Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnotherGoodName | Hacker News Reader

We reward this style of management in the USA unfortunately.

Fire talent. Focus on political donations and regulatory capture. Up the C-suite pay and pay high dividends (the dividend was only just very recently cut) whilst taking government handouts.

I think the USA is going to hit a hard wall across all sectors allowing this type shit to go on for so long. Reminds me of the eBay exec steve wymer who said they’ll crush critics of the c suite leading to extreme harassment of journalists. That guy is now more employed than ever because who wouldn’t want such a person on their board in the current operating mode of USA c-suites. Fucking depressing and glaring and anti-American yet we don’t just allow this. We reward it.

View on HN

There is an essay someone wrote about Boeing that I think nails it.

The problem is MBA's aren't competent to run companies that require deep knowledge. They have neither the knowledge, the skills, or the interest. So when they grab power they reorganize the company into something they do know how to manage. The problem with a company like Boeing is the company eventually can't function. You get increasing failure to do things that the company used to be able to do.

>Fire talent. Focus on political donations and regulatory capture. Up the C-suite pay and pay high dividends (the dividend was only just very recently cut) whilst taking government handouts.

It's our version of the soviet collapse.

Its the side effect of empires. British empire train projects come to mind..

What are some changes that we could make that would discourage it?

The political donation system is a good place to start. There’s no way to read corporate donations to lobby groups as anything other than bribery for favourable laws. Why even run a good business when you can just get handouts.

Good luck amending the First Amendment.

First amendment doesn't say that money is speech, sending politicians money shouldn't be protected by the first amendment.

Politicians likes to receive money though so of course they say money is speech. I wonder when they say that bribing politicians is speech as well so there can't be laws against direct bribes.

I agree, the Supreme Court got it wildly wrong when they said donating money by itself is speech. It isn’t. But here we are. The only way at this point to change it is to pack the Court or amend the Constitution. And I would even bet that a majority of people agree with you and me on this, but an explicit amendment to get rid of an asinine interpretation would get tribalized instantly into an attack on America (“CHANGE THE FIRST AMENDMENT?! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA”). I’m dead certain that would be the play. Rather than seeing that it’s how the system is supposed to work. (Think of the Chisholm v. Georgia ruling and the 11th Amendment. Yes, it is the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. And when enough of us are like, you know what, no, we have mechanisms built in to enable us to win. Popular sovereignty, baby. Except… That’s one of those really great ideas that once it makes contact with the real world, is beautifully theoretical and hopelessly naive.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com