Ask HN: What do you look for in an applicant's GitHub? - <AUTHOR> I'm a self-taught JavaScript guy / solo-preneur & have been thinking of seeking part-time / contract work.
Skill-wise I consider myself (FWIW) between 'mid-level' & 'experienced', but having never worked professionally as a dev, I'm uncertain about hiring expectations, particularly wrt code samples. Most of my code is closed source, so I'm looking to build-out my public stuff.
When you review an applicant's publicly available code, what's important for you to see?  My assumption is that reviewing a repo is akin to reviewing a portfolio / resume (i.e., very quick), so how have applicants "wow'd" you in the past? (I mean short of obvious rockstar qualifications, like 'React core developer,' etc.) <comment><USER2> I don't use github content as a criteria, at all. Not everyone uses github as a portfolio. Not everyone uses github at all. Some people just store stuff there, not worrying about the quality it may communicate to the world. Other people work primarily in private repositories, so their public data doesn't tell you much. Someone could just have a bunch of forks of other people's work, which they dabble with. And newer coders are often learning quickly, so their code from even a few months ago is not representative of the effort they would put in professionally if hired today.

<comment><USER3> I agree with your comment, just wanted to point out that:

> Someone could just have a bunch of forks of other people's work, which they > dabble with

is quite easy to spot: those repositories will have "Forked from user/repo" below the repository name (on top of the page, and also in the list of repos of a user). If they committed their dabbling, that is almost certainly on top if you go to the commits screen.

<comment><USER4> > If they committed their dabbling, that is almost certainly on top if you go > to the commits screen.

If they committed their dabbling _right_ , and the default branch is still master, it will be in another branch, possibly with a PR attached. It's certainly possible to use a fork master directly, but I think it's a quickly learned lesson to only use a fork master for upstream tracking. (How far behind a tracking branch like that is can be informative, sometimes.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not everyone can post their work on GitHub, so I only look at their profile if they list it on their resume. I figure if you put it there, you want me to see it.

For early-career people (with limited work experience in the field) I look to see what tutorials they've done. I don't expect high code quality, but active engagement instead of copy-paste is nice to see.

If they've contributed to any OSS projects I look at things like:

\- How they interact with maintainers and other people

\- The quality of their PRs if any

\- How well they communicate issues and file bugs. Attitude

matters a lot (offering helpful ways to reproduce it and suggestions rather than attacking the project for faults)

If they have any of their own projects I look at code quality. I deal mostly with Python and it's pretty easy to tell from a glance how experienced the person is. Things like following lint/style and style guides but also readability in general. You can smell out a C/JS programmer who just learned Python pretty easily (lots of for loops with indexes, for example).

If they collaborate on projects with others that's a huge plus. I look for signs of active collaboration, like PRs with good code review.

Basically I want to make sure:

\- They're not exaggerating their experience (though GitHub profiles can be out of date)

\- They work well with others

Again, just because a GitHub profile is sparse or missing some of these things isn't a signal. Not everyone does their work on GitHub. But if you list it in your resume, expect me to read it.

<comment><USER6> > How they interact with maintainers and other people

> The quality of their PRs if any

> How well they communicate issues and file bugs. Attitude

That information is extremely valuable when available. When looking at profiles, if I see a person can't parse information provided by other maintainers, or put in a due diligence into narrowing down or solving a problem when filing bugs I will reject them without even a first phone screen (exceptions when the PR/comments are old, etc.).

But it's rare to come across this information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I look for signs of understanding.

I want to see an understanding of git - they have repos with appropriate commits, good commit messages, awareness of licensing, decent READMEs or info for collaborators

I want to feel like they understand how open source works - they've filed or participated in issues/discussions, they've starred/forked repos, they've opened PRs, they've managed issues/PRs on their own repos.

I want to see how they manage their projects/repos. Do they use a package manager? Do they have linting or build tools? Do they use CI? Have they kept the repo clean and ready for others? Do they use automated testing?

I don't expect to see _all_ of this - but if someone has _none_ of it, it's clear they have a lot to learn and aren't ready for the job.

<comment><USER8> This comment reads like argument for not putting most of random personal code people write on github. It can harm you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For me, it would be signs of a sensible structure and use of commits. It is _extremely_ offputting to see some obvious code dump, with like 2 commits in total (one of which is "fixd typo lol"), no real directory structure, etc.

A repository is an opportunity to show off how good you are at organizing a project, breaking down your commits, etc. Only after any of that looks promising, will I bother to read any code (after all, it takes time to understand something and the harder it is to grok the less likely I'll spend the time).

<comment><USER10> So what? I use Github for any code that I want to share. I'm sorry my weekend project only has two commits. I didn't realize I was being scrutinized for every tiny detail. Would you like every social media post as well to make sure I'm perfect 100% of the time, even in informal situations where perfection is not expected?

I would not want to work with/for you.

<comment><USER11> It should be like this:

well-organized github > chaotic github >> no github

instead, when employers evaluate github profiles, they reason like this:

well-organized github > no github >> chaotic github

<comment><USER12> >It should be like this:

>well-organized github > chaotic github >> no github

I don't like to share my random projects on github, just like I don't like to share my life on facebook, fuck me right?

<comment><USER13> Anecdotal of course, but in my experience, when hiring professional engineers, neither I nor anyone I know would judge someone for not having a Github page to look at. If they have one, great, I'll take a look, but if not, no big deal. It's not an expectation at non-startup tech companies.

I've heard some people here on HN occasionally say that if an applicant doesn't have a Github page to look at, they will think less of them and maybe not even give them an interview. I always imagine the people who say this as being guys in their early-to-mid-20s who are fresh out of school, never worked anywhere outside their comfort zone, are still within a comfy bubble of friends and family, and went directly to the startup path where they are learning about stuff like recruiting and management in real time (if not outright making it up as they go along). I don't know if that's a fair characterization- it probably is unfair and inaccurate. But that's the stereotypical person my subconscious imagines those posts come from.

The silver lining is, if someone doesn't give you an interview because you lack a Github page, you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

<comment><USER14> >It's not an expectation at non-startup tech companies.

Not true in the slightest. Before you get to talk to the engineers like this, you must first pass the HR filter.

HR are not engineers, but they think they see a parallel to their own work.

In HR, all HR applicants are expected to have a linkedin page, because linkedin makes HR's life a lot easier. I have Strong Opinions about this state of affairs, but none the less, there is a hovering perception in most HR offices of "if you don't have a linkedin page, how good at your job can you really be?".

So then HR hears the engineers talking about github and profiles and sharing code and they dig a bit, and they often decide that github is basically linkedin for engineers. Lets be real, they're kinda right in some ways.

But they're dead wrong in others. Lets not get sidetracked, but just say there are valid reasons some people don't use it. Engineers have the full picture and know this. Like you say, most professional engineers won't judge you for not having github.

However, HR lacks the context to understand this, and so they increasingly throw out engineering CV's that don't include a github link. It's a growing problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As someone that has interviewed hundreds of people. Nothing unless they really want me to look at it.

As someone that still loves to code even tho I'm in management, I've found out that writing beautiful code get's in the way of getting shit done!

When I code for myself, it's either to explore or practice. Beautiful code is not the goal. If I'm exploring a new idea, then one thing I like to do is to make it happen as fast as possible by any means necessary. I don't care about comment, duplication, abstraction, tests, optimization.

That's what you will find in my github, I don't do resume driven development where I write code hoping to get hired because of it.

</comment><comment><USER16> It depends on the person and my expectations for the role. The best people have everything, including jobs! So I make it a rule not to expect perfection, helps prevent disappointment.

When I'm evaluating candidates from a resume, if they have a link to a Github or personal website I'll visit it about a fifth of the time. I'll open up a couple repos and make note of what they look like.

Are they school projects? That's fine but not necessarily indicative of anything since most academic code is write-once, run-once for an assignment.

