zlacker

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+(OP)
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+q9
What do you think a good compromise would be?

>>Eddy_V+eg
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.