I’m uninformed on this topic, perhaps you or someone else can teach me a bit more on this. What would the argument be for bailing them out, and what would be the argument for letting them fail? Without any knowledge of the consequences of either, I feel like letting the business fail is what we should do. We let businesses fail all the time, especially small ones. Why should we bail out this business when we let other fail all the time?
It feels like the core concern is letting that many people all lose their job at the same time would be particularly challenging issue for the people affected. But these numbers are far less than the number that have been laid off recently by other companies. The government didn’t step in to help those people or companies performing massive layoffs, why bailout this company? I don’t know, but would like to hear arguments for both
It is a crucial sector; if a company goes bankrupt, it is difficult to recover for several years, because it is usually difficult for a new company if it does not have sufficient resources and/or support.
If Intel declares bankruptcy, it would leave AMD with a monopoly on x64 because, without a direct rival to compete with, the price of CPUs is likely to increase and, as a result, the price of PCs would also increase.
By rescuing Intel, the company can better plan its strategies and make long-term plans without pressure from shareholders to make a profit.
It would preserve many people’s jobs, keeping unemployment low and without affecting people’s finances.
Continue to maintain technological sovereignty in the country without the risk of another foreign company buying Intel’s technology.
This is a strong argument. One of my main complaints with modern large companies is the need to operate for short term gains long term losses, so point number 3 sounds amazing to me. Does this mean Intel would no longer be a publicly traded company, but a US Government owned company, something similar to the USPS?
It depends on how Intel is rescued: whether the government nationalizes it completely to become a state-owned company, partial rescue of the company to structure it, conventional rescue, or whether it is placed under federal guardianship for a time and then privatized.
If the government was smart it would bail out Intel so I just assume they won’t.
I’m uninformed on this topic, perhaps you or someone else can teach me a bit more on this. What would the argument be for bailing them out, and what would be the argument for letting them fail? Without any knowledge of the consequences of either, I feel like letting the business fail is what we should do. We let businesses fail all the time, especially small ones. Why should we bail out this business when we let other fail all the time?
It feels like the core concern is letting that many people all lose their job at the same time would be particularly challenging issue for the people affected. But these numbers are far less than the number that have been laid off recently by other companies. The government didn’t step in to help those people or companies performing massive layoffs, why bailout this company? I don’t know, but would like to hear arguments for both
Arguments in favor of rescuing Intel:
This is a strong argument. One of my main complaints with modern large companies is the need to operate for short term gains long term losses, so point number 3 sounds amazing to me. Does this mean Intel would no longer be a publicly traded company, but a US Government owned company, something similar to the USPS?
It depends on how Intel is rescued: whether the government nationalizes it completely to become a state-owned company, partial rescue of the company to structure it, conventional rescue, or whether it is placed under federal guardianship for a time and then privatized.
In short, yes, but in certain scenarios.
Very cool thanks for the informative answers