Does it look like a personal project? Great! This is what I'm most interested in.

Is it easy to understand what the project is before reading the source code? README files and a clear directory structure/file names can go a long way here.

If I look at the source code, how is the readability? Do they have good variable names (i.e. not a, b, c,..,z) and use the idioms of their programming language?

Bonus points for good comments. Triple word score if I can understand the code without comments.

I'll go through a couple repos this way and use whichever one is best to inform my initial bias. I think it's always a good idea to assume best intent when interviewing someone. I've had some people I wasn't that excited about in an interview become my favorite coworkers over time.

PS - Here's a project of mine I'd consider a "good" example. Mostly the number of unfinished {- TODO -} comments in src/Lib.hs would hurt me here, were I evaluating myself. [https://github.com/cbzehner/word- frequency](https://github.com/cbzehner/word-frequency)

</comment><comment><USER17> I want to be able to understand what the project is about, and get a high- level understanding of how it works.

Our hiring process starts with a phone interview and there's a quick technical discussion (mostly there to avoid wasting time if the candidate's skills obviously do not match what we need). A live coding exercise is hard to set up and takes a while to perform, if only because the candidate needs some time to understand the question and gather some elementary insights. So, instead, I ask the candidate to explain some code that they have written, and I expect them to be articulate and knowledgeable about it.

So I want to be able to find a commit or file that can serve as a basis for an in-depth discussion relevant to the kind of work that the position involves. If I'm hiring for web front-end, then client-side JavaScript will have to be involved. If I'm hiring for Big Data, then high-performance code, low-level code, or distributed/parallel code will be good. If I'm hiring for Compiler Design, then a toy (or non-toy) compiler is nice.

I will tell the candidate ahead of time about the commit/file that I find interesting (or even ask them for pointers to help me pick one). That way, if they join me on the phone interview and have no idea what their code is doing, that's the end of the line.

I don't really care about code quality. Obviously, if the code is so bad that it's impossible to understand, that's bad news, but most of the time the code is readable, it's just missing comments, or has variables like `item2`, or functions that are too long, or other stuff that you would expect in an open source project. That's fine, because it leads into two very powerful questions in this type of interview: "Are you happy with the quality of this code?" (the correct answer is "no") and "If you had a few weeks just to improve this project, what would you do ?" (I expect insights about refactoring, or improving test coverage or even improving testing/validation strategy, or adding comments).

</comment><comment><USER18> Things that set off alarms:

\+ Lots of unmodified forks or tutorials. A few is fine but too many is suspicious.

\+ Tons of empty repos

Things I like:

\+ Lots of messing with different projects even unsuccessful work

\+ Side projects, even incomplete ones

\+ A mix of languages/designs/idioms

Super awesome things:

\+ OSS contributions

\+ Working well with others

\+ Good branching

<comment><USER15> I use github to track repos I'm interested in. I'll fork it. I've seen projects just disappear.

I fork tutorials for the same reason or even good tutorials I want to keep for those I mentor.

:-)

<comment><USER19> I set up a separate organization ("milesforks") specifically for this purpose. This way my main profile is not polluted with forks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Different projects have different needs certainly, but its nice to see a readme that gives me some context to what the project is, and how to actually run the code, install needed dependencies if it's not obvious. Also probably worth acknowledging shortcomings or places for improvement in the readme, so your reader is aware that you're aware of any deficiencies.

</comment><comment><USER21> I occasionally interview candidates for a small software team (less than 10 developers). When evaluating a candidate's GitHub account, I look for any non- forked projects (projects that they created/own), then I look at the structure, code, documentation, and commit history of those projects.

At that point, the quality of the project can either help or hurt the candidate:

\- The most important thing is that whatever project content they have, it is understandable. The ability to write sensible code that follows conventions and is well-documented (in code and commit history) is highly desirable.

\- Ideally, they'd have an open source project with recent releases, issues, milestones, contributors, PRs, etc. (basically all the signs of a healthy open-source project). If they had this, then they'd be way ahead of most candidates.

\- It's easier to evaluate docs and commit messages than it is to evaluate code quality, but I do try to pick out a few files and have a look to see if they make sense.

</comment><comment><USER22> Honestly, the main thing I'm looking for is that they have a Github account that's more than a couple of weeks old and has some sort of content in it. That shows me that the applicant is interested in programming for its own sake and not just checking a box to make their resume look good. Everything beyond that is just a nice-to-have.

</comment><comment><USER23> I went through a round of resume filtering and interviewing for interns recently, but I'd use a similar process for FTEs (just less lenient probably). I mainly used the Github profiles (for those who had them) as another seed for questions besides the resume itself, and it could give me a feel for how well they'd do on our simple coding challenge. For example one candidate checked some API keys into his projects, those are generally supposed to be non- public. I asked about the dangers of accidentally committing private keys in general and he talked about AWS keys and relayed a story of compromise that happened to a friend, then I asked what a main problem of checking in API keys could be and he mentioned rate limiting denials. So he understood the problems, I asked why he had API keys in some of his repos, turned out to be he thought he had disabled the ones that were checked in (at least one I tried wasn't) and they were for hackday projects anyway. With some context on it, and other discussion, all in all I was happy with him.

I try not to let presence or absence of Github matter (and in general I try to differentiate on common information rather than lucking out to see a very negative / very positive trait in 1/10 candidates that I wasn't explicitly looking for), but I have to admit I like to see a link and like to see at least one project on it of any size and not just a sea of forks with no clear individual contributions. Resumes seem to correlate with coding performance terribly, at least if there's public evidence you can code (I'm not too picky on code quality, that's what reviews are for and drive-by open source reviews are non-existent) I don't have to spend as much effort verifying such in an interview.

I'm not looking for rockstars. Using the classic trade ranking system, there are apprentices, journeymen, and masters. Journeymen are essentially interchangeable for most normal tasks starting from scratch, that's what I want to hire and work with most of the time. I can live with a sharp apprentice, especially if the apprentice is pretty skilled in the usual domain we already work in. Since I'm not a master myself, and I can think of no more hostile and futile way of attracting them than standard software interview practices I'm forced to somewhat conform to, I don't try to get them.

</comment><comment><USER24> Something that's important to me is code that is commented. Well-commented code (documentation for each function, explanations behind complex if statements and loops, etc.) earns bonus points. Conversely, when I see screens and screens of code without a single comment that sets off red flags.

Due to the nature of my current role, writing documentation is necessary so that other team members can pick up where you left off if something happens to you (or you just go on vacation).

<comment><USER25> Interviewers like yourself are great red-flags everyone need to look for in a company during the interview as well as during initial screening.

If a company relies on (outdated, in most cases) comments and not the code itself its an immediate signal for an interviewee to re-evaluate this company and decide whether or not its the place he or she actually wants to be a part of.

Very important to mention that it goes both ways: if I need to read your comment in order to understand your code, there is something wrong with your code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I generally only look for the 'bigger' projects, and only really bother if it is explicitly mentioned as a thing to look at (e.g. used this open source project/language). Even then my criteria is the same I would approach to a source code review:

1\. Is the code well formatted? If you haven't been someplace where it is bad, you might not understand how bad can be. I'm not going to give someone on a pass on something even the worst editor can do great.

2\. Does it look awful to build? I have seen projects presented to me that have no Makefile or appropriate mechanism to build the code successfully but 50+ source files. The exception here is obviously templates or ~1-2 file projects to solve a real problem. I don't want to hire someone who can't build software, or make their software nice to build.

If those first two criteria aren't covered I'll skip to my last criteria:

3\. Lack of input validation/error handling/logging errors.

4\. Knowing common language constructs. Even in learner projects I want to see that you know how code should _feel_ in that language. Python is one of the ones where this is most obvious, Java is one of the ones where it is least obvious so this is a subjective piece.

