3 ms·

Ok, so let bankruptcy wipe out the shareholders and then let someone more responsible buy the good parts at auction. Or nationalize it. If shareholders aren't t

Ok, so let bankruptcy wipe out the shareholders and then let someone more responsible buy the good parts at auction. Or nationalize it. If shareholders aren't taking risk and responsibility, why the hell are we putting them in charge and letting them pay themselves massive dividends?

KK7NIL 2y ago
1) No other US company is capable of using the parts for leading edge semiconductors. Case in point: GlobalFoundry had EUV machines but returned them to ASML as they weren't able to compete technically and capital wise. They would be the best to take over Intel's assets but they weren't competitive years ago, why would they be now? 2) idk where you're getting the idea that Intel is paying massive dividends when it has been one of the worst performing tech stocks for years. The SW companies juiced up on low interest rates have done far better.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > They would be the best to take over Intel's assets but they weren't competitive years ago, why would they be now? Yeah. Channelling Michael Dell, October 6, 1997, they should shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders. Or more seriously, everything changes over time. Intel goes from good to bad, GlobalFoundry can go from bad to good.
mrandish 2y ago
Excellent observation. Setting "preserving XYZ corporation" as a national priority is focusing on the wrong thing. Corporations are temporary constructs formed out of combinations of resources (human, capital, IP, etc) to organize and maximize the value of those resources. If we really care about fostering and furthering these resources, we need to free them from being held captive, under-utilized and mis-allocated inside a repeatedly failing corporation - not propping up failing corporations. If the resources in question really are both viable and valuable, releasing them will allow the free market to do what it does best - efficiently allocate resources. No central planning committee created U.S. economic leadership by picking which corporations to subsidize, so no central planning committee can "preserve" or restore that leadership by picking "winners" to subsidize. We need to let Schumpeter's creative disruption keep doing it's job of cleansing, educating and renewing the market through re-allocation of resources. That's what put us in the lead and it's what will keep us there.
onepointsixC 2y ago
Shareholders already have huge risk and have lost big on Intel. Leading edge is too cutthroat, if it goes to bankruptcy it will be too late to ever catchup. It’s probably already too late and we just don’t know that we’re living in a Chinese century.
evanelias 2y ago
> letting them pay themselves massive dividends Earlier this month, Intel announced that they've suspended dividend payments entirely. Prior to that, their dividend payments were decent but far from "massive".

KK7NIL 2y ago

1) No other US company is capable of using the parts for leading edge semiconductors. Case in point: GlobalFoundry had EUV machines but returned them to ASML as they weren't able to compete technically and capital wise. They would be the best to take over Intel's assets but they weren't competitive years ago, why would they be now? 2) idk where you're getting the idea that Intel is paying massive dividends when it has been one of the worst performing tech stocks for years. The SW companies juiced up on low interest rates have done far better.

roenxi 2y ago
> They would be the best to take over Intel's assets but they weren't competitive years ago, why would they be now? Yeah. Channelling Michael Dell, October 6, 1997, they should shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders. Or more seriously, everything changes over time. Intel goes from good to bad, GlobalFoundry can go from bad to good.

mrandish 2y ago

Excellent observation. Setting "preserving XYZ corporation" as a national priority is focusing on the wrong thing. Corporations are temporary constructs formed out of combinations of resources (human, capital, IP, etc) to organize and maximize the value of those resources. If we really care about fostering and furthering these resources, we need to free them from being held captive, under-utilized and mis-allocated inside a repeatedly failing corporation - not propping up failing corporations. If the resources in question really are both viable and valuable, releasing them will allow the free market to do what it does best - efficiently allocate resources. No central planning committee created U.S. economic leadership by picking which corporations to subsidize, so no central planning committee can "preserve" or restore that leadership by picking "winners" to subsidize. We need to let Schumpeter's creative disruption keep doing it's job of cleansing, educating and renewing the market through re-allocation of resources. That's what put us in the lead and it's what will keep us there.

onepointsixC 2y ago

Shareholders already have huge risk and have lost big on Intel. Leading edge is too cutthroat, if it goes to bankruptcy it will be too late to ever catchup. It’s probably already too late and we just don’t know that we’re living in a Chinese century.

evanelias 2y ago

> letting them pay themselves massive dividends Earlier this month, Intel announced that they've suspended dividend payments entirely. Prior to that, their dividend payments were decent but far from "massive".