wbmw, "..I decide to buy a $30[k] car..Your argument is sort of philosophical in nature...It's all academic, and it barely applies to the legality of Intel's accounting."
No, it is not any academic, it is a simple way of
money accounting, a skill most Americans are lacking.
And no one said anything about legality or illegality.
However, both examples are weak: when you buy a car,
it is still an asset, so your total does not change
much unless the car is a total consumable junk. And
again, you are trying to build an "one-time" expense
model, which is clearly incorrect.
The better example would be if you are paying say,
rent for a storage, or something like that, a total
waste of money. The stock buy-backs are expenses,
the money are wasted. That's why the original Forbes
article of 1998 equated those expenses to the cost
of labor. Period.
And again, no one argues whether AMD should be kept at
the same standard or not. It should. The thing which
pisses me off is when presumably intelligent persons
keep repeating the obvious nonsense about Intel making
money.
BTW, the big money apparently are much smarter than
those SI individuals. For proof, just look a 2-year
INTC chart:
bigcharts.marketwatch.com
No matter how Barrett continue to brag about "continuous
profitability", it remains flat. Don't you see some
discrepancy here?
- Ali |