5\. Does it feel like original work or tutorial spam? Where's the artistic flair or the completely engineered and mechanical thing that made this more than a 2 hour project, and worth your time?

The main thing is that your resume should strongly reflect that you want to change careers as a dev and you want to demonstrate your skills via GitHub. I would not go fishing unless you ask. I'm going to look at your technical experience and general work history and ask you just as many questions about those kinds of things.

</comment><comment><USER27> An empty, boring, or bad GitHub account never hurts, but a good one can definitely help. Things I'm looking for are interesting projects, contributions to other projects (perhaps ones I know about), good discipline in git commits, well organized code, attention to detail (as in code style), and good interactions in tickets and code reviews. I'm not interested in whether or not your GitHub projects use any particular languages or technologies that are relevant to the role.

There's this idea that no one should be expected to spend their spare time working on open source, which is fair. However, that are many candidates that do, and it helps a lot with the screening process. We might waste more of your time and ours if we have to coax out the kind of insight that I can get from a GitHub profile over the course of several phone screens and IRL interviews.

</comment><comment><USER28> I primarily look for signs of the ability and interest in self-teaching. A front-end developer exploring the backend? Great! A backend developer playing with probabilistic systems? Super!. A java developer branching out into Scala/Clojure/Rust/Haskell etc? Even better!

For those that won't look at Github because not everyone has an account. That doesn't make sense. Whether or not the candidate has a Github account is not a litmus test, its just additional useful information. If they have an account that may tell you something useful about the candidate. If they don't have an account, then you have to rely on other approaches to get that information.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have a pretty active Github. When interviewing I talked about it and put a link in my resume. People very rarely check it, but it gave me talking points when the tech of some old project matched the company's stack.

</comment><comment><USER30> Multiple projects of interest (not just commercial), ideally with significantly different languages and problem domains. The ability to write clear documentation. Definitely not a pile of cloned repos with no contributed changes.

</comment><comment><USER31> A well-developed README that promotes the project. Screenshots, explanations, an FAQ, release notes, info for collaborators, links to download or test.

Basically, the github repo as a homepage for a product rather than just a dump of text files.

This shows that your thing is a _finished project_ or under ongoing development rather than just a dump of some source code that you once wrote. It's the equivalent of having an app _on the app store_ vs. having a half- baked Xcode project on a computer.

</comment><comment><USER32> I try my hardest not to do any 'grading' based on someone's github, but instead use it as a reference of what I can expect when the candidate gets to the interview. There's always a feeling out point at the beginning of the interview. I don't want to waste time hashing out things they clearly understand and likewise I don't want to throw them something over their head. Looking at their Github helps give me a starting point.

</comment><comment><USER33> First, I want to see contributions to flagship opensource projects. If you are using opensource stacks and pushing the envelope, you will eventually have to fix bugs or implement new features. Landing patches means the applicant is able to meet the high bar for contributions (code quality, documentation, tests).

Then I want to see side projects using the same stack that will be used internally by the applicant. You can tell a lot about someone by his code style.

</comment><comment><USER34> I look for many things but don't hold it against you if your GitHub/Bitbucket/GitLab/etc doesn't reflect it.

Your profile can give me some evidence that you know how to code, use version control, write documentation, etc. -- but just because your projects don't have CI/CD (or whatever) doesn't mean you don't know how to use it just that I don't have evidence that you know how to use it.

</comment><comment><USER35> If I'm investing the time to look at her/his github, I have probably already invited the candidate over for an interview, or am seriously considering doing so. I'm looking for anything that gives me an insight into the way the candidate approaches problems, than I can then use to further the interview.

Any github that contains more than just course work is fine for that.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'm not sure I've ever bothered to look at an applicant's github account. I wouldn't expect to learn much from it. I am amused to imagine just how strange someone's impression of me would likely be, were they to derive it from the random collection of experimental hacks in my personal github account.

</comment><comment><USER37> Here in Toronto I always ask, have you looked at the source code I shared? And the answer is no.

I have lots of source code open to private to share, and its just because I'm a workaholic, though I find having source code doesn't matter, at least not here since they don't put much value in it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Do the people here preaching github being a useful tool for candidate evaluation realize there are private repos? I use github everyday but none of the outsiders looking at it are going to get a sense for my coding style because they can't see the content of the commits.

<comment><USER39> Yes. I am guessing they are taking that into account and expect you to do the same.

Getting some code public now and then will the outside world get that 'sense' easier than other methods.

I've ran into this where both my day job code and side project code are proprietary. I looked at my github profile and felt underrepresented. Now I have the goal to push something public here and there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Realistically, pretty much anything sane is a plus, because most applicants don't even have github account. AlSo realistically, have a good readme because that is the thing most hiring managers will read (unlike codebase).</comment>


Sharing your Netflix, or ANY online password is now a federal crime - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/11/a-court-ruled-that-it-could-be-a-federal-crime-to-share-your-netflix-password/ <comment><USER2> No, it isn't. What a BS clickbait title because the ruling only applies in this specific case. It isn't applicable to all cases.

</comment><comment><USER3> This should be removed as it says sharing any password is now a federal crime, yet the title of the linked article says "could" not is, which is a major difference.

And it even says explicitly that the ruling wouldn't presumably apply to things such as "sharing a Netflix password."

@Esalman, please read the full article before posting.

</comment><comment><USER4> lol. murica</comment>


Hacker News Nation is Live  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onemonthrails.com/hacker-news-nation-episode-1/

<comment><USER2> I love the idea. And this deserves more attention. But two gripes:

1.) "Hacker News Nation is Live" is a very ambiguous headline. A lot of people who would've found this interesting never clicked through because what is this? How about, "Here's an explanation of and some context on xyz story". Idk, my inner copywriter died about 3 shots ago, i'm sure you can do better.

2.) The appeal here is "we'll decipher stories you don't get." So why are the four stories you cover devoid of any technical content?

Stories from today I'd love to have someone explain to me:

Twitter bootstrap Facebook and D The Dnspwn attack

Stories that are obvious: FixYT, Github is not your resume,

I especially don't need elaborated on things that are obvious from the headline: "Amazon to Begin Sunday Deliveries, With Post Office's Help"

</comment><comment><USER3> So far I've watched 11 minutes and haven't really learned anything about startups or programming

</comment><comment><USER3> Skip the first 3 minutes

<comment><USER4> wish i would have met you 2:30 ago ;(

<comment><AUTHOR> ah! But then you wouldn't know how many beers = 1 kombucha</comment></comment></comment>


Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html <comment><USER2> I would add that intelligent _and successful_ people maintain a public religious affiliation even if privately they think it's all a bunch of hooey. If the community/customers believe you believe in a higher power, your are considered "one of them" and they simply trust you more. Knowing someone has the "fear of god" sits better with religious folk than someone who simply answers to their own morals and principles.

/ducks

<comment><USER3> _than someone who simply answers to their own morals and principles._

So let me understand this correctly -- it's okay to lie and be two-faced with both yourself and others for the sake of gaining trust (on false premises) from others?

Nice system of morals you have there.

<comment><USER4> Without going into the issue of whether or not it's okay to lie... there's nothing "false" about the trust it gains you. If I ask you to _tell a lie that I specify_ in order to prove your loyalty to me, and you do it, I gain _more_ trust in you than if I'd just asked you to tell the truth.

What does your loyalty to rational truth tell me? Only that you're smart, and paying attention, and that you don't necessarily care what I think. Your willingness to conform to _my_ arbitrary set of "lies", on the other hand, speaks volumes about your loyalty to _me_.

That's why hazing rituals tend to involve pain, embarrassment, lawbreaking, or all of the above.

<comment><USER3> I would agree that the trust is not "false" and is authentic, but all this other malarky about "loyalty" still ignores the underlying issue - and that is a complete failure in this system of "intelligent" morality that rationalizes being two-faced for the sake of winning over more people.

