171–180 of 560 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they buy exactly 49% and not 51% of Intel? If these extra 2% are not available, why buy 49% then and not just 2-5%?
They don’t want a successful foreign company to have a controlling interest in their failing domestic company
Someone with a gun to their head is the only party that would buy it. Latest mindfactory data suggests that in gaming consumer space is now 96% AMD, 4% Intel. Seriously: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/1mfu3cq/this_... And doesn't sound like their next or next next nodes are in good shape either
Tariffs kinda make sense when you have a deficit in a widely available item. Big trade deficit with Bangladesh? Sure you can buy cheap textiles from Thailand or Vietnam or something. Unfortunately this approach does not work when you lack a viable domestic alternative and you're up against a monopoly. What will the US do if TSMC does not blink? Not buy TSMC made chips? Obviously that is impossible, so the logical con…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I am British and have studied a tiny bit of my own country's history... so I do. But consider who in the world really loves the British. You don't need much time to make a list. Or even a paper and pen. The main difference between the British Empire and the American Empire is that the American Empire is being led by a man who believes tariffs are a tax on foreign countries and retail prices can be cut by more t…
> and retail prices can be cut by more than 100% and remain positive. I've missed this story. Can you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they buy exactly 49% and not 51% of Intel? If these extra 2% are not available, why buy 49% then and not just 2-5%?
They want to ensure that TSMC doesn't have a controlling stake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 2008 showed ... how it works. The unfortunate part is that the GOP has now repealed whatever protections were put in place on banks after that.
when I read "how it works" I assume you mean that it was a success? bailing out GM in the way they did pushed their novel vehicle platform technologies to fall to the wayside and for them to refocus on combustion. New brands were on the horizon, there was a hope for a new modern vehicular order but the midrange of the market was squatted by GM's insufficient vehicles. I don't think 2008's bailout worked, at all.
This whole economy by corruption and coercion is not going to work out.
I think our lives are short enough that it can be easy to perceive something like America as “always was, always will be” and the rest is just trivia you learn in history class.