121–130 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Most companies should be banned from doing this.
Companies historically are expected to pay dividends, at least when their business is doing well. Business at Intel was doing well for most of 1990-2017. There was some time after the Pentium 4 stopped scaling before the Pentium 4M offered a recovery, and the Itanium mess; but overall pretty good until 2017.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You don't want this (likely) scenario: -Intel Fails -Production stops worldwide. (Not just development) -US scrambling to sort out the supply chains -China invades Taiwan -US Fails Intel must be replaced domestically. At least wait until there is another fab within the US mainland.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Capitalism raises everyone hopefully this is sarcasm
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Fentanyl and meth imported from China and other countries
EDIT: For naive downvoters. It is an observable fact. Drugs are destroying people and causing homelessness. I have witnessed it first hand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5AeGKSDVdE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwlIAjcYypA
Look up "Philadelphia zombies"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As long as there is support for the start-ups which need to rise out of the ashes to replace the dead husk. It's not like the demand has gone away for advanced fighter jets, or cutting edge microprocessors. They need to foster a healthier supply chain to ensure that capacity is met.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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…
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.
AMD and Intel just switched places, before Ryzen AMD was a failing company, threatening to not one give Intel a near monopoly, but also handing Nvidia a true monopoly. If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel, a much larger company with more diverse product lines (not as many as previous, but still). It's not even that Intel aren't selling chips, I'd guess that they are still massively outselling AMD. The fact th…
I’m sure they “can” be. That doesn’t mean it’s a simple matter to ensure it will happen. Misdiagnose the problem, trust the wrong leadership, or fail to secure sufficient financial backing and the venture may become unsalvagable.
AMD’s return is really exceptional. It was by no means sure to work, and I don’t know if anyone knows exactly what went right that made the difference compared to countless other failed turnarounds.
Ironically, I do think widespread confidence that the situation can definitely be salvaged is a detriment. It prevents taking desperate measures, which may actually be the necessary steps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The option is not a binary between "let it fail" and "no strings attached bailout." If things get bad enough for Intel, the precedent that makes the most sense is to follow the model that was used with GM: the company enters bankruptcy, existing investors and creditors are wiped out, and a new corporate entity backed by the fed.gov steps in and assumes the assets and operations of the company. Once things have suffic…
It’s either bailout or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just the investors and creditors that need to be wiped out. Above all else the managers need to be fired, with no bonuses or golden parachutes.
Which manager receives golden parachute? wtf?