351–360 of 765 posts
Ironic, Western politicians thought opening up to trade with China would lead to it adopting a Western model of government. Instead it's lead to the USA adopting the Chinese one.
It somewhat makes sense in terms of industries which are deemed strategically important. Intel needs to start thinking long term instead of short term profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose it could be worse. Still, now the US has a vested interest in seeing Intel crush AMD and others.
AMD is not a chip manufacturer and what “others”?
The others would probably be GlobalFoundries, Micron, Microchip, and TI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which w…
Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which w…
Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
It’s not a lot different than what car and financial companies got in 2009. They were about to go under because no one thought they’d be around long enough to get out from under and deliver goods or pay their debts. The government stake enabled them to keep operating and eventually recover and then the government returned the stake to the market (or will soon w/ Fannie & Freddie).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which w…
Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kinda. But I think the current Chinese model is actually much closer to how the USA used to work when there was competition with the USSR. Closer than the US of today compared to the 70s and 80s.
The US never owned a brewer, an airline, the major defense giants, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”. When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.
Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which w…
And people wonder why populism came back. Huge transfers of wealth aren't about 'fairness', its about preventing greater economic problems that the people who received the bailout say will happen if they don't get bailed out.
At the end of the day, this line of thought is going to fuck over the country far more than any depression would.
Good. It's very much a "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" situation. If Taiwan's NDF has ownership share in TSMC and UMC, China's CICIIF in SMIC, Japan's Master Trust in a majority of enterprises, and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala in GlobalFoundries, then we should as well. The recent (50ish years) aversion to Industrial Policy in America has been pigheaded and ideological to a certain extent.…
The government support should have come in the form of a real competitor. Intel got this way because they had no competition - nobody thought a domestic EULV manufacturer would be an American prerogative in 20 years. All the customers for dense silicon were fine importing it from Taiwan. Pouring more money into a proven dumpster fire won't put out the fire. This is the protectionist just-desert of refusing to regulat…