I know my system of morality values establishing trust in relationships by telling the truth, not through deception. If a little less success and loyalty is the result, I am more than willing to be "less successful".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence."

This is a correlation, not causation. If you study the period of Islamic Golden Age (comparable to the European Renaissance), you'll find people at that time were highly religious; more religious than the Muslims from this era.

<comment><USER6> Interesting but during both the Renaissance and 'Golden Age' non belief was punishable by death or at best imprisonment so 'everyone' was essentially religious. Of course, your point still stands, correlation not causation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The funniest outcome of research like this is the wannabes...who pick their position on religion not based on their own reflections and intellect, but in an attempt to be perceived as more intelligent by choosing atheism.

</comment><comment><USER8> Let me remind you that converse is not true. Being an atheist doesnt make you smart.

</comment><comment><USER9> Could y'all go back to reddit? Please?

<comment><USER10> Funny: After I visited the page and then clicked 'Back', I was expecting to see Reddit -- I had forgotten the link came from Hacker News.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Trying to keep things slightly on topic for hacker news: out of curiosity, what is the believer/non-believer ratio in the software community compared to the population at large? My totally unscientific guess is that it's much lower than the US average, but I was curious what others thought.

</comment><comment><USER12> It took a study to figure this out? Seems to me that it's been a growing trend since the late 90s and early 00's.</comment>


Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/08/we-can-t-wait-obama-administration-announces-2-billion-resources-support?spMailingID=2405268&spJobID=34909673&spReportId=MzQ5MDk2NzMS1&spUserID=ODQ5NDAwOTg1S0 <comment><USER2> Throwing $2B at startups isn't going to create a new generation of entrepreneurs.

1\. Fix the healthcare system. Right now, you're punished if you don't work for a large company in the sense that you're charged up the wazoo for health insurance. Work for a large company and it's close to free.

2\. Fix student loans. One could argue don't go to college but I think we can agree there's some value to good schools.

3\. Educate tomorrow's would-be entrepreneurs. A lot of America is taught to go to college and get a job at a large corporation after. Let's shift the perspective. Let kids know that starting your own business is a possibility and not something to be ashamed of.

<comment><USER3> > 1\. Fix the healthcare system. Right now, you're punished if you don't work > for a large company in the sense that you're charged up the wazoo for health > insurance. Work for a large company and it's close to free.

No, it's not "almost free". It's paid for by the company.

And yes, paying yourself is tax-deductible in many circumstances.

I've actually paid for health insurance out of pocket as an "older american". Rent was more expensive.

That said, healthcare could be a lot less expensive, but since much of that expense comes from govt involvement, it's unclear why anyone would think that even more govt involvement would help.

For example, there are a lot of procedures for which I don't want coverage, but thanks to govt requirements, I can't opt out and pay less.

> 2\. Fix student loans. One could argue don't go to college but I think we > can agree there's some value to good schools.

Student loans are one way to pay college costs. The method of payment doesn't actually affect the costs much.

Increased student aid seems to increase college cost.

<comment><USER4> The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on healthcare but Canada has universal health care. On average the US and Canadian healthcare systems provide vary similar outcomes on average.

So, clearly more government involvement is an option. But, so is less the US could save a ridiculous amount of money if we could stop wasting it on end of life care that proves little to no benefit. Healthcare is an endless money sink and because the US government agrees to hand over money with little veto power we have are left with the _worst_ healthcare system money can buy.

Just think about this for a second would you rather have an extra 250,000$ to spend when your young, or have a 50/50% shot of spending an extra 2 months on your death bead in a semi lucid state?

<comment><USER3> > The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on > healthcare but Canada has universal health care.

As does the US, it just doesn't go by that name.

Yes, there is free healthcare in the US. It isn't unlimited and you can buy better, but the same is true of Canada.

However, I'll note that the US govt directly pays for about half of US healthcare (employees, etc.). If US govt healthcare will be so good, why isn't it? (Half of the population is enough to prove what it can do.)

However, I'm willing to give Obama free rein over US govt paid healthcare to show how much better it can be. All I ask is that he spends the same per- person this year, 10% less per person the 2nd year, and 20% less the third year. (Since govt healthcare advocates claim far more savings to be had, this should be easy.)

FWIW, pointing out how the US govt can't do healthcare isn't much of an argument for more US govt involvement in healthcare....

<comment><USER5> Going to the emergency room when you're on the brink of death doesn't count as "free healthcare," no matter how many times they beat their chest claiming it is. Emergency room healthcare is significantly more expensive than getting your blood pressure checked every couple of months.

The right to healthcare isn't something that only applies to the emergency room.

<comment><USER3> > Going to the emergency room when you're on the brink of death doesn't count > as "free healthcare,"

So?

You're ignoring medicaid and the free clinics that are in many areas. Medicaid is especially interesting because the vast majority of the "poor uninsured" are eligible and get signed up as soon as they actually need care.

Both programs are fairly well publicized, so it's interesting that you mentioned emergency care as if it's the only option.

And there's a third option which is less well known. With the possible exception of much of Alaska (due to population density), every county has a public hospital that provides free healthcare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm disappointed by the amount of political commenting on this post, as opposed to what I was hoping to find—discussion of how the fund will actually work and how to take advantage of the various elements of the initiative.

I'm trying to make sense of the press release, but finding it difficult. It's full of announcements, but seems to be missing any calls to action.

There's more information at the SBA - <http://www.sba.gov/startupamerica>

It contains this promising paragraph: "…the gap is particularly acute in the so called "Valley of Death" for financing rounds between $1-4 million. Over the past 4 years only 6% of all venture capital has been deployed in that stage … The Innovation Fund will target this gap, providing a 1:1 match to private capital raised by early stage seed funds."

Does this mean that access to money in this fund is only through existing VC firms? Or does it mean something else?

If anyone can extract the actionable information from all this static, please do share.

It would be great to know if new funding methods were actually opening up, or if this is just an infusion of cash to VCs.

<comment><USER7>
      It's full of announcements, but seems to be missing any
      calls to action.

Ok. Here is the call to action: hire a lobbyist or ex-Congressman who will get you in front of Startup America. Preferably a large bundler like George Kaiser. They will get you sweetheart loans and endorsements from the President and Vice President.

We've seen this dozens of times before when "free money" is available. Scarcity requires an allocation mechanism. In the case of the very similar Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Tax Credit (QTDTC) from last year, those who lobbied were those who got the bling.

      http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2010/10/winners_losers_in_race_to_biotech_tax_credits.html

      Clearly somebody — probably a few thousand somebodies —
      are going to lose out.

      ...

      The takeaway for those biotech companies that miss out on
      the tax credit, according to Eisenberg: Tell your member
      of Congress to extend and expand the program.

And as with the QTDTC there will be a catch. Failure is criminalized. The failure of Solyndra prompted an FBI raid. What did the executives know and when did they know it? All government "grants" are like this. For example, to get the biotech "Qualifying Therapeutic Discovery Tax Credit" from last year, you had to essentially submit to an IRS audit.

      http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=224505,00.html

      Q5. What type of documentation and records related to the
      application should applicants maintain in order to satisfy
      IRS requirements in the event of a future audit of
      "qualified investment" claims?

      A. Documentation and recordation should include
      information sufficient to verify and explain costs treated
      as qualified investments, e.g., detailed work papers and
      invoices.

Translation: embarrass us and we will retroactively find your definition of "qualified investment" to be at variance with that of the IRS. Bottom line, it is unlikely this program will be substantively different from those preceding it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fixing the immigration and patent systems would be infinitely more helpful (i.e. stop getting in the way).

<comment><USER9> Congress has to do that, the executive branch can't. To the extent that the executive branch is streamlining the existing immigration system, they're being derided as amnesty-offering traitors by the xenophobic know-nothings that want Berlin Wall 2.0.

