8 ms·

Awesome, I can't wait for me the taxpayer to breathe life into the smoldering shell of a company where the executives and unlimited layers of useless middle man

• amelius 2y ago
  > Just let it fail. How about we do something about the financial hackers who are just laughing their way to the bank either way?
  • kevmo 2y ago
    Billionaires should not exist.
    • lifestyleguru 2y ago
      They give back through their charities and foundations. How would you cope with your life without their charities?
      • Clubber 2y ago
        It's a tax dodge.
        • ta1243 2y ago
          How does this tax dodge work?
          • Clubber 2y ago
            https://www.axios.com/2022/09/17/the-ultimate-billionaire-tax-dodge https://www.axios.com/2022/09/17/the-ultimate-billionaire-ta... https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffett-criticized-avoiding-taxes-deserves-break-philanthropy-lifestyle-loopholes-2021-6-1030517316 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/warren-buffe...
            • ta1243 2y ago
              OK, so rather than giving $50m to the government they give $100m to charity? On the surface this seems reasonable. Give $50k gift to your local wildlife sancturary for example, and get invited to the annual fundraising meal. Looks like the big loopholes involve things like 501(c)(4)s Without spending too long trying to workout the loopholes, it seems the larger problem is with the definition of a charity in the first place?
              • Clubber 2y ago
                >OK, so rather than giving $50m to the government they give $100m to charity? Any income the government doesn't collect is made up for by the middle and lower class and/or more debt which increases inflation, which is mainly a middle and lower class burden. For a guy who claims everyone should pay their fair share, he sure takes advantage of a lot of loopholes which he probably helped pay to have written. He's an OG corporate raider and should be thought of as such, rather than a benevolent capitalist.
      • kevmo 2y ago
        Billionaire philanthropy is just another tax-free way oligarchs manipulate our society.
        • gruez 2y ago
          How dare they "manipulate our society by"... reducing malaria and fighting climate change. We'd be far better off if we relied on our ineffectual and corrupt (in case of malaria) governments to do it instead.
          • tonyarkles 2y ago
            If all charities were net-good I would tend to agree with you, but they’re not.
            • gruez 2y ago
              How do you define "net-good"? One man's YIMBY charity to make housing more affordable is another's astroturf operation to destroy neighborhoods so real estate developers can make a quick buck.
    • exabrial 2y ago
      No, they absolutely should exist. Capitalism raises everyone.
      • insane_dreamer 2y ago
        > Capitalism raises everyone hopefully this is sarcasm
        • vorpalhex 2y ago
          Every major communist country has been left in the dust by capitalist ones. Poverty is at a historical low. We have gone from people dying from starvation to complaining that not everyone can buy a house. Nearly everyone has a universally connected borderline supercomputer in their pocket.
          • betaby 2y ago
            This is a ridiculous mix of statements! I don't care how many people have 'supercomputer' in their pockets. On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism.
            • gruez 2y ago
              >On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism. Meanwhile in capitalist China[1], they're so great at building homes that there are entire cities with barely anyone living in them, "ghost cities". Insofar as a tight housing market contributes to homelessness, it's clear that it's caused by US/Canada specific factors (eg. NIMBYism, building codes, and environmental regulations) than capitalism. [1] Even though ostensibly it's "socialist with chinese characteristics", for all intents and purposes the real estate sector is capitalist.
              • insane_dreamer 2y ago
                there isn't a problem with homelessness in China but you are right that the capitalist market does restrict the supply of housing because people buy them as investments also, the ghost cities is way overblown -- they just took time to fill up
    • amelius 2y ago
      > Billionaires should not exist. I'm ok with them, but they should not use their money against the rest of us. Because when we pay for their wealth, then there is an accounting step missing somewhere.
  • exabrial 2y ago
    That seems to be the root cause. Increased regulatory oversight is unfortunately a double edged sword: you'll make the companies far less efficient. Which is why letting it fail and letting the investors feel the pain is a good lesson: don't invest in schemes you don't understand and don't have transparency into.
