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

41–50 of 253 posts

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#41

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…

In other industries that might be ok (though not for the hundreds of thousands of people without jobs), but not this one. It would be like the US military being reliant on other countries, and potentially its main adversary (China), for its most advanced weapons.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#42

Post by ryandrake »

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…

[flagged]

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#44

Post by naveen99 »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #34
talldayo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nationalize and waste removal is an oxymoron.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#45

Post by typeofhuman »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #34
talldayo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nationalizing it would only increase the waste.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#46

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

The government can both let Intel fail and bail it out. It probably will.

Any bailout should happen post-bankruptcy. Shareholders and executives primarily receiving stock based compensation get wiped out, employees and the fabs get saved.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#47

Post by r053bud »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #41
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…

In other industries that might be ok (though not for the hundreds of thousands of people without jobs), but not this one. It would be like the US military being reliant on other countries, and potentially its main adversary (China), for its most advanced weapons.

Then why not nationalize it?

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#48

Post by insane_dreamer »

epolanski wrote: post #17
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…

Why can't foreign investors buy the ips, fabs and whatever's left? I really don't like those protectionist arguments they do nothing good for any of the parties involved, merely raise the prices to consumers and deprive them of choices.

because you wind up with your military and government being heavily dependent on a foreign power who may be hostile towards you

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#49

Post by insane_dreamer »

jessfyi wrote: post #8

Any part of "saving" Intel should include a mechanism barring them from putting any more money that should be spent on R&D towards stock buybacks ($152B since 1990 as of September.) That said quoting the former Intel CEO (who still owns 3,245,986 shares) as "[one of the] expert[s] who says breaking up Intel won't do any good" seems like journalist malpractice--and makes me all the more certain it should be subsumed b…

Most companies should be banned from doing this.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#50

Post by quickthrowman »

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…

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

There’s more at stake than money when it comes to companies like GM, Boeing, and Intel.

Wipe out existing shareholders and management and start over like GM in 2008, letting Intel die would be a gift to our adversaries.

Post reply on HN