Every two years the US votes for capitalists, then capitalist things happen, and people clutch their pearls as if this isn’t precisely what they voted for.
Half for buybacks and half for executives, lobbyist, and other corrupt programs.
Intel is part of a small number of companies that are strategically important for the US to keep posturing in front of China and the EU, like Boeing or SpaceX.
Those companies know the US government will never let them fail: even if they’re driven to bankruptcy by the most stupid management, they’ll get taxpayer’s money - i.e. OUR money - in the form of subsidies to bail them out.
Therefore, to answer your question, they need $8bn in subsidy because they deliberatively placed themselves in a position to request money from us that they know will be granted.
Hell, if I knew however much money I spent, someone would always foot the bill if I ran out, I too would spend like no tomorrow in order to get more money for free. It’s plain logic.
If they are too big to fail, then they need to be nationalized.
All of these companies have two things in common: they socialize risks and liabilities and privatize profits.
Boeing, space x, and Intel.
All terrific companies with excellent management and absolutely nothing bad about them whatsoever.
Also they may have spent $158B on stock buybacks, but company is worth $96B. They lost a lot of money on those buybacks. Down about 70% over last 3 years.
Hell, if I knew however much money I spent, someone would always foot the bill if I ran out, I too would spend like no tomorrow in order to get more money for free. It’s plain logic.
-
Why did $manager hire two more people? We don’t need them, half the team has no idea what they’re doing here and are just fucking around all day already.
-
Yeah but he still has some budget left, and if he doesn’t spend it all next year he’ll get less, and we can’t have that.
-
One of the biggest pitfalls of buybacks is the piss-poor timing of them. You’re doing good, flush with cash, and share prices are probably at a peak as a result. Shareholders would probably want to rake you over coals if you sat on cash and did nothing in order to weather a storm and perhaps do a buyback when the share prices are relatively undervalued, but you have fiduciary responsibility, so what do you do? Buy at the top and then get caught with your pants down when the shit hits the fan. Doing dumb shit to make shortsighted shareholders happy basically
Because lobbyism (a.k.a. corruption).
Lobbying is bribery. Pure. Simple.
You don’t understand.
Giving money to government officials is just a tip for appreciation and is completely legal
I wish I needed to add a /s, but it is objectively true:
They’ve been burning through multiple billions quarter over quarter during all those buybacks too. Sounds like poor leadership to me.
Not for the shareholders. And that’s exactly the problem.
I’m a shareholder and it’s worrying. The share’s aren’t going up any more and the dividends are laughable. It’s the top managers filling their pockets.
These schemes never work forever. But the big investors usually know when to jump ship.
Parasites got it good. We pay them on both ends and they still price gouge us
Because otherwise, all this money would be wasted on the dissolute like homeless people or children.
That is 4.34 billion for each year
100 billion in the last 15 yeaes tho
Because MMMONEYYY!
