
Intel CEO leaves American Manufacturing Council - RandVal30142
http://blogs.intel.com/policy/2017/08/14/intel-ceo-leaves-manufacturing-council/
======
otalp
Major companies that still have representatives in the council: GM, Blackrock,
BCG, Walmart, Boeing, Pepsi, IBM, GE, Dow, Dell, Whirlpool, Ford,
Johnson&Johnson, Lockheed Martin, US Steel, 3M, Corning

Everyone who has left: Uber(Travel Ban and #DeleteUber), Disney(Paris
withdrawal), Tesla/SpaceX(Paris Withdrawal). And now Merck, Under Armour and
Intel(all left after failure to condemn white supremacists)

~~~
Stratoscope
> Everyone who's left: ...

Could you please disambiguate that? I am confused.

Does it mean "Everyone who _is_ left" or "Everyone who _has_ left"?

Thanks!

Edit: For anyone who wonders what the heck I was talking about, the parent
comment originally said "Everyone who's left" \- and I honestly was not sure
which it meant. That comment has now been edited to read "Everyone who has
left", so I am grateful for the clarification.

I would delete this comment since it's now moot, but since a couple of people
were kind enough to reply, deleting it now would probably make things even
more confusing. :-)

~~~
fenomas
The first para is those that _are_ left, hence the latter is those that have
left.

~~~
dmoy
We goin' way into grammar land now, but not necessarily - you can repeat the
same initial clause like that for emphasis:

Everyone who is left is xyz. Everyone who is left is abc. Everyone who is left
is (insert usually more dramatic thing than xyz or abc).

------
Dirlewanger
It's like a lose-lose. Stay on the council, you ostensibly are committed to
keeping manufacturing jobs in the US, but could be seen as complicit of Trump.
Leave, and you're making a stand against Trump...while at the same time
leaving one of the few good things he has going for him. And let's be honest,
without some sort of external coercion, these companies aren't going to stay
in the US.

~~~
wyldfire
Protectionism is not an answer, it's never worked before and it won't work
now.

~~~
Qwertious
You're not wrong, but your logic is flawed - things are happening now that
have never happened before, like New Automation, that are massive game-
changers. This means that things that have never worked before, will _start_
working.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But to be fair, there's no going back. Automation means we don't actually need
people to do huge numbers of things. Those displaced people may never have a
job again.

What got us here, won't get us where we're going. It's all going to have to be
reexamined.

~~~
leereeves
> Those displaced people may never have a job again.

The unemployment rate is at the lowest level since 2001, and excluding
2000-2001, the lowest level since 1969.

[https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
And next, McD's and Carls' are planning to do away with the counter staff.
Banks automating tellers completely. Some 30 millions of Americans out of a
job, at the lowest levels. What then?

Automation is exploding at a dizzying rate for a decade now. Our ability to
accommodate will be exceeded soon.

Further, that graph looks like what happens when people fall off the
employment rolls - they quit looking for a job and no longer show up as
'unemployed'. How can we tell that's not responsible?

~~~
leereeves
The number of people employed is also at an all-time high.

[https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_...](https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=employed&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

Automation may change that in the future, or people may insist on dealing with
humans, or new jobs may emerge. Who can predict the future?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
These guys:
[https://economics.mit.edu/files/12763](https://economics.mit.edu/files/12763)

This quote: "Using this approach, we estimate large and robust negative
effects of robots on employment and wages across commuting zones. We bolster
this evidence by showing that the commuting zones most exposed to robots in
the post-1990 era do not exhibit any differential trends before 1990. The
impact of robots is distinct from the impact of imports from China and Mexico,
the decline of routine jobs, offshoring, other types of IT capital, and the
total capital stock (in fact, exposure to robots is only weakly correlated
with these other variables). According to our estimates, one more robot per
thousand workers reduces the employment to population ratio by about 0.18-0.34
percentage points and wages by 0.25-0.5 percent."

------
vowelless
I think more people need to resign from such positions. Good on Krzanich.