<comment><USER10> Just as a side note, you really don't want an executive branch that can do that (fixing the immigration and patent systems).

edit: sorry if it didn't end up as clear as it should

<comment><USER11> Works OK for countries with parliamentary democracies.

<comment><USER12> Parliamentary democracies still have distinct executive branches.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but they are usually appointed by the majority party of parliament and its leader becomes head of government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Let a thousand Solyndras bloom!

But seriously, exempting smaller firms and fundraising efforts from costly regulations is a good part of this initiative. Routing public funds through private investors, not so much.

While they're at it, they should completely eliminate the wealth tests for 'accredited investor' status. If some fig leaf of 'accreditation' is still needed, it should be experience-based or net-worth proportional. For example, everyone with certain business/economics/legal degrees or certifications (Series 7?) should be 'accredited' as knowledgeable enough for private investing. Or, anyone who has an equivalent amount of money in public investments or government-approved retirement accounts, should be able to invest that same amount with 'accredited' status in private investments.

<comment><USER8> I don't recommend angel investing for anyone who can't afford to lose a fairly substantial amount of money, which pretty much excludes anyone who isn't already an accredited investor. Finding the next Facebook or Google is a lot harder than you might think, and even if you did, they probably don't want your money. You are better off investing in your own self (education and the like).

Eliminating the wealth test would mainly benefit scammers.

<comment><USER14> I wouldn't 'recommend' it either. But there's a difference between 'not recommending' and 'effectively prohibiting via a wealth test'.

We don't prevent people from spending their entire net worth, and then some via loans, on poker or state lottery tickets. Nor do we include wealth tests against investing in public stocks, derivatives, real-estate, or dubious collectables – all of which can also 'go to zero' quite quickly, especially with easy access to leverage.

Is private investing, especially in things like friends/family/personal- expertise-related startups, so much more treacherous than these other things that it alone needs special protections?

<comment><USER8> Public stocks and the like are heavily regulated. If we let random people invest in startups, a bunch of people would get scammed out of their money, then there would be calls for more regulation to protect investors, which would only serve to hurt startups. Meanwhile, none of those little investors would make any money because the median startup is a bad investment (vs the median public company, which is an ok investment). Nearly all of the startup returns come from a small number of outliers, and those outliers will most likely continue getting funding from larger investors.

<comment><USER14> Public stocks and the like are heavily regulated, yes, _and they can still drive anyone's bankroll to zero_. And via leverage or iteration you can make them as risky and rapid-loss-prone as private investments (or even outright scams). See for example: forex, real-estate, and casino ads in every medium.

So this rule protects fools from losing their money in private investing, but they still have a thousand other ways to lose their money. Meanwhile, this rule also prevents lots of people of moderate means from making wise, moderate investments in areas they know well.

These sorts of from-the-masses, for-the-masses investments wouldn't necessarily follow the valley hit-driven model of "nearly all of the startup returns come from a small number of outliers".

But even if they did, why shouldn't people of all wealth levels be able to take their chances on finding an outlier? The current rule essentially says: the very best investments are only, by legal rule, allowed to the already- wealthy. Everyone else, here, buy a scratch-off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Maybe Obama should stop "investing", we've seen how that turned out with Solyndra, Light Squared, Fisker Automotive, etc.

Maybe Obama and the Federal government shouldn't be in charge of "fixing" economic aspects of society, as that is not what the founding fathers of this country intended, and that is not really within the authority of Congress.

Government picking winners and losers is a proven way to eradicate innovation and destroy wealth.

No thanks.

<comment><USER16> > Maybe Obama and the Federal government shouldn't be in charge of "fixing" > economic aspects of society, as that is not what the founding fathers of > this country intended, and that is not really within the authority of > Congress.

demonstrably not true. think the US federal postal service, department of treasury, the patent system, right to regulate and tax trade. All of which helps to both "fix", promote and tax economic activity throughout the nation. Also keep in mind that those same founding fathers whose "intent" you seem to want to honor, birthed a country where neither women or black people (for the most part, as slaves) were not allowed to vote. So unless you agree with that original state of affairs, clearly their intent can be wrong or evil, in some cases. And therefore just citing their intent is not sufficient to win an argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If you google the "Early Stage Innovation Fund" this is the first result:

Early Stage Innovation Fund - COMING FY 2012 | SBA.gov www.sba.gov/node/15261 Early Stage Innovation Fund - COMING FY 2012. Earlier this year, the President announced the launch of "Startup America," an initiative to support high- growth ...

<http://www.sba.gov/node/15261>

If you go there, you get:

<title>Access denied | SBA.gov</title>

Seems rather fitting for a government effort. Further digging shows that these funds are really only open to VC firms with $20 million in funds already. <http://www.sba.gov/inv/earlystage>

<comment><USER18> What a sham. Obama fail yet again. I can't believe I voted for this guy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Laissez faire, telle devrait être la devise de toute puissance publique, depuis que le monde est civilisé ... Détestable principe que celui de ne vouloir grandir que par l'abaissement de nos voisins! Il n'y a que la méchanceté et la malignité du coeur de satisfaites dans ce principe, et l'intérêt y est opposé. Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!!

(Trans: "Leave it be, that should be the motto of all public powers, as the world is civilized ... That we cannot grow except by lowering our neighbors is a detestable notion! Only malice and malignity of heart is satisfied with such a principle and our (national) interest is opposed to it. Leave it be, for heaven's sake! Leave it be!")

<comment><USER20> There have been developments in our knowledge of the market since 1680 (when that quote was uttered).

<comment><USER19> I was going to respond with something along the lines of "how's that working out for you" but really Alan Greenspan is still a staunch capitalist that would more or less agree with the quote above. If anyone has had the benefit of studying the market since that time it would be him.

Edit: After a minute of posting this I've realized I've committed a logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority. Granted I was responded to a comment based on a logical fallacy (Appeal to Time?) but I would like to expand my thoughts.

The best way to allocate resources is to have knowledgeable parties commence in free exchange. The role of government is to ensure that force and fraud are absent from the marketplace. If there is any further goal of the government it could possibly be encouraging the spread of information, although that is rife with conflicts of interest.

Even if Obama's fund nets a positive return, the cost at which it does is unknown. Pumping money into sectors of the economy mis-aligns investment. The free market is the best allocator of wealth.

<comment><USER20> > The best way to allocate resources is to have knowledgeable parties commence > in free exchange. The role of government is to ensure that force and fraud > are absent from the marketplace. If there is any further goal of the > government it could possibly be encouraging the spread of information, > although that is rife with conflicts of interest.

We have about 50 years of research showing that there are way more barriers to efficient allocations via the market than just information asymmetries. Start here: <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/ribe239.pdf>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Egads - having filled out the application forms for government export grants, I can only imagine all the strings attached, hoops to jump through and everything else.

Use the money to pay down the debt and just relax the regulations on capital formation and hiring and let the private sector do the work. And work some type of internet freedom into the constitution alongside freedom to have guns.

</comment><comment><USER22> If they want to help entrepreneurs then they should give contractors more tax relief. 1099 tax payers get shafted.

</comment><comment><USER23> Oh great so now rather than compete with other entrepreneurs on a level footing we have to compete with companies that are partially owned and funded by the federal government.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Specifically, the President has called for increasing limits on "miniofferings," allowing "crowdfunding," and phasing in some requirements for small firms as they go public."

They are going to ruin a good thing.

<comment><USER25> you read this wrong. they were going to open up crowd sourcing of funds and make it easier to legally start a company from 'crowd sourced' funds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I am so frustrated with these government programs that supply hyperactive, startups (Solyndra! Argh!) with too much funding, then crash and sully the reputation of entire fields with their profligate spending and successive failures.

The scientific grant system is even worse! With the rate of grants being accepted at 5%, everyone becomes extremely conservative. Many professors spend most of their time fundraising, not doing science. There is a good case that science would be progressing faster with no government funding at all.

