This is the kind of worthless comment I hoped would never become commonplace on Hacker News. There's no argument here. There's no point. It's just an snide jab with an information content of zero. If you disagree with the article, say specifically why. If you agree, say specifically why.
I think wavephorm makes a valid point. The government has been giving huge sums to the banking industry to bail it out, a fact. And a tiny fraction of that to entrepreneurs, also a fact.
If the US had more startup-friendly policies, you could imaging a $100B fund, still 1/40th of the banking industry bailout, that could have a huge positive effect.
Being aware of the disparity is the first step toward correcting it.
No, because instead of saying this he just had a snarky remark. Exactly what financial issues of recent times is he taking issue with? The TARP bailout? The stimulus? Is he arguing that this project in and of itself would produce more benefit for the financial industry than entrepreneurs? I can't nail down his position because he didn't use enough words to explain his point.
Aside: Using "banksters" is like using "M$"; all it does is show everyone that you can't make your point without resorting to the maturity of a 5-year-old.
Giving or lending? I can't find accurate numbers. Much of the money was loaned to companies to weather the crisis. It had to be paid back. How would lending to a bunch of risky startups make things better? The govt should create an environment where it is desirable for entrepreneurs and investors to take risks.
Anyway, whining about the financial crisis and saying they got more is pointless. What is the best way to create a system in which startups can thrive? Guaranteed loans for everyone probably isn't the answer.
If I offer to buy something from you worth $1 and give you $100 for it do you consider that a $99 loan?
Yes TARP was paid back by the banks. The bigger problem is the highly overvalued junk assets the government assumed from them though. It's into the trillions and is being downplayed by the media.
He did say why he disagreed--because the amount of this program is minuscule compared to the amount spent on bank bailouts. You can disagree with him, but that sounds like a perfectly valid point to me.
There are 3 other comments in this thread so far. Care to explain how mine differs from them?
If you disagree with the article, say specifically why. If you agree, say specifically why.
My succinct point was that the US federal government has given literally trillions of dollars to US banking institutions, while giving little to nothing to people who create jobs. Giving a bit of funding to entrepreneurs is maybe a step in the right direction for a change.
