←back to thread

607 points givemeethekeys | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.513s | source
Show context
jjcm ◴[] No.44990743[source]
In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening.

On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

replies(25): >>44990768 #>>44990991 #>>44991008 #>>44991032 #>>44991056 #>>44991094 #>>44991125 #>>44991135 #>>44991142 #>>44991149 #>>44991156 #>>44991177 #>>44991295 #>>44991514 #>>44991586 #>>44991729 #>>44992050 #>>44992377 #>>44992551 #>>44992788 #>>44993446 #>>44993951 #>>44993969 #>>45000356 #>>45063597 #
ch4s3 ◴[] No.44991032[source]
I’d really rather we didn’t bail out these companies at all. It clearly creates moral hazard and makes it hard for better run companies to enter markets.
replies(7): >>44991093 #>>44991108 #>>44991331 #>>44991669 #>>44995067 #>>44996633 #>>45000367 #
bongodongobob ◴[] No.44991669[source]
Well as much as you don't like it, companies this big failing is terrible for the economy and in this case, national security to a degree. I'm of the thinking that when your company gets to a certain size we'd be well off nationalizing. Apple has more money than some nation states. Something that huge has the potential to affect global politics. There's lots of other reasons too, but this isn't like letting the corner store fail. The repercussions are huge. If we're going to bail out, the people should own some of it.
replies(6): >>44991720 #>>44992071 #>>44992203 #>>44993358 #>>44993612 #>>44993939 #
freeopinion ◴[] No.44992203[source]
How is using tax money to prop up uncompetitive companies good for national security? Wouldn't it be better to replace them with competitive companies? It's super hard to be successful when your own government in backing the competition.
replies(2): >>44992290 #>>44994080 #
bongodongobob ◴[] No.44992290[source]
You can't build a new Intel. That would take decades. These aren't startups. They are massive fucking machines that can't just be disassembled and put back together by someone else. So the idea is to control them and get them back on track to better serve the collective interest.
replies(3): >>44992498 #>>44992552 #>>44993047 #
intended ◴[] No.44992498[source]
You do that by letting them fail.

You let them fail because that ensures that everyone else in the economy fixes their shit and stays competitive. America developed more world class successes, by getting out of the way and letting badly run firms fail.

Especially since NVIDIA is a competitor.

replies(1): >>44995909 #
1. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.44995909[source]
Intel failed because the Taiwan government started tsmc and supported an amazing business model that turned out to be perfect for SC manufacturing.

Unfortunately, this is in a country that China is threatening to takeover while building the largest bomb shelters and field hospitals right across the strait.

China is forcing us to invest kind of like they are forced to prop up Huawei to make GPUs for deepseek. Conflict makes irrational actions happen.

replies(1): >>44996422 #
2. re-thc ◴[] No.44996422[source]
> Intel failed because the Taiwan government started tsmc

Not true. Intel failed because it failed to deliver its own products on its own timelines.

TSMC was behind until Intel failed on its own. No government’s involvement changed things.