There are _obvious_ things the government could do to improve entrepreneurship. Like simply not kicking our entrepreneurs out! Stapling a green card to our graduate's diplomas -- the fact that we invest nearly a quarter million dollars in each STEM PHD and then don't let them stay has been a known absurdity for more than decade, yet they still don't fix this problem.

Or how about taxing oil and gas like everything else! Even ignoring the trillions of dollars spent policing the persian gulf region, the tax policies surrounding oil amount to an enormous subsidy, making it cheaper in the US than almost anywhere in the world. Simply taxing it would save the budget and dramatically improve prospects for green energy.

The list goes on. I'm stunned by the collective incompetence of the government in stimulating startup growth. Maybe there are good, structural reasons for inaction in the short term, but these issues have been around for years!

</comment><comment><USER27> Here's my idea, up that to $2T by ending our current wars, forget start-ups, and instead invest it all into installing gigabit fiber to every home in the country. This would assure America's competitive infrastructure edge, and create more market opportunity than we can currently fathom.

</comment><comment><USER28> $2 Billion is probably all that can be afforded until the bigger political battles can be won - ie: the 1% issue and getting corporate tax back into the public coffers. Quite a gamble to take however that the next generation of public funded Delaware startup corps will realize their longer term tax potential.

</comment><comment><USER29> $1 trillion for banks, $1 billion for startups, you can really see how important this administration feels startups are. Why not just tell banks, lend half the money we're giving you to startups, instead of using it to prop up your balance sheets.

<comment><USER30> The bailout was a mess, but I feel there's some truth to what Kissenger wrote a while back: basically, a leader will never be given credit for choosing between two evils (a possible crisis, or a poorly-executed bailout) because you will never be able to prove with certainty how bad the other option would have been. We have no way to truly know what things would be like without the bailout, and we really ought to think of long-lasting solutions. Like funding startups, right?

Frankly, your comparison doesn't make much sense. The administration is making an obvious effort, but there's a big difference between investing in startups and attempting to patch an economy that looks like it will collapse. Investing in startups is quite literally an investment for a future economy. The bailout was a bit of the opposite -- a quick-and-dirty patch up.

<comment><USER31> Some clarity and contact with reality:

"The bailout was a mess"

The efforts of big gumment to get people who couldn't afford a house into one that blew a housing bubble that popped and created the worst financial and economic disaster since the Great Depression "was a mess".

The 'bailout', that is, the TARP program was not "a mess" at all but a grand success:

(1) TARP made money. All or nearly all the money has been paid back with very high interest, about 11% per year.

As far as I know, all the TARP money will be paid back without difficulty.

(2) The money was nothing like a 'bailout' but just loans to tell the world that the institutions would not go bust. So, TARP stopped 'runs' on the banks.

(3) TARP was not a 'bailout' but just to solve a short-term 'liquidity' problem, that is, as in 'runs' on the banks.

Note: A 'liquidity' problem is when you are worth $10 million but have only $500 in cash and suddenly have a traffic ticket for $600 and have to pay up or go to jail right NOW.

You have the money but just don't have it in cash right away; you can get the cash easily enough but will need some days or weeks to do so.

So to solve your 'liquidity' problem, you get a loan using some of your $10 million in assets as collateral. The loan is not really at risk; you pay your $600 bill; then a few weeks later you repay your loan with interest.

You are not broke. You are not begging for welfare. The loan is not a gift. The loan is not at risk. The loan is NOT a 'bailout'.

(4) Secretary Paulson called the nine bank CEOs to DC, sat them on one side of a table with a form in front of them, and told them all, "You WILL sign this form before you leave here today.". They all signed.

Goldman Sachs was one of the nine, didn't want or need the money, signed, took the money, but paid it back, with interest, as soon as Paulson would permit.

(5) Paulson's main point was just to tell the world that those nine banks were NOT bust and, thus, to stop 'runs' on those banks.

What Paulson did was fine. It was a good solution to a serious problem. The effort cost the taxpayers $0.00 and actually showed a nice little profit (11% was HIGH interest for such a loan).

To have not done TARP, we might have had cascading runs on all the major financial institutions in the US and all of the industrialized world and, then, been well into a second Great Depression, WWIII, global nuclear war, etc.

Yet too many people want to leap to call TARP a 'bailout'. It was no such thing.

Lesson: Those sources that call TARP a 'bailout' you should realize are providing toxic sewage in place of information for a well informed citizenry. For such sources, you should put on a rubber suit, hold your nose, dump the swill, pull the chain, and call a toxic dump cleanup crew.

Why do these 'news' sources scream 'bailout'? Because they want to grab you by the heart and the gut so that your eyeballs will follow for their ads and know that to grab you they should scream versions of greed, corruption, danger, scandal, etc.

So, they spout glowing, fuming, bubbling, sticky, toxic nonsense.

If the newsies had actually informed us, then we wouldn't have gotten into the popped housing bubble nonsense in the first place. In Iraq, we would have known that there was no good evidence that Saddam had WMDs. If we invaded Iraq anyway, then we would have dumped the Saddam regime and gotten out in three weeks instead of staying for 10 years and losing 5000 dead, 50,000 wounded, and $1.5 trillion. If we had good information on Akrapistan, then we would have been out'a there years ago. With good information, China wouldn't have wiped out much of our textile, manufacturing, and other industries and been ripping off our intellectual property.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the media was telling us ALL about Brit, Paris, Lindsay, Kim, etc. BUMMER.

Bad information from the newsies, such as screaming 'bailout', is the worst and most dangerous problem facing civilization at present.

PG and HN don't like for me to criticize 'big media', but I do so anyway because the media nonsense is the most dangerous problem facing civilization at present. Sorry PG.

<comment><USER32> (3) TARP was not a 'bailout' but just to solve a short-term 'liquidity' problem, that is, as in 'runs' on the banks.

Note: A 'liquidity' problem is when you are worth $10 million but have only $500 in cash and suddenly have a traffic ticket for $600 and have to pay up or go to jail right NOW.

You have the money but just don't have it in cash right away; you can get the cash easily enough but will need some days or weeks to do so.

So to solve your 'liquidity' problem, you get a loan using some of your $10 million in assets as collateral. The loan is not really at risk; you pay your $600 bill; then a few weeks later you repay your loan with interest.

You are not broke. You are not begging for welfare. The loan is not a gift. The loan is not at risk. The loan is NOT a 'bailout'.

\</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

What would define a 'bailout' as then?

Your example may be a bit extreme. If you're "worth" $10 million, but don't have $500 in liquid cash, you're stupid. You're not prepared for every day eventualities in your line of work (or just life in general). When people are unprepared for otherwise predictable things (washing machine breaks, you need an oil change, flat tire, etc) they have to suck it up and deal with it. They don't get to tie up all their money in investments and have someone loan them money for 100% foreseeable day to day life realities.

"You have the money but just don't have it in cash right away; you can get the cash easily enough but will need some days or weeks to do so."

I get emails from these guys in Nigeria all the time.

"You are not broke. You are not begging for welfare. The loan is not a gift. The loan is not at risk. The loan is NOT a 'bailout'."

Yes, you are broke. No, you're not begging for welfare. But, the loan is a gift to save you from otherwise going to jail.

When normal people in their every day lives don't have a safety net/cushion/rainy-day-fund to fall back on, they're labelled irresponsible, lazy, deadbeats, or charged with "living beyond their means". But if a bank does it... WTF? It's just normal business?

<comment><USER31> "What would define a 'bailout' as then?"

It's to "help" someone in a "predicament". The context is that the someone is in trouble and to need the help is pejorative.

But with this definition, TARP was not a 'bailout'.

Help? The "help" is usually much like a gift and not likely to be paid back. The banks had to pay HIGH interest, and did. The US Treasury made out like vulture capital. In the end it was the banks, and their stockholders, who gave 'help' to the US Treasury and the US taxpayers.

