Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel might be too big to fail

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 253 posts

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#31

Post by [deleted] »

stego-tech wrote: post #19
exabrial wrote: post #9

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…

[deleted]

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#32

Post by Hizonner »

Any bailout must of course be contingent on replacing the entire board and the top three layers of management, with at least 50 percent of the replacements being outside hires. Oh, and the government gets preferred stock commensurate with its investment.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#33

Post by Tostino »

stego-tech wrote: post #19
exabrial wrote: post #9

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…

As long as there is support for the start-ups which need to rise out of the ashes to replace the dead husk. It's not like the demand has gone away for advanced fighter jets, or cutting edge microprocessors. They need to foster a healthier supply chain to ensure that capacity is met.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#34

Post by PittleyDunkin »

talldayo wrote: post #28
stego-tech wrote: post #19

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…

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 cont…

> Intel is a defense asset

So nationalize them and remove the waste

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#35

Post by mrweasel »

ksec wrote: post #13

Intel is the closest US has to compete on Foundry. And it doesn't take that much money relatively speaking to help them out. I also think they are not far behind. They wont replace or overthrown TSMC anytime soon. But they should be competitive enough. My only question is do shareholders have enough patients to allow Pat to do the right thing.

> My only question is do shareholders have enough patients

Honestly: Screw the shareholders, this is entirely on them and their short term thinking. The stock market is so broken, with it's quarterly mindset. Businesses needed long term thinking and stability. If the shareholders feel that they need to make a profit trading short term, they can go buy f-ing Dogecoin and play the lottery.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#36

Post by talldayo »

exabrial wrote: post #30
amelius wrote: post #12

Earlier 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?

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.

> don't invest in schemes you don't understand and don't have transparency into.

If you want to be pedantic, heeding this lesson is what got Intel into this mess in the first place. If Intel bought EULV fabs from ASML a decade ago, they theoretically could be competitive with TSMC. Intel didn't invest, citing how poorly-understood and opaque EULV was and assuming they could beat it with another process. That miracle process never materialized, and now Intel has learned that without risk you get no reward.

Intel's decision wasn't even irrational, either. EULV is poorly-understood, and competing with it would have avoided the TSMC/ASML integrated monopoly that effectively manifests today.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#37

Post by catlikesshrimp »

stego-tech wrote: post #19
exabrial wrote: post #9

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…

You don't want this (likely) scenario:

-Intel Fails

-Production stops worldwide. (Not just development)

-US scrambling to sort out the supply chains

-China invades Taiwan

-US Fails

Intel must be replaced domestically. At least wait until there is another fab within the US mainland.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#38

Post by deeviant »

exabrial wrote: post #9

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…

You’re conflating two separate issues: poor corporate governance and the government’s responsibility to protect critical industries. Expecting the government to somehow “un-Americanize” corporate culture—erasing the greed or mismanagement that's unfortunately standard in many large companies—just isn’t realistic. Government action to support vital industries isn’t about endorsing the practices of corporate executives; it’s about safeguarding resources essential to national security and economic stability.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#39

Post by insane_dreamer »

stego-tech wrote: post #19
exabrial wrote: post #9

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…

> Once hundreds of thousands of Americans are jobless due to executive mismanagement and shareholder greed, will actually meaningful and impactful policy be made.

What policy would that be? Policy to stop large companies from mismanagement golden parachutes, and people losing their jobs due to shareholder greed? I'm all for it, but those are features, not bugs, of the rent-seeking capitalism on which the US is built.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#40

Post by underbiding »

Why is bailout still seen as the best solution?

These industries should be nationalized. Despite the naysayers there are plenty of nation-owned assets that work fine this way and if its this important then it sounds like a worthy candidate for it.

Post reply on HN