~~~
jacquesm
They do:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/merck-ceo-resigns-from-
trump...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/merck-ceo-resigns-from-trumps-
american-manufacturing-council.html)

~~~
vowelless
Thanks. I heard about that. I am not sure how much resigning will help, but it
needs to be done.

~~~
jacquesm
It sends a pretty strong message that certain ideologies are not an option for
some of the American captains of industry. Trump is rather big on having their
attention so them resigning sends a clear signal that if this is the path
Trump wants to be on it will be a lonely one. Whether or not that message will
be received and how it will be interpreted if it is received is an entirely
different matter.

~~~
cafard
"Trump is rather big on having their attention"

I imagine that it feeds his vanity to have them around. Perhaps "their
attendance" is nearer what he wants.

------
jacquesm
Merck's CEO did this too.

~~~
vermontdevil
And is the only one who got blasted by Trump.

~~~
croon
Coincidentally also the only one who wasn't white.

~~~
makomk
Coincidentally, he was also the first one who left (edit: not fired). Trump
got around to tweeting angrily about the others after you posted this:
[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/trump-hits-ceos-who-left-
man...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/trump-hits-ceos-who-left-
manufacturing-council-as-grandstanders.html)

~~~
croon
1) No one was fired.

2) He did that 3 hours after I posted this, and long after they had all left.

------
JustSomeNobody
This position probably had very little political influence. However, why not
stay and use whatever influence you may have to make a difference? Is it just
not possible anymore to stay and disagree?

~~~
MBCook
I suspect resigning, especially if it gives headlines, gives _more_ political
influence that they'd have had just staying on the board.

> Is it just not possible anymore to stay and disagree?

Many have done that so far in the administration. At a certain point it
becomes untenable to stay and give any appearance of support/cooperation.

------
MichaelBurge
> I am not a politician. I am an engineer who has spent most of his career
> working in factories that manufacture the world’s most advanced devices.
> Yet, it is clear even to me that nearly every issue is now politicized to
> the point where significant progress is impossible. Promoting American
> manufacturing should not be a political issue.

There's something I can get behind. Angry people have a positive feedback
loop, so if we all collectively talked about Monads there'd be fewer problems.

~~~
sanderjd
Promoting the interests of your own country over those of others is
_fundamentally_ political. Perhaps you think it should not be _partisan_?
Otherwise, this is just wrong - trade policy is diplomacy and diplomacy is,
always has been, always will be, and _must_ be, political.

------
bitL
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." \-- Abraham Lincoln

Pretty worrying to observe the polarization in the US where IMO both left and
right are full of extremist views and moderates have no audible voice.

~~~
mrbiber
This is not about some general vague problem with "extremism" of which
supposedly all sides are guilty. This is about the emergence of a right-wing
terrorist movement which has already committed several attacks. When your
first reaction to this is to to bring in some unspecified crimes of the left,
then this calls into question whether you understand the seriousness of the
situation. There is a real chance that real, actual fascists kill many more
people and perhaps even gain more political power. We can talk about this
without engaging in some false equivalence.

~~~
StevePerkins
> to bring in some unspecified crimes of the left

I realize that a large portion of young social media posters have already
forgotten about this. Probably because John Oliver doesn't talk about it, and
that's often their primary source of news analysis. But the Majority Whip for
the U.S. Congress is STILL in recovery from a mass shooting over two months
ago, by a deranged left-wing activist.

In Dallas last year, 5 police officers were assassinated and another 9 injured
at a BLM protest march (the deadliest incident for U.S. law enforcement since
9/11), by an Army veteran who openly cited racial hatred as his motive. I went
to church the following Sunday. I was a member of a Unitarian Universalist
congregation, one of the most liberal American sects. The sermon more or less
boiled down to, " _Meh, they had it coming_ ". I have since left the UU
community, after more than a decade of fellowship there.

Where is the balancing point, at which you can declare "equivalence"? I don't
know, and don't really care. But the narrative that polarization and extremism
are entirely one-sided needs to go.

As a moderate, BOTH extremes in the U.S. scare the shit out of me right now.
I'm a bit sick of being told that I'm "normalizing" awful things by not
locking arms with one side, shutting my brain off, and chanting along with the
mob. The mob has the intellect, the morality, and the attention span of a
goldfish.

