181–190 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is. But if you want to be pedantic it’s both nationalized and private. It depends on whether you’re referring to the military or industry. When you create these hybrids of business and government, corruption is inevitable.
If I was referring to the military I wouldn't have answered.
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…
> Let it fail. Once hundreds of thousands of Americans are jobless due to executive mismanagement and shareholder greed, will actually meaningful and impactful policy be made. Exactly. Then we should have let all the startups that had their funds in SVB bank fail, instead of another pseudo-bailout that occurred in March 2023, given that FDIC insurance did not apply to them given the majority of their capital is over…
I don't know if I agree with the gov making them whole, but it isn't really comparable to the Intel situation imho. It's not like the gov bailed out SVB and its investors itself.
Aside from it leaving only one major x86 CPU manufacturer, the only thing Intel's absence would cause would be a massive amount of paperwork, as every system integrator under the sun has to figure out contracts with AMD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My following question isn’t meant to be snarky or anything besides inquisitive. Question: what about if the thing they’re worried about isn’t about letting it fail, but rather geopolitical and military risk? Could the lead time to get the new companies up and running to fill In the gap be too long for them to not consider it too big of a risk of letting them fail?
geopolitical and military risk Yeah, I think that's what's largely missing from this discussion and why the auto industry bailouts of 2008 are a poor comparison point. There is a non-zero chance that China decides to simply seize Taiwan in the next decade or two. Militarily there's absolutely nothing to prevent that unless we're willing to go nuclear or launch a land invasion of China (lol) or something; the idea of…
Since China & USA can't invade each other (LMAO) and a nuclear exchange would be suicide, any conflict in the South-China sea would have to be standoff - lobbing cruise missiles at the other non-stop. And the US doesn't even have that front locked down.
Despite spending $800b/y, the US military has a stockpile of just 4k Tomahwaks (as of 2020). If we translate China's production-spamming to the Taiwan situation, then we can safely assume they have a stockpile of missiles that dwarfs that several times. And since they're projecting power in their backyard, it'll be a logistical walkover, especially with how the CCP tends to get things done quickly and at scale.
Sorry if this feels off the point, but your comment just got me thinking about the SCS/Taiwan situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
geopolitical and military risk Yeah, I think that's what's largely missing from this discussion and why the auto industry bailouts of 2008 are a poor comparison point. There is a non-zero chance that China decides to simply seize Taiwan in the next decade or two. Militarily there's absolutely nothing to prevent that unless we're willing to go nuclear or launch a land invasion of China (lol) or something; the idea of…
China's nuclear deterrence also isn't to be messed with. They've built a super-redundant delivery triad. And given the speed with which China scales up technology, I will bet my entire net worth that they have thousands of warheads ready-to-go. Since China & USA can't invade each other (LMAO) and a nuclear exchange would be suicide, any conflict in the South-China sea would have to be standoff - lobbing cruise missil…
The idea of winning a conventional war in China's backyard after 10-20 years of them building toward it is absurd. And nuclear war is uh, nuclear war. Not really a "winner" there.
The only thing stopping China is obviously the huge financial incentive of losing their biggest trading partner(s). That will obviously be an enormous loss for them. At some point though they may calculate that the long term gains are worth it, I don't know the calculus there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I was referring to the military I wouldn't have answered.
Sure. I'm just saying your answer is incorrect. Doesn't matter whether you would or wouldn't of answered. You're completely wrong and you wrote a statement that is utterly false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which manager receives golden parachute? wtf?
Executive mis management is why companies fail. The majority of the bad decisions are made at the executive level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China's nuclear deterrence also isn't to be messed with. They've built a super-redundant delivery triad. And given the speed with which China scales up technology, I will bet my entire net worth that they have thousands of warheads ready-to-go. Since China & USA can't invade each other (LMAO) and a nuclear exchange would be suicide, any conflict in the South-China sea would have to be standoff - lobbing cruise missil…
Yeah, 100% agree on all points. The idea of winning a conventional war in China's backyard after 10-20 years of them building toward it is absurd. And nuclear war is uh, nuclear war. Not really a "winner" there. The only thing stopping China is obviously the huge financial incentive of losing their biggest trading partner(s). That will obviously be an enormous loss for them. At some point though they may calculate th…
Just decades of sleeping at the wheels finally catching up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea. Let’s let the same people who built and managed healthcare.gov build bombs and airplanes.
[flagged]
The Government is certainly capable of doing a shitty job, but that tends to happen more when the Government contracts things vs. actually doing real work in-house. At least in my field, I've seen some incredible innovation done within the U.S. Government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other industries that might be ok (though not for the hundreds of thousands of people without jobs), but not this one. It would be like the US military being reliant on other countries, and potentially its main adversary (China), for its most advanced weapons.
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…
I don't have a pat solution to this, but for example, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon have little reason to improve when they have a captive customer. Raytheon recently agreed to pay ~$1B in penalties for illegal exploitation of their position and the market doesn't care: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/raytheon-company-pay-over-950...
Pure capitalism for these kinds of uniquely critical products and services doesn't seem like the right answer.