447
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 31 points 22 hours ago

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.

[-] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

No, that's ridiculous. Americans have a first past the post, winner take all, voting system. And we have an electoral college.

This means that Americans never vote FOR president. Then only ever vote AGAINST who they hate most of the two real candidates.

[-] 01011@monero.town 10 points 19 hours ago

It's not really a choice when it's the only option.

[-] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 19 hours ago

Why do you hate democracy?

[-] ExtremeDullard 98 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 22 hours ago

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.

[-] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 9 points 16 hours ago

Or be broken up.

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago

Boeing, space x, and Intel.

All terrific companies with excellent management and absolutely nothing bad about them whatsoever.

[-] skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works 5 points 19 hours ago

They once did a good thing that one time - and were American, at that moment at least. -Ish.

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] loutr@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 22 hours ago

Half for buybacks and half for executives, lobbyist, and other corrupt programs.

[-] Captain_Baka@feddit.org 32 points 1 day ago

Because lobbyism (a.k.a. corruption).

[-] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 day ago

Lobbying is bribery. Pure. Simple.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

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:

https://www.omm.com/insights/alerts-publications/supreme-court-limits-reach-of-federal-bribery-law-applied-to-state-and-local-officials/

[-] Captain_Baka@feddit.org 4 points 8 hours ago

Giving money to government officials is just a tip for appreciation and is completely legal

Yes it is, but it shouldn't be.

[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago

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

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

They've been burning through multiple billions quarter over quarter during all those buybacks too. Sounds like poor leadership to me.

[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago

Not for the shareholders. And that's exactly the problem.

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago

These schemes never work forever. But the big investors usually know when to jump ship.

[-] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 1 day ago

Parasites got it good. We pay them on both ends and they still price gouge us

[-] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day ago

Because otherwise, all this money would be wasted on the dissolute like homeless people or children.

[-] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

That is 4.34 billion for each year

[-] granolabar@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago

100 billion in the last 15 yeaes tho

[-] latenightnoir@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Because MMMONEYYY!

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
447 points (100.0% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9684 readers
1223 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS