The US needs more chip fab startups. Put the money there.
A competitive FAB is 15B that would be one hell of a seed round.
Intel might be too big to fail
21–30 of 253 posts
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#22Awesome, 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…
Why can't foreign investors buy the ips, fabs and whatever's left? I really don't like those protectionist arguments they do nothing good for any of the parties involved, merely raise the prices to consumers and deprive them of choices.
Because at some point, you need domestically-owned manufacturing as a matter of national security.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just let it fail. How about we do something about the financial hackers who are just laughing their way to the bank either way?
Billionaires should not exist.
They give back through their charities and foundations. How would you cope with your life without their charities?
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#24AMD 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 that Intel can't make money is a failure of management and I feel like the media needs to attack that much harder than they have been. The type of management which have been prevailing for the past 20 - 25 years aren't going to save companies like Intel and Boing, both companies that should have be thriving, but they've become complacent and forgot about the products, focusing on short term stock value.
Also Intel doesn't appear to make an actual lose and can still pay dividends in some quarters, so they aren't failing that hard. A turn around in sales is needed, but I don't feel it's as bad as it's made out to be. The media makes it sound like bankruptcy is right around the corner.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#25On a tangent, why there is a general feeling of decline everywhere from Adobe's frustrated customer base to Boeing to Intel and Google's search returning pages and pages of sponsored ads?
What's happening?
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#26Awesome, 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…
Why can't foreign investors buy the ips, fabs and whatever's left? I really don't like those protectionist arguments they do nothing good for any of the parties involved, merely raise the prices to consumers and deprive them of choices.
I mean really IDC. The only justification I have is I also don't want oppressive foreign authoritarian governments (Russia, China) to become even more powerful and oppressive. Slowly doing the tide of tech into them seems to help. In Russia we've seen how this has played out prematurely at a great cost of human life.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#27Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#28Awesome, 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…
At least in Intel's case, I can see why the US government wouldn't want to get rid of them. For one, Intel is a defense asset and there will generally be apprehension of letting them slip under without the feds gutting what they want out of it. For two, I kinda think Intel did everything right from a US nationalism perspective even if their customers ditched them for it. Intel was never going to keep their Apple contract unless they outsourced to TSMC, abandoned any form of profitable margins and gave up on domestic chipmaking. From the perspective of US lawmakers, Intel is kinda damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
I still support letting Intel fail, but I have absolutely no confidence anyone will let it happen.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can't foreign investors buy the ips, fabs and whatever's left? I really don't like those protectionist arguments they do nothing good for any of the parties involved, merely raise the prices to consumers and deprive them of choices.
Because at some point, you need domestically-owned manufacturing as a matter of national security.
Exactly, the US already have a functional domestic semiconductor production, covering pretty much everything you'd need. It's much cheaper to protect and maintain that, compared to trying to revive or create a production line, like the EU is.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#30Awesome, 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…
> Just let it fail. How about we do something about the financial hackers who are just laughing their way to the bank either way?
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.