Re: In an effort to kill off intelligent discussion, you make a personal attack and call me a liar
No, just calling out the chronic tendency of your claims to conflict with reality. If it's not an intentional lie, then it's obviously an emotional inability to back up fantastic claims with facts. Either way, it's harmful to investors on this forum, and you need someone to call you on your B.S.
Re: It's trolls like you that make intelligent discourse on this board nearly impossible. If this board were really moderated, you'd be banned.
If this board were properly moderated to encourage real investing, rather than bickering and fanboyism, you'd have been banned many times over. As it is, this forum attempts to cater to both, and if you tell a lie, or make claims with crappy data, then someone should call you on it. If this forum were to ban every person that challenged your faulty claims, all it would be left with is your faulty claims, which harm prospective investors.
Re: Intel capital investments have clearly been driven by reaction to AMD success (and failure) since the mid '90s. Intel was steadily dropping investment after 1997, as in that period AMD was doing poorly in all but flash.
Yet your data shows these investments dropping during 2003 and 2004, too, right after AMD launched the Opteron and started winning big customer designs, which directly conflicts with your hypothesis.
It's just too bad that you are so dead set on finding "proof" that Intel is a complacent monopolist in the absence of competition from AMD, you failed to draw the simplest conclusion, which is simply that Intel's "Additions to Property, Plant, and Equipment" investments is not going to correlate with the money Intel spends on their own competitiveness.
You should look at the items labeled "Net Investment In Property, Plant & Equipment (1)" (different than your "Additions to Property, Plant & Equipment" line item), as well as "Research & Development (2)" as indicators of Intel's investment.
yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com
Year (1) (2)
2002 $17,847 $4,034
2001 $18,121 $3,796
2000 $15,013 $3,897
1999 $11,715 $3,111
1998 $11,609 $2,509
1997 $10,666 $2,347
1996 $8,487 $1,808
1995 $7,471 $1,296
1994 $5,367 $1,111
Quite simply, Intel has been increasing their technology investments, regardless of AMD's times of strength and weakness. When you actually look at the real data, and not the contrived mismatch of numbers you present, it's quite obvious. |
