201–210 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Then we already have a semiconductor industrial complex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most companies should be banned from doing this.
What is wrong with giving the profit to shareholders? That is why the shareholders bought the shares.
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.
the main reason why the US became the uncontested power of the 20th century was WW1 and WW2
the socialist policies implemented by FDR saved the capitalism by making it less capitalist
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…
We're not living in a playground with rounded corners, sometimes there are bad choices and there are even worse choices. You might feel moral indignation at the bankers who "got away" with the GFC, but is the feeling of moral satisfaction worth realizing a second Great Depression and potentially WW3 to come out of it?
The GFC happened due to the improper conduct by ratings agencies that gave subprime loans much higher credit status than should have gotten, overloading banks with toxic CDO assets that lead to a major systemic risk once the housing bubble popped. 10 years later, perhaps the executives got away with "golden parachutes", but we're not dealing with exotic derivatives much anymore, the biggest bubbles are just in pure hype stocks or index funds, whose risks are very much anticipated and do not pose a unknown systemic risk poised for incorrection. So I would argue that lessons were learnt.
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.
Communism is so terrible as a system of government that the U.S. has seen fit to forcefully intervene every time it’s been attempted. Everyone is free to their own opinions, of course – and I’m not wholesale defending communism as it has been attempted – but I find it odd that something which is supposedly so awful can’t just be left alone to wither on the vine, and prove their point.
not exactly
the US and communist Russia were allies in WW2; the US did intervene in Korea and Vietnam but that was about maintaining a global edge over Russia -- Americans didn't give a fuck about whether it was good or bad for the people of Vietnam
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were communist.
Chile and Nicaragua are examples of when the US intervened to overthrough a democratically elected communist government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism. Meanwhile in capitalist China[1], they're so great at building homes that there are entire cities with barely anyone living in them, "ghost cities". Insofar as a tight housing market contributes to homelessness, it's clear that it's caused by US/Canada specific factors (eg. NIMBYism, building codes, and environmental regul…
but you are right that the capitalist market does restrict the supply of housing because people buy them as investments
also, the ghost cities is way overblown -- they just took time to fill up
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communism is so terrible as a system of government that the U.S. has seen fit to forcefully intervene every time it’s been attempted. Everyone is free to their own opinions, of course – and I’m not wholesale defending communism as it has been attempted – but I find it odd that something which is supposedly so awful can’t just be left alone to wither on the vine, and prove their point.
> Communism is so terrible as a system of government that the U.S. has seen fit to forcefully intervene every time it’s been attempted. not exactly the US and communist Russia were allies in WW2; the US did intervene in Korea and Vietnam but that was about maintaining a global edge over Russia -- Americans didn't give a fuck about whether it was good or bad for the people of Vietnam Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were…
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…
So China dosen't have time on it's side. A hot war in one of the most busy regions would likely immediately cause a global recession as supply chains collapse, and the US can blockade oil and resources from the Middle East. This isn't like sanctions, if it goes on long enough. And remember that America can continously target and destroy their infrastructure and naval dockyards, China cannot. They've got great industrial capacity, but this war likely won't last long enough for them to actually finish building new ships, if the facilities even exist by then.
Well, some Chinese nationalists argue that strikes on the mainland will cause the CCP to start firing nukes at West Coast in retaliation as some sort of "city-trading" game, and that the Chinese will be more willing to sacrifice millions than the Americans at that, but we'll see if we get to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.