~~~
jancsika
> I was a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation, one of the most
> liberal American sects. The sermon more or less boiled down to, "Meh, they
> had it coming".

Who was the speaker of that sermon? I'd love to email them and get the real
story, because that smells suspiciously like confirmation bias in your
summary.

~~~
dopamean
That would be a very weird email to get out of the blue.

~~~
jancsika
Weird? For a contentious sermon that allegedly resulted in a person who had
been a member for over a decade quitting the church? I doubt it.

Anyhow, a UU sermon that is _dismissive_ of terroristic violence is novel
enough that requires a citation. In fact the only thing I could say to
generalize about the variety of topics I've heard in various UU sermons is
that none of them could possibly be characterized with the word "meh" in the
summary. If anything it is the "Church of Anti-meh." And I'm not even a
member, so I'm sure I've only heard the tip of the iceberg.

------
technological
Isn't being on council would provide us like 0.9% of chance he would listen
rather having no correct person on the council ?

------
Moshe_Silnorin
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

------
jameskegel
Nothing productive is happening in these comments. Admin should intervene.

~~~
superobserver
Lots of comments condemning Trump's condemnation of (the Nazi collaborator)
Soros funded Antifa & BLM and white supremacists. I wonder who is responsible
for the curiously pseudo-liberal turn in the comments here.

Anyway, Merk, Intel, and so on exemplify all that is wrong with the fringe in
politics that seeks to use violence as a means to an end. Anyone with any
sense can see this for what it is, however, and no one is buying the
mainstream narrative - the MSM and these corporate fascists are only painting
a larger target on themselves.