    • talldayo 2y ago
      > don't invest in schemes you don't understand and don't have transparency into. If you want to be pedantic, heeding this lesson is what got Intel into this mess in the first place. If Intel bought EULV fabs from ASML a decade ago, they theoretically could be competitive with TSMC. Intel didn't invest, citing how poorly-understood and opaque EULV was and assuming they could beat it with another process. That miracle process never materialized, and now Intel has learned that without risk you get no reward. Intel's decision wasn't even irrational, either. EULV is poorly-understood, and competing with it would have avoided the TSMC/ASML integrated monopoly that effectively manifests today.
      • blackenedgem 2y ago
        Intel was right on their EUV assessment though and did invest early. Early EUV had terrible throughput and wasn't at all viable for mass production. TSMC's 7nm where they jumped ahead of Intel used quad-patterning DUV which is also what Intel was trying. TSMC only started to introduce EUV at 6nm and 5nm which is when ASML had made great breakthroughs and vastly increased WPH. And even then EUV was only used sparingly at the most critical layers. Because other problems were still being solved like uptime and compatible pellicles. If you want to blame Intel's decisions then look at their use of cobalt contacts or COAG use. They tried to do too much at 10nm when shrinks were getting harder.
• epolanski 2y ago
  Why can't foreign investors buy the ips, fabs and whatever's left? I really don't like those protectionist arguments they do nothing good for any of the parties involved, merely raise the prices to consumers and deprive them of choices.
  • kevmo 2y ago
    Because at some point, you need domestically-owned manufacturing as a matter of national security.
    • mrweasel 2y ago
      Exactly, the US already have a functional domestic semiconductor production, covering pretty much everything you'd need. It's much cheaper to protect and maintain that, compared to trying to revive or create a production line, like the EU is.
    • epolanski 2y ago
      I don't buy it, it's not like the military needs the latest bleeding edge semiconductors out there. If they do, they shouldn't rely on publicly traded companies and put them on support line on taxpayer's money.
  • exabrial 2y ago
    I mean really IDC. The only justification I have is I also don't want oppressive foreign authoritarian governments (Russia, China) to become even more powerful and oppressive. Slowly doing the tide of tech into them seems to help. In Russia we've seen how this has played out prematurely at a great cost of human life.
  • insane_dreamer 2y ago
    because you wind up with your military and government being heavily dependent on a foreign power who may be hostile towards you
• stego-tech 2y ago
  Literally my same conclusion since 2008. Hundreds of thousands of people without jobs? Let it fail. No more domestic semiconductor company? Let it fail. No more domestic aerospace company? LET IT FAIL. We keep avoiding making the hard policy decisions by funneling taxpayer money into the hands of the already-wealthy who promise that this time it’ll be different, this time they won’t give it to shareholders and payout bonuses. Let it fail. Once hundreds of thousands of Americans are jobless due to executive mismanagement and shareholder greed, will actually meaningful and impactful policy be made.
  • talldayo 2y ago
    At least in Intel's case, I can see why the US government wouldn't want to get rid of them. For one, Intel is a defense asset and there will generally be apprehension of letting them slip under without the feds gutting what they want out of it. For two, I kinda think Intel did everything right from a US nationalism perspective even if their customers ditched them for it. Intel was never going to keep their Apple contract unless they outsourced to TSMC, abandoned any form of profitable margins and gave up on domestic chipmaking. From the perspective of US lawmakers, Intel is kinda damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. I still support letting Intel fail, but I have absolutely no confidence anyone will let it happen.
    • PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      > Intel is a defense asset So nationalize them and remove the waste
      • naveen99 2y ago
        Nationalize and waste removal is an oxymoron.
        • PittleyDunkin 2y ago
          I think the opposite is true! What bigger waste is there than profit? Schumpeter agrees with me. It would be different, of course, if intel were the bleeding edge of innovation.... but that hasn't been true for about twenty years. Maybe longer.
• deeviant 2y ago
  You’re conflating two separate issues: poor corporate governance and the government’s responsibility to protect critical industries. Expecting the government to somehow “un-Americanize” corporate culture—erasing the greed or mismanagement that's unfortunately standard in many large companies—just isn’t realistic. Government action to support vital industries isn’t about endorsing the practices of corporate executives; it’s about safeguarding resources essential to national security and economic stability.
