Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–765 of 765 posts

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#761

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

If a company is a position where government aid is needed and it is objectively identified as strategically important to the nation, then I think that support can be justified. However, the current executive classes should be fired - they were bad at their jobs. No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions. Any bonuses in the years leading up to the bailout should be taken back. Shareholders should also take a hit. Bailouts should be so painful and costly as a disincentive to the manager class. They shouldn't get to reap the rewards when things are good AND when things are bad.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#762

Post by coremoff »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #761
jjcm wrote: post #199

In general I would rather the government take a stake in corporations they're bailing out. I think the "too big to fail" bailouts in the past should have come with more of a cost for the business, so on one hand I'm glad this is finally happening. On the other hand, I wish it were a more formalized process rather than this politicized "our president made a deal to save america!" / "Intel is back and the government is…

If a company is a position where government aid is needed and it is objectively identified as strategically important to the nation, then I think that support can be justified. However, the current executive classes should be fired - they were bad at their jobs. No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions. Any bonuses in the years leading up to the bailout should be taken back. Shareholders should also tak…

I agree with what you're saying, however I think talking in absolutes is counter-productive:

> No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions

In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#763

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

coremoff wrote: post #762
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company is a position where government aid is needed and it is objectively identified as strategically important to the nation, then I think that support can be justified. However, the current executive classes should be fired - they were bad at their jobs. No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions. Any bonuses in the years leading up to the bailout should be taken back. Shareholders should also tak…

I agree with what you're saying, however I think talking in absolutes is counter-productive: > No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.

What do you think a good compromise would be?

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#764

Post by coremoff »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #763
coremoff wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you're saying, however I think talking in absolutes is counter-productive: > No golden parachutes, no deferred bonuses, no pensions In my opinion, hard cutoffs like this create perverse incentives, but there definitely need to be consequences for actions.

What do you think a good compromise would be?

I don't think I'm qualified to provide an answer - trying to detail how execs should not be able to profit from fail-cases like this is a mine-field of edge cases, I expect.

I do think that you shouldn't be doing anything to destroy their lives "no pension" (outside of any judicial outcomes); but it should be sufficiently comprehensive such that you can declare both that no one profited from malfeasance/incompetance and that poeple in positions governed by these provisions are strongly encouraged to make sure that they don't fall foul of them.

Re: U.S. government takes 10% stake in Intel

#765

Post by devinplatt »

ivewonyoung wrote: post #439
devinplatt wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting example to choose, as I've actually heard often that the Social Security administration is an example of an efficient government administration. For example, a quick Google search shows administrative overhead as around 0.5% of benefits: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...

Just one instance. https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci... > The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns For the main system they're still using CO…

Have you read the book "Recoding America"?

I have a feeling you might enjoy that book as it goes into a LOT of detail about government dysfunction with respect to software.

I found the book eye opening and personally it provided me with some new perspective.

Post reply on HN