~~~
RandVal30142
... what?

~~~
superobserver
TL;DR: Intel is going down and AMD is going up.

------
graycat
I hate to get involved in politics here at HN, but maybe I can contribute a
comment that really isn't politics but is business and news _strategy_?

First, I try to stay up on the _news_ , that is, the facts about what has been
happening. Well, there's a lot of _news_ on the Internet, so I can get a lot
of input on some version of what has been happening.

At this point, to me, the _news_ doesn't make any sense. The _news_ doesn't
look like it is trying to give me facts about what has been happening. Or, the
collection of supposed facts are self-contradictory, don't _add up_. And the
_news_ looks like something other than facts about what is happening.

In particular, nearly all the supposed news looks like made-up, cooked-up,
stirred-up, faked-up, gang-up, pile-on something other than facts about what
is going on. Or the real fact about what is going on looks like the news has
become some propaganda Goebbels style with "If you tell a lie often enough,
then people will believe it.".

Or, maybe easier to swallow, it looks like the news is expert in high school
in-group gossip where they fight with gossip. Then, with enough bad gossip
about person A, lots of other persons, e.g., some person B, even if they don't
believe the gossip don't want to fight all the people who do or pretend to
believe the gossip so go along with the gossip, the mob, and also reject A.
So, the gossip is not true but has much the same effect as if it were true.
I'm guessing that the news is really good at such high school in-group gossip.
In high school I was a math nerd and no good at gossip!

So, a question, then, is what the heck is going on in the _news_ business,
industry, etc.?

Guesses:

(1) The old news business is very short on revenue. Why? The Internet has cut
off much of the revenue they got from (A) classified ads, (B) other ads, (C)
revenue per copy on paper, (D) audience size. Also maybe significant is that
maybe the local shopping mall stores no longer nearly as often run big ads in
the newspapers because Amazon has such mall stores nearly out of business.

So, such news operations, really short on money, have gone to whatever
shocking, astounding, content they could find to try to increase their
audience. There they have moved up a step: The _stories_ and headlines are not
just shocking but are planned as part of a larger _narrative_ that the media
outlet hopes will catch on, like big gossip, and yield more stories over the
horizon, where the narrative helps the credibility of each story and each
story adds to the narrative. So, in simple terms, they cook up an issue, make
it a _narrative_ , pile-on, gang-up, and push it, over and over. The issue is
just made up and not true, but all the news media sees the opportunity right
away so just piles on, goes with the narrative, and hopes for revenue.

(2) Some of the advertisers and other people, companies, etc. are behind the
scenes, have long been there, have big bucks, influence the content of the
news, and cases of such influence go way back in the news business.

In particular, now some of the issues in the news are really efforts for some
of the people with big bucks to try to get their way, and there is big money
involved.

E.g., there was the recent Sharyl Attkisson remark that essentially everything
in the news is put there, paid to be there, by someone out to influence your
opinion.

(3) The election of 11/8/2016 was in many ways darned close. In particular,
the election for POTUS was so close that one candidate won the popular vote by
some and the other candidate won the vote in the Electoral College by some.

Well, for the news, take the Trump voters over here and the Hillary voters
over there.

The media wants a big audience. Soooo, they can go for the Hillary voters.
There are still lots of them out there who still like Hillary, Obama, Schumer,
Pelosi, etc. The news can fire up the Hillery voters and get audience,
eyeballs, and ad revenue. And there are claims that the news rooms were 90+%
for Hillary anyway.

Then for the Trump voters, or just the Republicans, they are not uniform and
tend to split. So, there are "never-Trump" Republicans. There's John McCain
who seems to hate Trump going way back at least to an early Trump campaign
speech in Phoenix that McCain quickly described as "firing up the crazies",
and that spat has continued through the Iowa event a few days later to the
present. And Paul Ryan, VP with Romney, is no Trump buddy. And Romney hates
Trump. Soooo, the news can get more audience by playing on, playing up to
parts of, the divisions of the Republicans.

And likely could find more such motivations for the news.

So, the news is no longer about giving me facts about what is going on.

And it looks like the news is no longer interested in facts at all and,
instead, is in some attention getting but also very bitter, center ring, mud
wrestling, gossip, cage match.

So, I've given up on nearly all the news -- their people are getting no
attention, eyeballs, clicks, or ad revenue from me. I still want facts about
what is happening. Well apparently for now the main fact is just that mud
wrestling cage match.

So, the OP was about the CEO of Intel resigning. Why? Maybe he was influenced
by the gossip; maybe be believes a lot of the gossip; maybe he just wants to
keep himself and Intel away from the mud wrestling. My guess is the last, he
just wants to stay the heck away from the mud wrestling and away from the
gossip.

So, now we see, as in high school, that enough gossip can have a lot of
influence with some actual, tangible results. Some people are really good at
gossip and now are the center of a big gang-up and pile-on of news media
business and maybe political, strategy. Curious.

My view is that the news people are throwing away their credibility, but my
guess is that the news is so short on revenue that they no longer care about
their credibility and want to go with the gossip. Maybe, apparently, they
believe that if with enough gossip they can actually get Trump out of the
White House, then they will get back their credibility -- that even with total
BS gossip they can make their claims have the practical effects that might
happen if the gossip were true.

IMHO, that _self-fulfilling_ gossip strategy will flop: The media will shrink
back to some Internet Web sites and YouTube video clips with only about 10% of
the revenue they were long used to. Why? Well, really, the credibility of the
news has long been a really bad and ugly joke. E.g., there's an old 1930s Andy
Hardy movie, maybe still shown occasionally on TV, if we still have TV (do
we?), where Andy is laughing at the credibility of newspapers -- the audience
in the 1930s was fully prepared to laugh at the news. But going back to Thomas
Jefferson, the credibility of the news was even worse, much worse, as in
Jefferson's

[http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_spe...](http://press-
pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html)

with in part

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself
becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of
this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to
confront facts within their knolege with the lies of the day."

So, apparently since Jefferson, the news has been, really, just dramatic
fiction, light entertainment. Well, really, a lot of people know this. Too bad
the CEO of Intel didn't and, instead, took the gossip seriously.

