←back to thread

335 points aspenmayer | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.413s | source
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 #
1. Numerlor ◴[] No.45012095[source]
Intel never in any way gave up on r&d, their main problem was failing to get their new tech working, and a couple of had bets.

The random acquisitions and board leadership didn't help intel but r&d had plenty of money poured in

replies(1): >>45013158 #
2. rbanffy ◴[] No.45013158[source]
We often fail to realize how cutthroat the chip business is and how many bad decisions away from oblivion all players are. It’s just that Intel is more exposed to those risks because it’s both design and foundry making risky bets.

OTOH, if TSMC makes a couple bad bets in a row, all their 500 clients will be in deep trouble.