Live data from Hacker News

Intel might be too big to fail

tomshardware.com

51–60 of 253 posts

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#51
post #25

On a tangent, why there is a general feeling of decline everywhere from Adobe's frustrated customer base to Boeing to Intel and Google's search returning pages and pages of sponsored ads? What's happening?

Probably just decades of quarterly thinking, deregulation, consolidation, extraction, socialized losses, and privatized wins arriving at their obvious and inevitable destination.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#52
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…

Letting it fail may bring a windfall boost to others.

If anyone is worried about supply of pure intel silicon, the IP can be sold off or placed in the public domain to keep the ossified 8086 nectar flowing.

And fabs can still make chips under new ownership.

Maybe someone will succeed in a GPU plan to challenge you know whom.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#54
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…

This is right in the Musk wheelhouse. As SpaceX is to Boeing, and Tesla is to GM/Ford, ______ is to Intel. I'm surprised he hasn't made a move in this space.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#55

AMD and Intel just switched places, before Ryzen AMD was a failing company, threatening to not one give Intel a near monopoly, but also handing Nvidia a true monopoly. If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel, a much larger company with more diverse product lines (not as many as previous, but still). It's not even that Intel aren't selling chips, I'd guess that they are still massively outselling AMD. The fact th…

The problem is not that Intel sales are down. It's that it's spending a massive amount ($160B) on fabs.

Fabs are expensive, and much more so if in the US than in Taiwan. It's costing TSMC $65B to build one on Arizona.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-spent-over-160-000-1147...

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they absolutely should exist. Capitalism raises everyone.

> Capitalism raises everyone hopefully this is sarcasm

Every major communist country has been left in the dust by capitalist ones. Poverty is at a historical low.

We have gone from people dying from starvation to complaining that not everyone can buy a house. Nearly everyone has a universally connected borderline supercomputer in their pocket.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#57
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Exactly. Industries that are too big to fail shouldn’t be allowed to exist in general (anti trust regulation should see to that), but if that must happen for some reason, then it must be nationalized, or at least very tightly regulated, like utilities are.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#59
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.

Then how are we supposed to pickup the stock when it's down 90% with a sure upswing? Institutions have been stocking up on cash for a while. Even the long-term Buffet-esque investors are timing the market right now. All the smart money is saving for the mean regression so they can pickup sweet deals.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#60

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…

> 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.

If that’s true, which it may well be, this is an extremely strong argument for why it should be nationalized.
Post reply on HN