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?
Intel might be too big to fail
51–60 of 253 posts
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#52Awesome, 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…
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
#53Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#54Awesome, 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…
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#55AMD 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…
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
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they absolutely should exist. Capitalism raises everyone.
> Capitalism raises everyone hopefully this is sarcasm
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
#57Earlier 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?
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#58The US needs more chip fab startups. Put the money there.
Hard to imagine a startup raising that much money. And where's the IP going to come from? This is not like build a car factory.
Re: Intel might be too big to fail
#59Awesome, 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
#60Earlier 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.