~~~
heartbreak
The _black_ CEO of Merck resigned from the council when the President failed
to denounce white supremacists in Charlottesville (blatantly so, watch the
entire raw video through the bill signing). The CEO of Merck was then attacked
on Twitter via the @realDonaldTrump account. Later, Under Armour and Intel
CEOs both resigned from the council. Both white. Neither were attacked on
Twitter.

Yesterday, the President went on TV again and gave a speech denouncing the KKK
and white supremacists. The sincerity of the speech was called into question
due to the late timing and his delivery. Yesterday evening, the
@realDonaldTrump account retweeted an Alt Right leader's tweet about
unreported violence in Chicago over the weekend. The tweet was, subjectively,
a racist dog whistle that essentially translates to, "Sure a white supremacist
killed a woman at our alt right rally on Saturday, but look at what black
people did in Chicago!"

Explain to me how this is a self-fulfilling narrative? It has nothing to do
with the news media and _everything_ to do with the President himself on TV
and Twitter.

~~~
graycat
I'm sorry: This "failed to denounce" is just a game, part of the news gossip I
described. And the second play of the game is failed to denounce "soon
enough".

Trump did NOTHING at all wrong. His first speech was fine, presidential,
responsible, good leadership, highly ethical, calm the nation, slow, hopefully
stop, the violence, save more people from getting killed.

The _failed to denounce soon enough, strongly enough, and convincingly enough_
is just a game played by people who want to have an excuse for a headline, to
make up a story, to contribute to a narrative, to play to a partisan audience,
to get eyeballs and clicks, to push gossip, innuendo, etc. It's not objective.

This is not the first time: The newsies jumped on this game, manipulation, way
back in the campaign on the cooked-up issue that Trump did not "denounce"
David Duke "fast enough". Made-up, cooked-up, stirred-up, deliberately
deceptive and provocative, BS. Attempting to incite a riot. Skilled, clever
gossip, Victorian garden party nasty, bitchy, social chit-chat used as "news".

They also want to start a fight, to have something to write stories about, to
blame Trump for, to get more stories, to push their narrative, even if the
fight KILLS more people. The newsies are very dirty dogs. You fell for their
manipulation.

You can go for that nasty, dangerous, inciting violence, manipulation BS if
you want; it's a free country; we have a free press; the press is permitted to
publish total BS; and some people will believe it -- that's their right.

But in a free country with a free press, one of your responsibilities as a
citizen is to be darned skeptical of such BS manipulation, to filter it out,
not fall for it.

That Trump did anything wrong is just silly, again, pile-on gossip: The POTUS
should not be pushed into having his statements dictated by newsies.

Look, this newsie game, if you fall for it, is like a "fork" in chess: If
Trump gives a really good, presidential, responsible speech as he did, then
the newsies claim he didn't denounce specific people and groups fast enough or
strongly enough.

So, the newsies want Trump to say provocative things. They basically want to
trick Trump into using the newsies words and content. Then the newsies get to
demean Trump, make him an obedient puppy, cost him respect and status.

So, if you go along, either way with the fork, Trump loses and the newsies
win.

Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, this time just for
you, it's a dirty newsie manipulation. You need to see this.

It's a little like some dirt bags in high school creating gossip and pushing
and pushing it to create a consensus, based on absolutely 0 that is real, to
push the captain of the football team actually off the team and likely out of
the school.

For the newsies, with just gossip, to bring down a freely, properly elected
POTUS, to cancel a free election, to overturn our democracy, would be one of
the worst harms to the US in all its history, but THAT is just what the
newsies are trying to do. Then, think of all the headlines, eyeballs, and ad
revenue they could get?

The captain of the football team and the POTUS are safe unless you let
yourself be manipulated by dirty newsies.

Trump's statements were fully, very appropriate.

Sure, the newsies who want headlines want to start a fight, have Trump name
names, do name calling, get into specific fights with specific people and
groups, etc.

Trump was correct -- such newsies will never be satisfied. Why? The biggest
reason is that as soon as people are satisfied, the newsies lose audience,
clicks, ad revenue, headlines, stories, and their narrative.

The newsies are trying to incite a fight.

The American people are getting a crash, high level course in reading
comprehension and understanding manipulation: The newsies will throw made-up,
cooked-up, stirred-up, incited, provoked, gang-up, pile-on nonsense as fast as
they can. First cut, we should just ignore it. When they called Melania an
"escort model", they got sued big league and lost.

The news people are very dirty dogs and want your eyeballs.

You've let them get to you with their claim that Trump should pick fights. No
he shouldn't. The newsies want a FIGHT to cover and want to provoke Trump into
a fight. So, the newsies have a _narrative_ that Trump is _racist_ (top card
in the Democrat deck, the race card, then the gender card, ..., and the
newsies are about 90% Democrat) and keep pushing that narrative. Look at all
objectively and see that the narrative is just total propaganda JUST as in the
Goebbels "if you tell a lie often enough then people will believe it". You've
been manipulated, been had. The newsies are thrilled with you and count on a
lot more clicks from you.

The good news about the dirty dog newsies is that they have been shoveling
their deceptive, manipulative, lying BS against Trump for 2 years now, and the
worse thing they have found so far that has any credibility at all is just
something about two scoops of ice cream. So, with all that newsie effort at
dirt, we have to conclude that Trump is squeaky clean and a really good guy.

They've got nothing; they've got zip, zilch, and zero; they've got nichts,
nil, nada; they've got their 1+ year old Russia story with nothing, a big
nothing burger, "where's the beef?". As I wrote in my post above, the newsies
are desperate for headlines, stories, eyeballs, revenue, etc. They are about
to go out of business and have zero credibility left.

You have fallen just for nasty gossip. Why? You just want to take up the
Goebbels style lies so that you can fit in with others who do that? The dirty
dog newsies are inciting violence that stands to get people killed, and you
are going along with them. Not good. Wise up.

