In 2008, taxpayers bailed out the banks but not the economy. Deja Vu.
That's patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_2008%E2%80%9320... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvest...
Intel might be too big to fail
251–253 of 253 posts
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A new Bolt is coming next year.
I don't understand why they discontinued the bolt before the new one comes out. Who does that? You have a cash cow, the assembly lines are already running, just... do nothing.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US military industrial complex isn't nationalized.
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.
The military-industrial complex is a consequence of privatization. Since the defense industry is 100% private, capitalistic corps with 1 customer, they have no reason to innovate or compete on prices. They can, and do, extort the government for as much money as humanly possible.
That wouldn't be possible if those entities were simply nationalized. But since the gov is a customer, and them a producer, and the gov NEEDS the thing, and only the private sector can give the thing, it's a money bath.
Of course it's really full circle, because while the industry is private it's actually funded entirely by taxpayers. Because the customer is the government. So the corps have a strong incentive to be as inefficient and greedy as possible, and you actually pay for that.