• gausswho 2y ago
  This is right in the Musk wheelhouse. As SpaceX is to Boeing, and Tesla is to GM/Ford, ______ is to Intel. I'm surprised he hasn't made a move in this space.
  • awongh 2y ago
    Afaik the main differences seem to be that the price of finished chips is much more volatile and that the R&D costs of continually creating faster processes and chips are way higher than either electric cars or rockets. That is, while of course Tesla and SpaceX had to do R&D to have an advantage in the market, rockets were already invented and so were electric motors/batteries. It feels like the hardcore engineering that goes into a new process node or whatever new tech we need to get to the next iteration of Moore's law is even less predictable and more expensive than either cars or rockets. Afaik Intel's mismanagement is only one piece of the puzzle. Correctly deploying capital to get to the next process node profitably isn't easy. Besides mismanagement there must be other reasons why global chip production is an industry that keeps seeing consolidation at the top? (edit: formatting)
• bryanlarsen 2y ago
  The government can both let Intel fail and bail it out. It probably will. Any bailout should happen post-bankruptcy. Shareholders and executives primarily receiving stock based compensation get wiped out, employees and the fabs get saved.
  • datavirtue 2y ago
    Then how are we supposed to pickup the stock when it's down 90% with a sure upswing? Institutions have been stocking up on cash for a while. Even the long-term Buffet-esque investors are timing the market right now. All the smart money is saving for the mean regression so they can pickup sweet deals.
• imglorp 2y ago
  Letting it fail may bring a windfall boost to others. If anyone is worried about supply of pure intel silicon, the IP can be sold off or placed in the public domain to keep the ossified 8086 nectar flowing. And fabs can still make chips under new ownership. Maybe someone will succeed in a GPU plan to challenge you know whom.
• fallinditch 2y ago
  > Just let it fail I guess that's what they will end up doing but let's pause for a moment and contemplate the fact that they are exploring the options. Intel's strategic importance is recognized and so it's obviously a good idea to explore the potential for making the situation less bad. For me, this situation highlights the tension between laissez-faire capitalism and systems of economic planning where government interventions can be used to stimulate economies strategically. I think that in the USA, gov intervention tends to be viewed in ideological terms. Whereas in Europe it's mostly seen as an important economic policy tool. This is a broad generalization of course. I would like to see more insightful, strategic, long term economic planning. I'm keen on the ideas of Community Economic Development (CED) [1]. If CED is done properly then everyone benefits. The problem is that government bureaucracies have historically been terrible administrators and partners. The Intel saga points to the need for enlightened change in all these areas: economic policy, civil service effectiveness, community economic development, etc. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_economic_development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_economic_developme...
• gruez 2y ago
  >Remember when we did this in 2008 under the Obama administration? We gave them $10bil and they paid out "contractually obligated bonuses" with more than half of the money? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jul/31/wall-street https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jul/31/wall-street... AFAIK in finance, "bonuses" are a significant part of compensation, similar to RSUs in tech. So while it might sound great to hose all the greedy bankers, all that would encourage is for people to jump ship, making the prospect of a recovery (which is why you bailed it out in the first place) even harder.
• tester756 2y ago
  >Awesome, I can't wait for me the taxpayer to breathe life into the smoldering shell of a company where the executives and unlimited layers of useless middle management used financial engineering to fool investors about the internal situation while extracting as much money as possible and then bailing out on golden parachutes and landing in soft thick piles of bonuses. What are you even talking about? >Just let it fail. If you're really paranoid, pass a law preventing and foreign buyers from snapping up the ip or fabs and we'll just fine, but that's probably not even needed. Yea, competitors like China will definitely respect your IP laws
• coredog64 2y ago
  > On December 19, 2014, the U.S. Treasury sold its remaining holdings of Ally Financial, essentially ending the program. Through the Treasury, the US Government actually booked $15.3 billion in profit, as it earned $441.7 billion on the $426.4 billion invested. There was a second Treasury program where they forced all the banks to participate so that there wouldn’t be a negative stigma attached to the banks that actually needed the assistance.
• throawayonthe 2y ago
  [dead]
• asnerdian 2y ago
  [dead]