~~~
heartbreak
White supremacists came to my city and killed a woman 4 blocks up the street
from my house, and the President's message was "there was violence on all
sides". Only one side came to Charlottesville and killed someone. Only one
side came to Charlottesville and chanted "Blood and Soil" while holding 200
torches in front of the Rotunda.

Trump explicitly refused to acknowledge white supremacists when asked about
it. The questions were shouted out, but maybe he shouldn't call it a press
conference if he wants to be the only one talking. This idea that it's all
media spin is frankly insulting to anyone personally affected by these
domestic terrorists.

------
low_battery
What took him so long?

~~~
jacquesm
I suspect that he thought that it would be possible to work some change from
the inside. Now that the optical disadvantages of being closer to Trump have
clearly outweighed the advantages there is no other choice left than to
resign.

~~~
ikeyany
But Trump has been bedfellows with white supremacists since day one. All of a
sudden there are "optical disadvantages" of being closer to him?

~~~
jacquesm
> But Trump has been bedfellows with white supremacists since day one.

Yes, but there were people who thought that once he became president his true
nature would come out and things would be better and that he was merely using
these people as a tool to get elected. Now, he _probably_ did use them as a
tool to get elected but at the same time I suspect that his real sympathies
lie with them rather than with the groups that would like to consider
everybody equal before the law.

> All of a sudden there are "optical disadvantages" of being closer to him?

Well, there probably always were disadvantages but they are becoming rather
more pronounced now. People are calling for boycotts of the products of
companies standing with Trump and every action that Trump takes that forces
them to either go all in or denounce him will cause a few to break off. It's
surprising me that so many companies are still on board.

~~~
ikeyany
When you dance with the devil, you don't get to pick the tune.

------
gadders
>> I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political
climate is causing to critical issues...

.. by performing a further politically divisive act. I can't believe corporate
virtue signalling has become a thing now.

------
adventist
What is the point in quitting? You just went from some voice to zero. This is
just virtue-signaling and is non-productive.

~~~
agildehaus
Having a voice is pointless if the person you're speaking to has no intention
of listening.

~~~
zimpenfish
And that's why the "Why won't people just TALK to the Nazis?" nonsense is
nonsense.

