Why is the feature being called a bug?
Sep. 26th, 2008 10:30 amSome of the modifications that have been proposed to the Paulson Plan for the Wall Street bailout are:
1) rescue with ownership--in return for the 700 billion, the government gets equity (stock) in rescued companies, which the government can then sell when the companies are doing better, to get some or all of our tax dollars back or even make a profit.
2) clamping down on executive compensation (which frankly looks pretty outrageous to me--remember that the average American makes about 2.5 million dollars in a lifetime, when you're looking at those salaries) for a year or two after the rescue.
The explanation for why we shouldn't do these things?
They would discourage companies from taking advantage of the bailout.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it standard practice to make sure that entities don't get government money unless they actually need it? So wouldn't measures that discouraged companies from sucking up taxpayer dollars if they weren't actually hurting, be a feature? You know, as opposed to a bug?
1) rescue with ownership--in return for the 700 billion, the government gets equity (stock) in rescued companies, which the government can then sell when the companies are doing better, to get some or all of our tax dollars back or even make a profit.
2) clamping down on executive compensation (which frankly looks pretty outrageous to me--remember that the average American makes about 2.5 million dollars in a lifetime, when you're looking at those salaries) for a year or two after the rescue.
The explanation for why we shouldn't do these things?
They would discourage companies from taking advantage of the bailout.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it standard practice to make sure that entities don't get government money unless they actually need it? So wouldn't measures that discouraged companies from sucking up taxpayer dollars if they weren't actually hurting, be a feature? You know, as opposed to a bug?