If something is critical to National Security or Human Survival, it should be Nationalized. So if Intel, or Boeing, or electric companies, or ISPs, or banks are really that necessary to the American Government that letting them fail would jeopardize our national security, then those entities shouldn’t be publicly-traded or privately-owned enterprises, full-stop. Unfortunately, that policy is wholly incompatible with…
Look at the military industrial complex. Nationalizing intel will turn it into the semiconductor industrial complex.
The US military industrial complex isn't nationalized.
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…
The GM bailout was an unmitigated disaster. Their cars are uncompetitive garbage to this day.
When they accidentally make something their customers like (the Bolt, CarPlay), upper management intervenes and discontinues it.
The US would be much better off if the engineers and factories they are squandering were allocated to other companies.
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…
That's what "let it fail" means. That's classical bankruptcy.
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…
What about using the tariffs on Chinese products to support American companies/interests?
Tariffs, by design, would already be helping american companies/interests. The point of a tariff is to increase the cost of foreign goods, allowing untariffed companies to better compete.
I appreciate the obligatory silent down votes on a political hot button issue.
I'd be interested to hear why someone disagrees with me here to go along with a down vote.
Intel seems like it would benefit with an Elon Musk type of character in charge. Cut out the needless layers of management and go hard core engineering.
Unlike Twitter, fabs actually do need a large number of employees. And unlike whatever he's building at Tesla and SpaceX, changing a fab process is an order of magnitude more expensive, and the engineering/science is a lot more sophisticated. There's a reason semiconductor manufacturing is considered the most advanced manufacturing on the planet.
Thus an emphasis on engineering. Building rockets is no walk in the park either.
Bailouts are constructive under only one circumstance: when all shareholders lose a proportional stake in the company in exchange for financial intervention, with said stake going to the government/taxpayers as a public control/interest.
As in, if a company receives a bailout equivalent to 50% of the company’s market value, all shareholders have their stake in the company decreased by 50%, permanently and irrevocably.
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…
> before Ryzen AMD was a failing company
AMD was nearly dead a long time before the Ryzen. I did a comparison between them and Intel when I was in undergrad in the 90s. My conclusion was long Intel and AMD would be lucky to survive. At that time, Intels innovation on top of their yields was simply unmatched. What saved AMD then was the Athlon, and their bet on 64bit extensions to x86 (instead of banking on the compiler to do all the work a la Itanic).
The point is that fortunes can change quickly, and not all because a team or company is good or bad. Everyone makes bets with the information they have and hopes the market and technology move in their favor.
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…
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.
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?
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…
If it dies, hundreds of companies will rise from it's ashes.
One of the big problems America has is the tech giants hoovering up all competition. The 70s,80s and 90s weren't boom times because of the fact these tech giants got their break at that time. It's because the market still had 5-7 major semiconductor companies. Fairchild, Motorola, TI, Intel, Zilog, and that's without really thinking about it.