zlacker

>>giveme+(OP)
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 investing BUY INTEL SHARES" media event. These things should follow a strict set of rules and processes so investors and companies know what to expect. These kind of deals should be boring, not a media event.

>>jjcm+Ef
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.

>>Eddy_V+Icj
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.

>>coremo+8mj
What do you think a good compromise would be?