[dead]
US Intel
31–40 of 581 posts
Re: US Intel
#32I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this. It's going to be interesting hearing everyone who spent decades spilling volumes about the evils of communism and the failure of the USSR quickly pivot to being champions of state capitalism.
> I don't understand how they can say Democrats are Communists while they do this.
The republican game is to call democrats and then do the same thing they allege democrats do.
Re: US Intel
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think the model here isn't communism, it's fascism/corporatism. They aren't nationalizing directly, they're intimidating private enterprises into compliance and cooperation.
[flagged]
The credit belongs to Laurence Britt. And this was for a poster briefly sold at the museum, not produced by it. Full text: https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/
Re: US Intel
#34[dead]
Icarus is flying high this time of year, it seems. Don't forget that some of these traditional business minds have seen the Soviet's planned economy crumble in real-time not too long ago. They may also have taken note how virtually all human-managed funds tend to do worse over time than market-driven index funds.
Make of that what you will; the arrogance of some people to assume they know better than anyone else sure is stunning.
Re: US Intel
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what is being said. The Intel stake is a first step to a US sovereign fund that will include ownership stakes in many corporations.
is merging interests of the state and corporations marks a return to good ole fascism ? or is it just an alternative way of taxing capital? instead of taxing wealth and capital, just take an equity stake in it ?
"Fascism should more properly be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — Benito Mussolini
Re: US Intel
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what is being said. The Intel stake is a first step to a US sovereign fund that will include ownership stakes in many corporations.
is merging interests of the state and corporations marks a return to good ole fascism ? or is it just an alternative way of taxing capital? instead of taxing wealth and capital, just take an equity stake in it ?
Nationalized companies don't necessarily mean socialism or fascism but fascists did like giving the state fairly tight ownership and control of companies. It depends on how they handle that - if you see Trump loyalists embedded in lots of boards or top down instructions given to industry that might be a sign.
Re: US Intel
#37The short version is: this can work but it won't. Let me just say, for those of us who remember the 1990s and 2000s, Intel's drop off has been something nobody would've predicted. It's hard to overstate just how dominant they were (other than the fairly brief but significant Athlon64 era). And even when they were behind on consumer CPUs, which they were until the Core Duo/Centrino platform (which was really the Penti…
Counterexample: AMD almost died and see where they're now.
Intel needs a major shakeup, it has been brewing for a long time, but coffers were too full. Cushion is gone now, urgency is now understood by everyone; now it takes a visionary and some successful execution, for once.
If you say corruption is the difference, maybe - but I wouldn't be so pessimistic... yet.
Re: US Intel
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think the model here isn't communism, it's fascism/corporatism. They aren't nationalizing directly, they're intimidating private enterprises into compliance and cooperation.
[flagged]
As a German with extensive exposition to the third Reich I can attest to the fact that the parallels start to become uncanny.
Re: US Intel
#39The short version is: this can work but it won't. Let me just say, for those of us who remember the 1990s and 2000s, Intel's drop off has been something nobody would've predicted. It's hard to overstate just how dominant they were (other than the fairly brief but significant Athlon64 era). And even when they were behind on consumer CPUs, which they were until the Core Duo/Centrino platform (which was really the Penti…
> So I think the US government should take equity interests in companies they bail out rather than just giving them gifts or even loans.
The US government never gave bailout and gifts to Intel. The original agreement was profit-sharing with Intel through the CHIPS act is standard with any business wanting the funds. All Trump did specifically for Intel was alter the deal to be an equity stake instead, which will still only be beneficial is Intel is profitable.
Your entire comment is faulting on this premise. Please stop spreading this lie.
Re: US Intel
#40The short version is: this can work but it won't. Let me just say, for those of us who remember the 1990s and 2000s, Intel's drop off has been something nobody would've predicted. It's hard to overstate just how dominant they were (other than the fairly brief but significant Athlon64 era). And even when they were behind on consumer CPUs, which they were until the Core Duo/Centrino platform (which was really the Penti…
This is a bit of a long piece but if you're interested in this subject I think it's a good read
https://docseuss.medium.com/the-biggest-threat-facing-your-t...