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

81–90 of 253 posts

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#81

Post by SoftTalker »

14 wrote: post #71
ryandrake wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

You only have to look at history to see how those "something else" alternatives tend to work out.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#82

Post by betaby »

vorpalhex wrote: post #56
insane_dreamer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is a ridiculous mix of statements! I don't care how many people have 'supercomputer' in their pockets. On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#83

Post by gruez »

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…

>Remember when we did this in 2008 under the Obama administration? We gave them $10bil and they paid out "contractually obligated bonuses" with more than half of the money? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jul/31/wall-street...

AFAIK in finance, "bonuses" are a significant part of compensation, similar to RSUs in tech. So while it might sound great to hose all the greedy bankers, all that would encourage is for people to jump ship, making the prospect of a recovery (which is why you bailed it out in the first place) even harder.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#84

Post by ctoth »

treis wrote: post #72
r053bud wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> ON the hook

Weird to see this framing for something that was promised as a condition of employment.

The USPS gets me my mail regularly. Not sure what else it should be doing. And yes, paying people pensions you promised them is a good thing to do and has nothing to do with mismanagement. Taking the money you had already promised for pensions to instead pay shareholders or executives seems to be mismanagement to me.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#85

Post by [deleted] »

wg0 wrote: 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?

[deleted]

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#86

Post by sgarland »

treis wrote: post #72
r053bud wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The USPS is only in perpetual crisis because people who are deeply against public goods passed a law requiring them to pre-fund retirement benefits 75 years in advance [0] which is utterly ridiculous.

[0]: https://apwu.org/usps-fairness-act

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#87

Post by gruez »

betaby wrote: post #82
vorpalhex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a ridiculous mix of statements! I don't care how many people have 'supercomputer' in their pockets. On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism.

>On other hand homelessness is rampant in USA/Canada and that's a major fail of the capitalism.

Meanwhile in capitalist China[1], they're so great at building homes that there are entire cities with barely anyone living in them, "ghost cities". Insofar as a tight housing market contributes to homelessness, it's clear that it's caused by US/Canada specific factors (eg. NIMBYism, building codes, and environmental regulations) than capitalism.

[1] Even though ostensibly it's "socialist with chinese characteristics", for all intents and purposes the real estate sector is capitalist.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#88

Post by gruez »

kevmo wrote: post #74
lifestyleguru wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How dare they "manipulate our society by"... reducing malaria and fighting climate change. We'd be far better off if we relied on our ineffectual and corrupt (in case of malaria) governments to do it instead.

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#89

Post by gruez »

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…

>that should be spent on R&D towards stock buybacks ($152B since 1990 as of September.)

Starting from 1990 seems like a weird starting point, because it includes much of Intel's heyday when their profits were arguably well deserved. Is the implication that every business shouldn't have profits and should plow every cent back to R&D?

Re: Intel might be too big to fail

#90

Post by applied_heat »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #49
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.

What is wrong with giving the profit to shareholders? That is why the shareholders bought the shares.
Post reply on HN