Hacker News Reader

Comment by kodablah | Hacker News Reader

> Regardless, the gov should not be in the job buying biz

Says you. I think they do a better job buying that biz than many of the other biz's they buy with public funds. If you want to see pockets being lined, look to things that don't have returns on investment or are poorly managed in real corrupt ways (ala many public pension plans). Not comparing dollar spent to dollar spent of tax money compared to benefits makes it clear some are just anti-private-sector.

> "Each one of these $150k jobs..." Pardon me, I know this type of reply is frowned upon on HN, but...wanna buy a bridge?

Are you implying that the average salary to get the incentives isn't going to be 150k/yr as stated their agreement?

View on HN

The gov's job is to govern. Period. How about we let it get that right before it starts branching off into things it's has little or no expertise in.

Again. The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz. __The Gov__ has said that. Whether you're listening or not is up to you.

> The gov created the housing bubble __and__ the student loan bubble. I don't say they should be in the job buying biz.

More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it. I can definitely sympathize with those applauding them for taking less as a way to promote growth.

> "More specifically, you should believe based on your examples that they shouldn't be in the money management business. Because they are really bad at it."

How so? One is within a reasonable scope of governing. That is, most citizens want and expect a reasonable amount of economic stability. The others are outside of scope and simple a tool that politicians use to buy votes. And if that's going to be the case, then the least we can do is be honest about it. Denial doesn't make it any better.

Just because something has persisted doesn't make it right.

The fact is, Amazon (and others) played __our__ elected officials/ representatives against each other __at our collective expense (read: to Amazon's benefit).__

Not only that, __we__ paid to help Amazon find a new HQ location. So now imagine all the communities that did __not__ win.

Finally, imagine is that time and money was not put into a roll of the dice?

This was a __big__ win for Amazon. This was a big win for politicians. As for the taxpayers all across the country and going forward, the true benefits should be questioned. If we dare.

Neoliberalism, Milton Friedman and the free market crowd have been demonizing government for decades now and successfully lobbied for the removal of regulations since the 80s leading to the housing bubble, education loans and exploding tuition costs, buybacks and rampant financialization.

This banking crisis, fraud, education loan bubble is the direct result of 30 years of neoliberal free market policies. Yet instead of owning up to their mistakes in an act of brazen revisionism and fraud they are blaming the government for listening to them, and this is taken seriously. This is ideology.

A govt hijacked to promote special interests is not a government, its a plutocracy.

What if I told you that any government under capitalism will ultimately always end up as a plutocracy, a government by the rich for the rich is fundamentally different than one by the working class for the working class, although the later has been proven difficult to maintain under democratic systems at large.

"...housing bubble, education loans..."

Um. Wasn't it the gov that committed to policy of more home ownership? It was the leader here. It helped to craft and define the direction once it opened up the dereg gates.

It's important to note: "Dereg" !== free market. Dereg is a nice word politicians like to toss around, but ultimately, that typically translates into some other set of rules, typically favoring some entity over another.

The gov is VERY fond of taking sides, gaming markets, etc. It might be presented otherwise, but it's still trying to exert unnatural influence.

</sidebar>

And didn't it do the same for making cheap student loans available to more students? Students who weren't really "college material"? Wasn't BHO still championing higher edu __for all__ - because it plays well in the polls - all the while knowing the monster that had been created and still wasn't properly fixed? Yes, such antics are great for buying votes but it ultimately drives up the price.

If the gov (read: votes) is involved - as it was with this Amazon deal - then the market __is__ being manipulated. Anything beyond that is lip stick on the proverbial pig.

Just because there are other and potentially better/easier ways to graft and siphon money out of the system (such as those you listed) doesn't mean that this person isn't allowed to think this 'lesser' one is just as morally bankrupt and from a business standpoint a foolish decision.

Agree and I usually try to stay on point and not whataboutist, but I had to address general comments about use of funds and role of government in parent and ggp.

Totally understood. Just wanted to make it obvious that if something is bad, a bigger bad doesn't make the other less bad. I think we're on the same page here.

Appreciate your clarification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com