9 ms·

These companies exist as capitalist organizations, they don’t build planes and chips out of patriotic noblesse, they do it to turn a profit. In such a system, f

These companies exist as capitalist organizations, they don’t build planes and chips out of patriotic noblesse, they do it to turn a profit. In such a system, failed companies go out of business. It really is that simple, anything else leads to bailouts that socialize losses for companies that privatize profits. If they’re so important, then they should be nationalized.

alephnerd 2y ago
Nationalization is not ideal because the operation of SOEs can be tainted by the whims of political incentives instead of operational incentives. There is a reason why formally socialist China and India are trying to develop private sector players in these fields - a private corporation has the ability to be much more nimble around hiring and capital allocation unlike an SOE. Also, your argument does not challenge my point how Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea leverage massive conglomerates instead of SOEs or small businesses to cement their lead in the Semiconductor Industry.
- maeil 2y ago
  > There is a reason why formally socialist China and India are trying to develop private sector players in these fields - a private corporation has the ability to be much more nimble around hiring and capital allocation unlike an SOE. Are they? After Chinese private tech companies got too big, they reigned them in and made them closer to the state than ever. I'd love to see actual proof that China is really lessening it's involvement in companies, because I haven't seen such a trend in a significant manner. > Also, your argument does not challenge my point how Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea leverage massive conglomerates instead of SOEs or small businesses to cement their lead in the Semiconductor Industry. I happen to be based in Korea and be familiar with the insides of the conglomerates. None of the conglomerate subsidiaries have a monopoly in any sector or country like, for example, Google does in ads and search, or Intel did in CPUs for a decade or so, with >80% market shares. Hyundai Auto is kind of getting there domestically, but that's it, and it's the exception plus the domestic market is only a small part of their revenue. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the subsidiaries are not "too big to fail". During the IMF crisis in the late 90s and in its aftermath, several conglomerates failed. As a result, to this day, the financials of the subsidiaries are not particularly intertwined with each other. Sure, they sometimes give each other contracts (why wouldn't you), but that's always just a small part. They're run very independently. And it still happens that they "fail", or at least do poorly enough that the conglomerate wants to get rid of them, in which case there's usually a buyer looking to snap it up and turn things around.
  - caseyy 2y ago
    The 90s Asian economic crisis was when we should have learned that the greedy Western speculative investment practices do not work without public bailouts. And yet somehow we all said “Korea is just not western enough” at that time. What’s the excuse now, I wonder. West is not western enough? America not American enough? Is it that it’s not been made great again yet? No, our economy collapsing is the immigrants fault! Or maybe it’s the far right! It could be anything and anyone, so long as it’s not the unethical capitalism. How dare I even suggest that capitalism can be anything but perfect. Maybe I’m the problem. This the great American distraction. In reality, it is just a number of self-serving executives grifting society. Parasites so attached to the host that it fears removing them. If we just appease the parasites this one more time, do one more bailout, surely things will only get better, right?
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Dafuq? All I'm saying is, if Samsung Electronics (SK), SK Hynix (SK), TSMC (Taiwan), UMC (Taiwan), PSMC (Taiwan), Nikon (Japan), and Canon (Japan) can remain private sector conglomerates that are subsidized by public financing, then why can't Intel, Micron, etc? To this day, state-owned banks like KDB Bank (SK), EXIM ROC (Taiwan), DBJ (Japan), and JFC (Japan) continue to furnish a significant amount of capital to a handful of private sector players no matter what at 0.8-1% rates when market rate is around 1.5-2%. Why shouldn't the US also provide similar preferential financing to private sector players?
      - weebull 2y ago
        I think American capitalist doctrine shoots itself in the foot here. Shareholder return above all else means that most of that public money wouldn't be used to develop corporate infrastructure or capability. It would probably disappear into sick projects and dividends. Companies don't want to develop liabilities that they'll have to maintain after the public money dries up.
        alephnerd 2y ago

alephnerd 2y ago

Nationalization is not ideal because the operation of SOEs can be tainted by the whims of political incentives instead of operational incentives. There is a reason why formally socialist China and India are trying to develop private sector players in these fields - a private corporation has the ability to be much more nimble around hiring and capital allocation unlike an SOE. Also, your argument does not challenge my point how Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea leverage massive conglomerates instead of SOEs or small businesses to cement their lead in the Semiconductor Industry.

maeil 2y ago
> There is a reason why formally socialist China and India are trying to develop private sector players in these fields - a private corporation has the ability to be much more nimble around hiring and capital allocation unlike an SOE. Are they? After Chinese private tech companies got too big, they reigned them in and made them closer to the state than ever. I'd love to see actual proof that China is really lessening it's involvement in companies, because I haven't seen such a trend in a significant manner. > Also, your argument does not challenge my point how Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea leverage massive conglomerates instead of SOEs or small businesses to cement their lead in the Semiconductor Industry. I happen to be based in Korea and be familiar with the insides of the conglomerates. None of the conglomerate subsidiaries have a monopoly in any sector or country like, for example, Google does in ads and search, or Intel did in CPUs for a decade or so, with >80% market shares. Hyundai Auto is kind of getting there domestically, but that's it, and it's the exception plus the domestic market is only a small part of their revenue. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the subsidiaries are not "too big to fail". During the IMF crisis in the late 90s and in its aftermath, several conglomerates failed. As a result, to this day, the financials of the subsidiaries are not particularly intertwined with each other. Sure, they sometimes give each other contracts (why wouldn't you), but that's always just a small part. They're run very independently. And it still happens that they "fail", or at least do poorly enough that the conglomerate wants to get rid of them, in which case there's usually a buyer looking to snap it up and turn things around.
- caseyy 2y ago
  The 90s Asian economic crisis was when we should have learned that the greedy Western speculative investment practices do not work without public bailouts. And yet somehow we all said “Korea is just not western enough” at that time. What’s the excuse now, I wonder. West is not western enough? America not American enough? Is it that it’s not been made great again yet? No, our economy collapsing is the immigrants fault! Or maybe it’s the far right! It could be anything and anyone, so long as it’s not the unethical capitalism. How dare I even suggest that capitalism can be anything but perfect. Maybe I’m the problem. This the great American distraction. In reality, it is just a number of self-serving executives grifting society. Parasites so attached to the host that it fears removing them. If we just appease the parasites this one more time, do one more bailout, surely things will only get better, right?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Dafuq? All I'm saying is, if Samsung Electronics (SK), SK Hynix (SK), TSMC (Taiwan), UMC (Taiwan), PSMC (Taiwan), Nikon (Japan), and Canon (Japan) can remain private sector conglomerates that are subsidized by public financing, then why can't Intel, Micron, etc? To this day, state-owned banks like KDB Bank (SK), EXIM ROC (Taiwan), DBJ (Japan), and JFC (Japan) continue to furnish a significant amount of capital to a handful of private sector players no matter what at 0.8-1% rates when market rate is around 1.5-2%. Why shouldn't the US also provide similar preferential financing to private sector players?
    - weebull 2y ago
      I think American capitalist doctrine shoots itself in the foot here. Shareholder return above all else means that most of that public money wouldn't be used to develop corporate infrastructure or capability. It would probably disappear into sick projects and dividends. Companies don't want to develop liabilities that they'll have to maintain after the public money dries up.
      - alephnerd 2y ago