Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (176289)	12/29/2003 6:54:05 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

OT ... Amy, re Craig Barrett's statement that "Lastly, government should do no harm with rules and regulations. Expensing stock [ed: options] is a good example of doing harm. Regulations put in place in California over the last 20 years are an example of doing harm. They are making U.S. industries more non-competitive on a daily basis." There is no association between California regulations and expensing options, IMHO. I forget the logic term for the above type of argument .. but it's an implication without logical basis. It's a play on emotion, rather than an appeal to the intellect. Obviously, Craig Barrett is an extremely intelligent and capable man, but when it comes to expensing stock options, the man has blinders on. Management .. and politicians .. need to let accounting matters be decided by accountants. Regards, Ron

To: Amy J who wrote (176289)	12/30/2003 4:54:14 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

AmyJ, Barrett: ... If you look at India, China and Russia, they all have strong education heritages....The big change today from what's happened over the last 30 years is that it's no longer just low-cost labor that you are looking at; it's well-educated labor ... As long as everyone competes with the same educational levels, there is no place else in the value chain to go. ... I think that the United States has ...to choose to compete head on in the world economy with this new workforce, not resort to legislative protectionism. That is a government issue. If it chooses to compete, then there are four things any government can do: Education is one; research and development investment is the second; infrastructure development is the third; the plea that governments do no harm is the fourth. This sounds like positioning on the part of Barrett for tax breaks or pork, he does that a lot. Example Barrett is always complaining about California taxes- you and I know that Intel has benefitted in the prop 13 property tax giveaway and resulting real estate appreciation more than most other companies, and yet Barrett still complains about California taxes being too high. US based engineering institutions have the highest rate of foreign applicants of any engineering schools in the world. I believe Barrett and Carly complain about US-based engineering education as a way to justify their offshoring plans, which really have more to do with HP/Intel grabbing asian market share than US-based R&D division issues. In other words, Carly and Barrett are going to set up divisions in asia irrespective of whether they are competitive or not. My personal belief is that most of the offshore R&D facilities are not competitive yet.