Need? At least Goldman Sachs didn't need the money in any sense.

In most respects, the banks didn't really need the money; that's why they were able to pay back the money quickly with interest.

Any need there was was due just to the liquidity issue.

The main reason Paulson acted was to stop international runs on banks and, thus, save the world from something that stood to be worse than the financial collapse that caused the Great Depression.

Pejorative? Whatever the banks did wrong in blowing the housing bubble, the TARP effort was short term and not really the fault of the banks but caused by the Bear Stearns and Lehman problems and, thus, the FEAR (the seed of a bank run -- remember FDR) in the world that might have led to a run.

Recall also the 1987 stock market crash: Greenspan was at a big meeting, left, went to a phone, got the news, called the major NYC banks and told them "The window at the Fed is open". Greenspan was going to provide liquidity and avoid a liquidity problem that could have done serious damage.

My little example on the meaning of a liquidity problem was pitched at the grade school level. You SHOULD be able to understand it. Your reactions are way, WAY off base. If you don't like the ratio of $600 and $10 million, then assume $1 million and $10 million.

Or improve the example to be a college student who just inherited an office building worth $10 million but needs $600 for a DUI case. He's not broke, but he does have a liquidity problem. He can get the $600 but not in just a few minutes to get out of jail.

In finance, 'liquidity' is a crucial topic; you should quit straining to misunderstand it.

If you want a real example, then when my wife died, I faced $6000 in funeral expenses. I didn't have the $6000 in my checking account. But within the next month, I sold some stock, raised the $6000, and paid the bill. So I had a 'liquidity' problem. I could have borrowed money using the stock as collateral. Such a loan would not have been a 'bailout', or 'help' and nothing pejorative.

<comment><USER33> You seem to have missed the recent story [1] from Bloomberg that the Fed made 7.7 TRILLION dollars--10x TARP, and half of the US GDP--available to banks at 0.01 interest. They used that money to buy Treasuries--ie, loaned the money back to the government at interest, earning an estimated $13 billion in profit.

So yes, they were able to pay back TARP pretty easily.

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans- un...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed- to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html)

<comment><USER31> Yes, the Fed did 'quantitative easing' which is obscure nonsense for they printed some money and gave it to the banks. The bank stockholders should thank the Fed. Actually the taxpayers should own the banks and slowly sell them back to private investors as the economy recovers.

When Greenspan did such money printing, he called it "rebuilding the balance sheets".

A 'secret' is that the large banks are creatures of the Fed. They just are.

Yes, it might be more fair to the taxpayers, who really gave the money to the banks, and who are BACKING the banks, to have the banks be so tightly regulated that they are "boring" with little chance of going bust or of putting people in the "1%". So, for the risky stuff, let hedge funds like MF Global, LTCM, etc. do that. And break up the big banks so that if one fails it won't bring down the whole economy. But these changes are too hot politically.

I doubt that the Fed's quantitative easing was the main reason those nine banks were able to pay back TARP. Again, TARP was just some fast money to stop runs on the banks and, as your data suggests, a relatively small amount of money.

So, why did the Fed print money and give it to the banks? Because otherwise we would have no financial system and, then, no economy and then hunger, revolution, war, massive death, etc., little things like that.

So, what happened to the money the banks were supposed to have, that is, the money the Fed replaced? It disappeared! Uh, actually with 'fractional reserve banking' the banks can essentially 'create money'. Or you borrow $100 from a bank and deposit the loan in your checking account. Then the bank loans out $90 which is deposited in a checking account. Then they loan out $81 which is deposited in a checking account. It's called the 'multiplier effect'. So, that's mostly the same $100 loaned out 3+ times.

It may be that the bank only has about $10 of the stockholders' money and the rest is from depositors via checking accounts ('demand deposits'). So, the bank has maybe $10 but about $300 loaned out.

Loaning money this way on 'financial assets', e.g., to buy stocks, especially on thin margin, that is, with high leverage, can blow an asset bubble -- 1929. So we passed some laws keeping banks from loaning money for such purposes and put in place some higher margin requirements. Then the sneaky bankers discovered houses, Fannie, Freddie, the CRA, adjustable rate mortgages, the Countrywide business model, and 'social justice' and blew a bubble based on housing instead of stocks.

When the stock market bubble burst in 1929, we got The Great Depression. When the housing bubble burst in 2008, we got The Great Recession. See a pattern here?

Now if the economy gets sick from, say, a popped bubble, then some of that $300 in loans won't get paid back. If as much as $10 of that $300 doesn't come back, then the bank is bust. In simple terms, that's what happened in the housing bubble, both its growth and its shrinkage.

So, when the bubble burst, some of that $300 or so the bank created is destroyed.

So, we can try to continue on with that money destroyed, but that would cause deflation. In a credit economy, deflation is a bummer because the easy way to make money is just not to spend it and just to put it under a mattress. So the economy goes into the tank and just stays there as people get poor, sick, cold, and dead. We can get wars that way. At least we can get people 'occupying' city parks.

So, the Fed is trying to avoid deflation. But the economy is very sick, and even with interest rates near 0.00% per year the economy is plenty sick. Why? We don't get good answers from the newsies, not even Bloomberg, but first cut businesses don't want to borrow for inventory, expansion, etc. because the customers aren't coming, and the banks don't want to lend because the businesses are sick and might not pay back. Or, the Fed's money has the banks flush again, but that money is not yet in the hands of small businesses and consumers.

Maybe a better solution would have been Milton Friedman's Helicopter: Print up some money, about what was destroyed, load it into a helicopter, fly across the US, scatter it, and let people pick it up and spend it. This is not entirely a joke.

There is a great title for a magazine and maybe a Web site -- Secret Romantic Confessions. It's TOO tempting not to look! Well, Bloomberg is a newsie site so has Fed "secrets", 'secret money given away'. BS. Total, 100%, reeking, fuming, bubbling, sticky BS. Grab'm by the heart, gut, and below the belt nonsense BS and collect the ad revenue. Net, Bloomberg is spouting nonsense to get yahoos up on their hind legs. Deliberate, deceptive, destructive nonsense. Of COURSE the Fed gave money to the banks: That's EXACTLY what 'quantitative easing' meant to anyone but a total yahoo, idiot, fool. There was no 'secret' involved!

It was just such nonsense from yahoos that was largely responsible for killing about 100 million people from the crash in 1929 to the end of WWII in 1945. How? Because when the US stock market bubble burst in 1929, a LOT of money the banks had created by loaning money to buy stocks on thin margin was destroyed. Remember "The Roaring 20's?" -- lots of parties from lots of money created by bank lending.

So, when the bubble burst, we had no banking system. Even out in Kansas, depositors lost 100%. We were back to a barter economy. We had massive deflation:

"For Sale. Nearly new car. Lost all in stock market. No offer too low."

"Deflation is the easiest thing in the world to fix: Just print money.". But we didn't. Various yahoos didn't understand we needed to PRINT MONEY. However even Betty Boop understood. Still we didn't.

So we went from 1929 to 1941 refusing to print money as needed. Unemployment was a disaster. Some of the problems in loss of US 'social capital' are STILL with us. Dumb. Really dumb.

Since the US was not buying, foreign developed economies were not selling to us. Since part of their economy was not selling, that part was not buying, and other sellers in that economy were not selling. Nearly no one was either buying or selling. The economy shut down. People were cold and hungry. So, the sickness of the US economy spread around the developed world.

Then along comes a wacko house painter with a solution: "Ein Folk. Ein Reich. Ein Führer". He gets dictatorial powers over the economy for four years. With those powers, actually he puts people back to work, building roads, bridges, ships, guns, tanks, etc. Yes, he abolishes the labor unions. Then he gets four more years of dictatorial powers and decides that he wants some new 'living space', say, to the east to a line from, say, Stalingrad to Moscow to Leningrad or, really, just to the Urals. For the people there, kill a lot of them right away (as 'inferior breeds') and kill the rest slowly as slaves on 1000 calories a day. What he did resulted in 50 million, maybe 100 million, people dead.

