Then nationalize it. If it is genuinely so important to the country then we can't let it die then it should be nationalized if it needs to be bailed out.
Great idea. Let’s let the same people who built and managed healthcare.gov build bombs and airplanes.
As opposed to having companies do it while asking for exorbitant contracts and not necessarily delivering on par? (cough Boeing cough)
It's not really better on the other side, and we need change somewhere.
Any part of "saving" Intel should include a mechanism barring them from putting any more money that should be spent on R&D towards stock buybacks ($152B since 1990 as of September.) That said quoting the former Intel CEO (who still owns 3,245,986 shares) as "[one of the] expert[s] who says breaking up Intel won't do any good" seems like journalist malpractice--and makes me all the more certain it should be subsumed b…
>that should be spent on R&D towards stock buybacks ($152B since 1990 as of September.) Starting from 1990 seems like a weird starting point, because it includes much of Intel's heyday when their profits were arguably well deserved. Is the implication that every business shouldn't have profits and should plow every cent back to R&D?
I used that period (vs saying they spent $110B between 2005-2021) to establish the fact that it's a known, expected pattern of behavior regardless of Intel's performance, roadmap, or market conditions to lead the reader to recognize that if bailed out they'll likely continue in the near future instead of utilizing that money for its intended purpose.
Instead of assuming my comment is a generalized view on how businesses should operate as whole (and not the subject of the piece), perhaps take a moment to consider how the magnitude of buybacks--in the face of stiff competition, that have now leapfrogged them--is directly correlated to the mismanagement and dysfunction within Intel that leaves them unable to rise to the challenge the country demands.
Intel is a huge asset, they missed major industry changes, like EUV, ARM, GPU, and splitting design and foundry. I still believe they can come back strong, but need bold decisions to regain defensible competitive advantages.
They have to trim the middle management fat, 1st, before anything else will succeed.
lol given the nat sec issues with allow intel to fail, I agree with you, doesn't mean there won't be a bailout with forced bankrupcy like they did the automakers who wanted bailed out.
Why is bailout still seen as the best solution? These industries should be nationalized. Despite the naysayers there are plenty of nation-owned assets that work fine this way and if its this important then it sounds like a worthy candidate for it.
That will never happen in the USA (at least not as the country we know it as)
> Communism is so terrible as a system of government that the U.S. has seen fit to forcefully intervene every time it’s been attempted. not exactly the US and communist Russia were allies in WW2; the US did intervene in Korea and Vietnam but that was about maintaining a global edge over Russia -- Americans didn't give a fuck about whether it was good or bad for the people of Vietnam Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were…
You forgot Cuba.
Right, Cuba. The tiny island the US is obsessed about.
Cuba actually outperforms its non-communist former slave colony neighbors (Jamaica, DR, Haiti), which is especially impressive considering the never-ending sanctions from the US.
> Once hundreds of thousands of Americans are jobless due to executive mismanagement and shareholder greed, will actually meaningful and impactful policy be made. What policy would that be? Policy to stop large companies from mismanagement golden parachutes, and people losing their jobs due to shareholder greed? I'm all for it, but those are features, not bugs, of the rent-seeking capitalism on which the US is built.
Is there non-rent-seeking capitalism?
That's probably an oxymoron, but who knows, one day some variant might emerge.
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. Remember when we did this in 2008 under the Obama…
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…
On the topic of "let it fail, they are benefiting too hard" -> "moral hazard". happened in 2008, as a counterexample, bank-wise... ... and they did indeed let it fail. see bear stearns or lehman
another word to throw around here is monopoly as in these companies have monopoly (or duopoly) on the american market i.e. boeings domestic planes, intels domestic fabs.
So what are we doing here. We have 5 or more huge banks (not a monopoly), we let them fail, when things are more monopoly seeming, "oh no we need to keep it". Really? A monopoly? The thing the gobmint is sposed to be destroying and it's breathing life into it?
How do you figure? The profit motive isn't a factor when nationalized. Where would the waste come from?
From the fact that you can get profit by removing waste. Without profit there is no reason to remove waste. Waste isn't a thing you add intentionally if you have a reason. Waste is entropy it happens unless you continually clean it out. If you don't HAVE to clean out the waste it doesn't get cleaned out.