trade.