Then in 1941 or so people started shooting at us.

Then we got serious, and in about three months we had about three jobs for everyone who could work and were OUT of the Great Depression. Why? We printed enough money to start to replace what was destroyed in the 1929 market crash.

For now? We can be back to work anytime we want within about three months -- JUST PRINT MONEY. That's what the Fed is trying to do, but apparently Friedman's Helicopter would be more effective.

There's more, but I know; I know: This is post is already too long for a trivial little subject like putting 25 million people back to work. But, gotta tell you: Don't look for anything real on this subject from the newsies.

But, if another 100 million people die, or a billion or few, then the newsies will be right there reporting on the pains, the passion, pathos, and poignancy, with poetry, about the human suffering. They won't have even as much as a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue about what caused the problem or how to fix it, but they can report what it 'feels' like.

<comment><USER34> That post is a pearl. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So how do I apply? Where is a link to the application?

<comment><USER35> <http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/get-registered>

afaik it basically gives you access to this: [http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/search/content?f[0]...](http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/search/content?f\[0\]=bundle%3Aresource)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It's going to be interesting to see how companies themselves deal with the concept of having a slew of shareholders (fiduciary duty, reporting, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER37> But will they accept foreign startups? Also where can i apply? startupamericapartnership.org does not seem to accept foreign applications.

</comment><comment><USER38> Meh.

Who needs the new economy? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3336286>

</comment><comment><USER39> Making helicopter drops is destroying the economy not helping, they think innovation comes from the printing press.

</comment><comment><USER35> Nice to see a website I worked on finally get on HN. <http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/>

</comment><comment><USER40> His own money, right?

</comment><comment><USER41> Death of SOPA > $2B Dollar Fund

</comment><comment><USER42> $7 Trillion for the banking cartel and $2 Billion for job creators? Explain that one to entrepreneurial voters next year.

</comment><comment><USER43> Let the startup fund be paid for by a tax on patent trolls.

</comment><comment><USER44> Obama should've done this on the first year of his presidency. And I agree, $2B seems like a low number compared to the bank bailout.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your favorite UI design system? - <AUTHOR> What's your favorite UI/UX system and why? <comment><USER2> Shopify Polaris is one I consistently reference: [https://polaris.shopify.com/](https://polaris.shopify.com/)

It's super comprehensive overall, and I particularly like the documentation for the components. For example, even for a basic Checkbox ([https://polaris.shopify.com/components/forms/checkbox](https://polaris.shopify.com/components/forms/checkbox)), they provide sample code, accessibility guidelines, dos and don'ts, and related components. They have clearly put thought into how the system should feel overall; design systems are not just about the CSS of the UI pieces.

It's also cool how they display prop types; if it's a more complex type, then you can click on the prop for details, and click even deeper if needed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tailwind CSS [1] and Tailwind UI [2].

Tailwind CSS makes it super easy to style any component and completely side- steps the issue of well-structured (and inflexible) CSS systems.

Tailwind UI fills in the "bootstrap components" gap with a bunch of premade templates, which are _very_ easy to alter for your own, highly-custom use cases.

The UI kit is super expensive though. I'd need to pay $450AUD for the complete set of application UI + marketing UI templates ($370 if bought together). For an individual, it's borderline obscene, but the pricing makes sense for teams.

This setup is super useful. I really enjoy it, though it was a struggle to justify as a student.

[1] [https://tailwindcss.com/](https://tailwindcss.com/)

[2] [https://tailwindui.com/](https://tailwindui.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Elastic UI Framework is really well done [https://elastic.github.io/eui/#/](https://elastic.github.io/eui/#/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I think I'm going with Winforms, and a close second is Javas Swing.. But I don't like writing software in Java or for windows only, so, QT5 has to be my fav.

</comment><comment><USER6> Still like to use Bootstrap a lot. They also have an addition with Vue Bootstrap which is made for Vue.

</comment><comment><USER7> The one specifically designed and built for the project at hand.</comment>


Intel Budgets $300M for Diversity - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/technology/intel-budgets-300-million-for-diversity.html <comment><USER2> Itll cost them much more in the long run. Why hire anyone other than the most qualified?

These policies are trying to correct an imbalance which is based on self selection rather than discrimination and are themselves discriminatory.

<comment><USER3> Because "the most qualified" is an inherently biased proposition. The idea of an objective evaluation of that question is laughable on its face.

<comment><USER4> Bullshit. You can get away with that sophistry in other fields, but not tech. The compiler doesn't care about your feelings. Memory safety is not a social construct. GPU command pipes have finite bandwidth, even if you call them tools of the patriarchy.

In our field, skill is definitely subject to "objective evaluation", and some people are vastly more skilled than others. That's why tech is so problematic to social justice types: their usual techniques don't work, for mother nature cannot be fooled.</comment></comment></comment>


Tesla site and Twitter account hacked - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/25/teslas-site-and-twitter-account-hacked/

<comment><USER2> The original Hacker News posting on this was incorrectly flagged when the site temporarily came back online: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9439486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9439486)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://twitter.com/rootworx/status/592126475689545729](https://twitter.com/rootworx/status/592126475689545729)

>Receiving reports that Julius Kivimaki hacked Tesla and Elon Musk's Twitter accounts and websites by Social engineering NetworkSolutions

NetworkSolutions has a history of falling victim to social engineering attempts and scams.

Also, Julius Kivimaki is one of the alleged leaders of Lizard Squad.

<comment><USER4> I didn't do it and don't know why this guy thinks I did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A records (IP addresses) were changed, but also MX records:

[https://gist.github.com/jedisct1/13cd60ba702d6d58053c](https://gist.github.com/jedisct1/13cd60ba702d6d58053c)

Mails sent to @teslamotors.com were hijacked as well.

End-to-end encryption is badly needed.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yikes. I wonder if they were running a CMS (Wordpress, Drupal).

<comment><USER5> No, they had a domain name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> We can all be hacked.</comment>


Stanford launches latest version of iOS course on iTunes U - <AUTHOR> http://online.stanford.edu/news/2013/11/04/stanford-launches-latest-version-iphone-and-ipad-apps-course-on-itunes-u

<comment><USER2> Summary: This is not a new announcement. This is the same iOS7 course announced on Nov 4, 2013. It has not since been updated.

<comment><AUTHOR> new to me...

<comment><USER2> Lots of things are new to specific people, but they typically don't belong as reposts on a _news_ site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Please add [2013] to the title. It's old news.

<comment><AUTHOR> it just turned 2014 and last quarter of 2013 is old news?

<comment><USER3> 1) It happened 3 months ago. 2) There were posts on the same topic on HN.

Adding [2013] in the title removes possible confusion that there's another course.

<comment><AUTHOR> but Apple hasn't released a new os since then though, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great teacher, great course, I've been dabbling with it while teaching myself the fundamentals of Objective-C.

Once I get comfortable, I plan to run through this one in full.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if I could still be able to learn something without an iPhone, I have a Nexus 5.

<comment><USER6> The iPhone simulator will cover you completely for this course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I absolutely loved this course! Paul Hegarty is a genius and a wonderful educator.

</comment><comment><USER8> What is the nearest comparable class for Android?</comment>


Interfaces, Mixins and Building Powerful Custom Data Structures in Python - <AUTHOR> https://rednafi.github.io/digressions/python/2020/07/03/python-mixins.html <comment><USER2> Nice! Very approachable introduction. Maybe expand a bit on MetaClasses in the formal interfaces section.</comment>


Don't Trust Facebook's New Privacy Play - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/facebook-private-social-network/584323/ <comment><USER2> At this point, after all the shenanigans they've pulled, presumably we can just truncate that to "Don't Trust Facebook"?</comment>