News Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan loses $5 million in Intel investment value as stock tumbles

And we are supposed to care why? The stock market is already rallying, as of yesterday, thanks to the news of Japan and South Korea are looking to negotiate on tariffs. Intel, at the time of this post, is up 2.21%. I think he will be fine.
 
>The stock market is already rallying, as of yesterday, thanks to the news of Japan and South Korea are looking to negotiate on tariffs.

Yesterday's is already old news. You might want to look at *TODAY'S* markets. Things move fast in trade war land.

BTW, the market did NOT rally yesterday. Not after the US escalation. And it won't today, after China's return fire.

Yes, things do move fast. S&P 500 and Nasdaq are slightly up today, and DOW is slightly down. Everyone getting in a tizzy over what is really a market correction is nauseating. Too many focused on short term vs long term. As more countries get on board with negotiating trade deals, the markets will rebound.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-...RYdvPAeKrQQBLyS-LulHeQBXmjOTKok-jH5E0xNVoCicK
 
...

>Everyone getting in a tizzy over what is really a market correction is nauseating.

I agree. It's nauseating that people are getting in a tizzy over the collapse of their life savings. Everybody should just "BE COOL!" and suck it up. It's only money.
Collapse of life savings when looking at one point in time? That's pretty dramatic.

There's going to be no life savings for anyone when the U.S. defaults on our federal debt interest expense and can't continue borrowing to fund the government, not to mention the loss of confidence from other countries.

So yes, as has been said, folks need to calm down. Calmer heads always do prevail. Mr. Tan will get his $5 mil back and then more if Intel pulls off a win on 18A.
 
Yes, things do move fast. S&P 500 and Nasdaq are slightly up today, and DOW is slightly down. Everyone getting in a tizzy over what is really a market correction is nauseating. Too many focused on short term vs long term. As more countries get on board with negotiating trade deals, the markets will rebound.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-...RYdvPAeKrQQBLyS-LulHeQBXmjOTKok-jH5E0xNVoCicK

If this was done right, we'd have planned for the tariffs we wanted to enact first.
That allows businesses / industries to make necessary adjustments ahead of time.

It takes years to setup new factories and make changes in a large supply chain.
That is why Fortune 500 CEOs are freaking out, and economists are too.

With tariffs going on/off like a light switch they will adopt wait and see approaches until things stabilize.
 
Last edited:
They are just a negotiating tactic. I highly doubt many of them will be permanent. Last I've heard at least 50 countries have at least expressed interest in negotiating new trade deals.

March's jobs reports gives me some hope too, as estimates were beaten by quite a bit. All the new potential factories you mentioned, also means more good paying construction jobs. Those matter more than some rich CEO's bank account. If anything more people with good paying jobs, will mean more money long term for said CEO's, as people will be able to more easily afford things.
 
They are just a negotiating tactic. I highly doubt many of them will be permanent. Last I've heard at least 50 countries have at least expressed interest in negotiating new trade deals.

March's jobs reports gives me some hope too, as estimates were beaten by quite a bit. All the new potential factories you mentioned, also means more good paying construction jobs. Those matter more than some rich CEO's bank account. If anything more people with good paying jobs, will mean more money long term for said CEO's, as people will be able to more easily afford things.
The market is illusionary this is not issue. The issue is the potential economic downturn which would be a clear man made situation not that others aren’t and very real. Let’s be real Americans love their cheap goods and if you think we are going to become the manufacturing hub we were in the 50s after WW2 and the rest of the world was rebuilding you are a fool. Our standard of living is too high for this to be sustainable and trying to produce mass goods of mature technologies makes no economic sense at scale. American leadership and economic power is in emerging technologies and earth resources and projection of power. With that said globalization is here get over it and trying and be nativist is a recipe for irrelevance. Either you adapt or you get replaced simple as that. Fight nature all you want.

A tariff war makes no sense in an interconnected world, maybe we should bring back feudalism again heck maybe the US is still pissed about the war of 1812. All that said volatile markets and big swings are golden opportunities. But the threat of global recession is very real and in fact even enough disruption or trade deals that are protectionist and can not be implemented in near team but create near terms penalties also add to this possibility.
 
Echoing others, why should we care when rich people lose money?

I’m surprised the tech press and fanboy sphere, who like to feel chummy with billionaires and tech leaders, haven’t taken to calling him by his first name yet. Or perhaps “The Lip”.
 
Echoing others, why should we care when rich people lose money?

I’m surprised the tech press and fanboy sphere, who like to feel chummy with billionaires and tech leaders, haven’t taken to calling him by his first name yet. Or perhaps “The Lip”.
Because rich people (we're talking about the >100M category here) have way more capital they can afford to lose.
In very simple terms...
If stock A lost $5M in value, that still leaves a $100 Millionaire with $95M.
Where as that's 3 to 7 poor people's entire life savings/retirement funds worth that evaporated into thin air.

It's not difficult to recover with $95M still left in the bank, but it's extremely challenging to start from zero.
 
Because rich people (we're talking about the >100M category here) have way more capital they can afford to lose.
In very simple terms...
If stock A lost $5M in value, that still leaves a $100 Millionaire with $95M.
Where as that's 3 to 7 poor people's entire life savings/retirement funds worth that evaporated into thin air.

