313
Intel Announces Retirement of CEO Pat Gelsinger
(www.intc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
313 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
60115 readers
1651 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No I don't generally like share buybacks.
Those are the rules we are working under. If you don't like the rules, that's another debate.
But that would void the entire agreement, making your entire claim nothing but fluff and hot air.
Corpos only doing this because normies larp the fake news headline they pay for as "investment"
this is not an investment, any adult person can quickly figure out that giving free cash to these parasites doesn't make much sense esp when they waste this money as straight cash transfer to the owner class
yet every day i have to spell this out on here because everyday there is somebody shilling corpo talking points as gospel.
You have no idea who you are talking to. I'm a social democrat from Denmark, except a bit to the left of that. But communism doesn't work, regulated capitalism does.
Many things suck in USA, but CHIPS and helping Intel is a long way away from where the real problems are.
That's your opinion at best.
Intel has show that they are unable to manage their cash position why should tax payer reward a failed executive team and BoD?
Then even if we are gonna infuse intel with taxpayer cash, why should not US Treasury take an equity position for their "risk" as any normal investor would?
I understand why that may seem like a fair solution on the surface, but it's because that would make Intel a part federally owned company, and in general it is avoided to have publicly owned companies competing against private companies. Which in this case would be Nvidia, AMD, Comcast, Qualcomm etc. It's a huge conflict of interest, and would easily be seen as unfair competition, possibly also by trade partners.
There might also be legal issues, internally in USA, and with WTO and other trade agreements.
So it's kind of opening a can of worms that is better left closed. It's not that I don't understand where you are coming from, but trust me, regulation is way better than a government taking control.
Intel may collapse, but then maybe one of the previously mentioned companies may pick up the remains, and built it better. This is why we need to have free competition.
I am not aware of any law on the books that prevents US government from taking equity stake in a corporation. German states take equity in companies. China and Russia have straight majority owned mega corps.
US took equity stake in GM when it bailed them out.
I know there was a huge bruhaha about it but it was just that owner class refusing to face the music for their fucks up.
Nothing is stopping treasury from making tidy profit from their investment like they did with GM.
Current system enables parasitic behavior from owners and executive teams while life for for bottom 80% of taxpayers has been shite... yet every time owner class needs bail out, these people have to pay for it.