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

71–80 of 253 posts

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#71

Post by 14 »

ryandrake wrote: post #42
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…

[flagged]

This is why I look forward to the day machines take over millions of peoples jobs. Yes there will be a hard transition but if there are millions of people without the funds to add to the machine how can the machine continue? It is a senseless waste of time having a human stand in front of a hot pot of oil dipping fries and moving them over to a customer. I look forward to the day humans move beyond that. When so many people don’t have jobs that the ones that are left we decide are better off split up to everyone so we all work only 3 maybe 4 hours a day and then move on to passions we have. Spend more time with our children. Spend more time exploring the world. Maybe my belief is naïve having grown up watching Star Trek but I do think we will one day end capitalism for something else.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#72

Post by treis »

r053bud wrote: post #47
insane_dreamer wrote: post #41

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?

It's not like the nationalized companies do that great. The USPS is in perpetual crisis and eventually the Federal Government is going to be on the hook for 10s of billions in pensions.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#74

Post by kevmo »

lifestyleguru wrote: post #23
kevmo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires should not exist.

They give back through their charities and foundations. How would you cope with your life without their charities?

Billionaire philanthropy is just another tax-free way oligarchs manipulate our society.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#75

Post by ninetyninenine »

stego-tech wrote: post #68
insane_dreamer wrote: post #41

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.

If something is critical to National Security or Human Survival, it should be Nationalized. So if Intel, or Boeing, or electric companies, or ISPs, or banks are really that necessary to the American Government that letting them fail would jeopardize our national security, then those entities shouldn’t be publicly-traded or privately-owned enterprises, full-stop. Unfortunately, that policy is wholly incompatible with…

Look at the military industrial complex. Nationalizing intel will turn it into the semiconductor industrial complex.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#76

Post by lupusreal »

stego-tech wrote: post #69
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't want this (likely) scenario: -Intel Fails -Production stops worldwide. (Not just development) -US scrambling to sort out the supply chains -China invades Taiwan -US Fails Intel must be replaced domestically. At least wait until there is another fab within the US mainland.

If that happens, it’s because our Government failed to intervene sooner, and is a damning indictment of Western Capitalism in general. All the more reason to let Intel (or Boeing, or whoever) fail hardcore while we have time to adapt. Intel falling isn’t going to result in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but it would smack the hell out of politicians and consumers both that globalism, while a nice idea in times of peac…

So let me get this straight; Intel fails and the American government drops the ball, therefore Western Capitalism itself is indicted and China should be free to start a war and send Taiwanese people to reeducation camps? It sounds like that's what you're saying.

Here's a tip; part of that "Western Capitalism" thing is governments sensibly not binding themselves to extreme libertarianism and being willing to protect strategic industries when necessary. Maybe you think that's not true capitalism or something, that it's not fair, but so what? The stakes are too high to fuck around with letting strategic industries fail out of some insane commitment to ideological purity.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#78

Post by from-nibly »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #64
typeofhuman wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalizing it would only increase the waste.

How do you figure? The profit motive isn't a factor when nationalized. Where would the waste come from?

From the fact that you can get profit by removing waste. Without profit there is no reason to remove waste. Waste isn't a thing you add intentionally if you have a reason. Waste is entropy it happens unless you continually clean it out. If you don't HAVE to clean out the waste it doesn't get cleaned out.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#79

Post by commandar »

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…

The option is not a binary between "let it fail" and "no strings attached bailout."

If things get bad enough for Intel, the precedent that makes the most sense is to follow the model that was used with GM: the company enters bankruptcy, existing investors and creditors are wiped out, and a new corporate entity backed by the fed.gov steps in and assumes the assets and operations of the company. Once things have sufficiently stabilized, the government can then divest its ownership in the company.

Intel is economically and strategically important enough that just letting it collapse without a plan to pick up the pieces is a serious footgun. We have a framework for handling this kind of situation that has been shown to work without rewarding those who caused the problem. It'd be silly not to use it.

Post reply on HN