←back to thread

335 points aspenmayer | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.881s | source | bottom
Show context
GeekyBear ◴[] No.45008439[source]
Didn't we already cross this particular Rubicon during the auto bailout a decade ago?

Other examples:

> Since the 1950s, the federal government has stepped in as a backstop for railroads, farm credit, airlines (twice), automotive companies, savings and loan companies, banks, and farmers.

Every situation has its own idiosyncrasies, but in each, the federal government intervened to stabilize a critical industry, avoiding systemic collapse that surely would have left the average taxpayer much worse off. In some instances, the treasury guaranteed loans, meaning that creditors would not suffer if the relevant industry could not generate sufficient revenue to pay back the loans, leading to less onerous interest rates.

A second option was that the government would provide loans at relatively low interest rates to ensure that industries remained solvent.

In a third option, the United States Treasury would take an ownership stake in some of these companies in what amounts to an “at-the-market” offering, in which the companies involved issue more shares at their current market price to the government in exchange for cash to continue business operations.

https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2022/08/23/piece-of-the-acti...

replies(16): >>45008458 #>>45008466 #>>45008546 #>>45008710 #>>45008838 #>>45009730 #>>45009928 #>>45010439 #>>45010649 #>>45011116 #>>45011228 #>>45011332 #>>45012047 #>>45012973 #>>45014055 #>>45018837 #
JKCalhoun ◴[] No.45008710[source]
What happened to Intel? Did they need a bailout?
replies(5): >>45008786 #>>45009769 #>>45009869 #>>45010341 #>>45012781 #
downrightmike ◴[] No.45008786[source]
My intel powered workstations from 2008 have chips that are more than decent enough for modern computing.

But in reality, they gave up on R&D, Missed Apple mobile chips and then put a lot of MBAs in top leadership positions to make their financial schemes work. Those schemes did not work and they were left without technical leadership. When they got the tech leadership, the board just gave up and fired him and brought in a chop shop CEO to part intel out.

For some reason, the US admin thinks this is a good buy. You probably would too, if you bankrupted multiple casinos.

Intel is going the way of SunBeam, Sears and Toys r Us. The board failed to stop that. And failure attracts more failure.

replies(6): >>45009339 #>>45009848 #>>45010867 #>>45011514 #>>45012095 #>>45012513 #
EFreethought ◴[] No.45009339[source]
> put a lot of MBAs in top leadership positions to make their financial schemes work.

Has it ever worked?

replies(2): >>45009712 #>>45019272 #
1. hedora ◴[] No.45009712[source]
It usually does until it doesn’t, then stops working really fast. GE and Boeing are recent examples.
replies(2): >>45009759 #>>45009774 #
2. ◴[] No.45009759[source]
3. darth_avocado ◴[] No.45009774[source]
So it never actually works, the momentum from before just hides the fact and makes it seem that it works until it doesn’t.
replies(2): >>45010874 #>>45011476 #
4. jabl ◴[] No.45010874[source]
It works splendidly for all those MBA's with golden parachutes.
replies(1): >>45011459 #
5. earthnail ◴[] No.45011459{3}[source]
It seems we need a system where these failures are visible earlier. If you consider the current economy a strategy game, our game dynamics incentivise bad short-term optimisation.

We can blame the MBAs, but we really should see how we can propose a better system. And then convince people of that.

Okay okay, I give up already.

6. nine_k ◴[] No.45011476[source]
It works for long enough to ride on the rise of the stock, and cash out.