> The letter now reads that the company prohibits "any human trafficked or involuntary labour such as forced, debt bonded, prison, indentured, or slave labour throughout your extended supply chains." Designed by Intel in California™
[deleted]
Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
51–60 of 414 posts
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#52Say 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 do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".
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.
I think the shareholders who have this power would probably also be included in OPs quote.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#53> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…
>Why would Intel not take a position against Xinjiang slave concentration camps if presumably most of the supply chain does not depend on it? Would it be that much "trouble"?
Why would they? Corporations have two choices now. Bend the knee and stay in the good graces of a government that controls access to the largest consumer market in the world, or take a moral stance and win meaningless social brownie points. There's not even a decision to be made.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#54Say 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 do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".
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.
Collective action problems are not solved through capitalism. Unfortunately, Western countries are gripped by misguided reactive individualism right now and governments are very hamstrung.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#55> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…
It is for it's suppliers and partners. Examples of this would be Intel supplying chips to Lenovo, who are based in Beijing and who may have some components sources from that region, or Intel's fabs sourcing Silicon or other manufacturing materials (or their suppliers) from that region. Supply chains are broad and it's not hard to have goods that pass through or originate in those regions even if all your parts are pr…
Partners is a separate issue from suppliers. The letter was to suppliers. However, partners may have indeed caused "trouble" for Intel by threatening to source chips from somewhere else.
But as far as suppliers, and chips in particular, CCP has very little leverage. Most chips are manufactured in Taiwan [0].
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/2-charts-show-how-much-the-w...
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#56Name and shame. We need to divest our manufacturing from China. Perhaps by exposing such practices and nagging hypocrytical companies we can make divestment happen sooner? Twitter mobs could be used for good once.
When I read: "We need to divest our manufacturing from China." I parse it as: "We need war with China". Because soldiers don't cross borders goods cross.
Weird. There were goods crossing between the Ukraine and Russia, but that didn't stop soldiers from crossing the border and occupying Crimea.
Perhaps it was the exception that proves the rule.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
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.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Succinct and accurate. Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though.
> Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.
This exactly. We can't give up trying to get corps to show some moral fortitude. It has happened in the past and it will happen again.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We need to divest our manufacturing from China. Not gonna happen until you get rid of consumerism. People want to buy cheap shit, it gives their lives meaning.
Its not (just) that anymore, china is the new market. The new and huge revenue stream. You need to play by chinese rules or they close their market to you. Big corporations are now addicted to this opium and cant simply go back to not selling to chinese markets.
401k owners and governments with underfunded pensions are also addicted to the opium.
Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter
#60We were happy to embrace the philosophy of sociopathic capitalist companies when it meant getting our cheap electronics built in factories with suicide nets. Now that it means giant companies care more about China's opinion than ours we want to posture about loyalty and moral responsibility.
I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring. But it took the economist and investor class the longest to realize the drawbacks that others knew instinctively. And now you use "we" to describe their opinion and lobbying?
>I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring.
Maybe not quite "happy to embrace" people of a certain political persuasion were doing a heck of a lot to not get in the way of it because eliminating those jobs reduced the wealth of people who opposed them and made those people more receptive to what they were peddling.