Live data from Hacker News

Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

nasdaq.com

81–90 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#81
post #49
post #5

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 do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".

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.

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#82
post #11

We 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?

Does every retired boomer living quite well off their 401K retirement plan represent a member of 'the investor class'? How many would be willing to accept a cutback in dividend payouts if it meant corporations would instead invest that money in rebuilding manufacturing in the United States?

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#84
post #71
post #5

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 do for Western governments is remarkable. "When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract".

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.

Your newsfeed will tell you want to hear and nothing else while the world destroys itself around you and you blissfully ignorant of it.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#85
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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!

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.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#86

> 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…

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production?

This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Very few people actually cares about what really do happen in Xinjiang, hopefully this relatively balanced reporting by Associated Press can shed some light:

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-lifestyle-ch...

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#87
post #18
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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?

Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#88
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CCP may arguably control the world's largest consumer market. That is debatable when considering the European Union as a single market or even India. Considering either consumption level or sheer number of consumers, it is not entirely clear that China is the world's largest consumer market. But, let's presume that it is. CCP simply does not allow genuine access to sell goods or services. There is a reason why Google…

It's still accessible to Intel and Microsoft. I don't think China is capable yet of producing equivalent goods. On the other hand, what Google and Facebook did can be done just as well by others. Actually, maybe China is indeed able to produce decent Intel-compatible processors. Not sure.

How much longer will it be accessible for Intel and Microsoft though? CCP does not think twice about pulling the rug on local tech giants [0]. Why would it hesitate for Intel and Microsoft? It seems like only a matter of time.

As far as chips in particular, CCP is pushing hard to make chips locally [1]. So again, just a matter of time before Intel gets replaced in China.

Is the Intel leadership being incredibly short-sighted besides of course being devoid of ethical common sense?

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-24/how-xi-an...

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/25/china-pushes-to-design-its-o...

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#89

Name 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.

Quoted post unavailable.

Big difference is that Uyghurs are not rapists and murderers, and they didn't commit crimes.

What's wrong with prison labor in US? Those criminals committed acts deemed bad for society.

We could either pay for them to stay in a fancy hotel, or make them pay back debt to society.

This is not comparable to imprisoning people based on ethnicity.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#90

> 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…

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production?

Maybe their position is that they have not established as a fact that there is slave labour in concentration camps in Xinjiang? Have you considered that as an alternative possibility?

From the article:

> 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."

That automatically covers Xinjiang is there is slave labour there, in additional to all other instances of slave labour, no? That sounds like a better wording than the original.

Post reply on HN