It's not difficult to recover with $95M still left in the bank, but it's extremely challenging to start from zero.
That’s why no one should care when rich people lose money.
 
Stock market's are a vibes based casino.
Current vibes: uncertainty, poor confidence

If the market had good vibes, them stocks wouldn't be tumbling.
And using preemptive tariffs as a negotiating tactic before coming to the table loses trust.
That's like taking hostages first and then demanding stuff.
Vibe trading
 
>They are just a negotiating tactic. I highly doubt many of them will be permanent.

The US has "negotiated" itself into a full-blown trade war. All sides are amped up, and nobody is backing down. That translates to much pain will need to happen before anybody will budge.

>Last I've heard at least 50 countries have at least expressed interest in negotiating new trade deals.

Yes, some countries will bend the knee to protect their economy. But it's not negotiation. Negotiations don't happen when one side comes up with an absurdly high demand and tasks the other side to talk it down. The US is simply a bully that others have to placate.

If you want to talk long-term, here's the long-term: The reason that the US has such a big club now to whack on other countries is because we have positioned ourselves to be the center of world trade, ever since WW2. The US dollar is the world's reserve currency. We are (were) the champion of the free world, the lynchpin of the West. That carries a lot of influence and control. For the short-term, we (the US) have clout from which we can extract concessions from friends and allies.

For the long term, nobody likes a bully. Whatever influence and control the US once had will ebb away, is already ebbing away. The EU/Can/et al have already started the process when we kicked Ukraine to the curb and cozied up to Russia. The economic warfare the US is currently waging on the world is just the latest in a series of insults.

The world is bigger than the US. Countries will reorient themselves without us. Trade ties will be rewired, and we will be on the outside looking in. The US will still be a large country with a powerful military, but our influence will be gone, along with all the perks that come with it, and that we all take for granted.

That is the real casualty from all this. The loss of stature as a leading light, and inspiration for people from all over the world, to being just another hegemonic power, using its power for only its benefit. That's what makes me sad.

>March's jobs reports gives me some hope too

March's job report came before the infamous L-day.

>All the new potential factories you mentioned, also means more good paying construction jobs.

Yes, that's the promise.

Look, I think you are sincere in your views, so I will be as well. I think it's safe to say that neither of us will change the other's mind. I do respect your desire for the country to do better. We all want that.

What I noted from your above points is that they all come from WH talking points. Fair enough. You believe in your govt. My only suggestion is that you expand your news sources to encompass other view points, and not from only one side, because for differences to be resolved, it won't be just one side that dictates the terms.

But the likelihood is that you won't do that, either. The tendency of people, when encountering dissenting views, is to entrench deeper in their view. Also fair. Then, my last sentiment is that I agree, that we should just wait and see what happens next. The rhetoric will meet reality soon enough.
Pretty spot on IMHO the cost for America enjoying the perks of and the life of luxury the US enjoys is standing as that shining city on the hill and being the leader of the free world. The nativist and protectionist view or strain that projects from some elements of America society will as noted force people to look elsewhere. And in that loss will be Americas undoing in terms of leverage being applied today … not only will you create powers that truly can compete with you because they can no longer or need to rely on America for that hope but nations will negotiate in animosity and ultimately work against you in the long term. More importantly America is ceding ground to create both military and economic powers against its own interests. Ok walk away from NATO , allow Russia to walk through Ukraine just on a practical level you potentially create 2 military and economic rivals that can compete with you on a global scale? What’s the sense in that?
 
>I have seen far worse than what people are panicking over right now.

https://reuters.com/world/china/chi...ds-125-up-84-finance-ministry-says-2025-04-11

The trade war is now full-on. US' 145%+ tariff on China is met with China's 125% on US. We'll see if US escalates further.

Frankly, higher tariff rates won't mean much, because practically speaking, trade between China and US will be effectively halted. The pain will be on China's exporters and US consumers--and small businesses who get their supply from China.

China is already pivoting to prioritize domestic consumption,

https://reuters.com/business/retail...porters-go-domestic-amid-trade-war-2025-04-11

POTUS' blinking just hours after his L-day agenda takes effect indicates his pain tolerance is fairly small. The outcome isn't in doubt. The only question will be the impact of the fallout.
The blinking was not due to other nations, but lost confidence in the American economy, dollar, and most importantly the bond market. Devaluation of American bonds was panick button hit by the treasury at which point POTUS blinked. You can bully people if you want as a matter of practice and it can be effective but is a ultimately historically a long term losing strategy, a unified Europe, as well as China have as much if not more leverage than the US. And bullying the little guys is just going to drive them into the arms of Europe, China, etc … only providing them with more leverage. The bottom line this is a 19th century attitude being attempted in the 21st century? More to the point China has 1.5 billion people they don’t need the American market.

Civilization advancement is a function of population size. Asia historically has been one of if not the most advanced society on this planet … and before say China is playing catchup modern China has only existed since 1900s same is true of India they were made up of much smaller nations to create the modern countries. And both as far as economics and advancement are concerned, they have/and are catching up it’s only a matter of time., especially in the case of China. 3 billion people will have a huge amount of market sway as they create larger and larger middle classes- you know the thing the US used to care about doing.
 
Last edited: