The bailout's logical next steps: Our cash for failing industries and governments
11/6/2008 - 1:05pm
Today, the leaders of Ford, GM, and Chrysler, the "Big 3" US auto makers, are in Washington, DC, to ask Nancy Pelosi for another $25 billion of taxpayer money.
Of course, unlike with banks and insurance companies, the Democrats want to give money to the union-dominated car industry. Indeed, it's being reported that the head of the United Auto Workers will be joining the meeting.
They're asking for the money as a loan, but if there was ever a sub-prime loan, this would be it.
The idea that taxpayers should risk $50 billion to bail out an industry which has done itself in by excessive fealty to unions, by being too late to design attractive and efficient cars, and generally by being the worst of the world's major modern car makers, is outrageous.
It is even more outrageous than the bailout...but not that much more. And there's the problem.
The bailout has given cover to all those who want to bail out any industry that can claim to need it. Yes, it's not the same to say you're protecting the whole financial system and to say you're helping out one industry. But it's not different enough to be obvious either, to the vast majority of Americans.
And as if that's not enough, other American governments now have political cover to ask the federal government, meaning all of us who pay federal income taxes, to bail them out from their profligate ways. After all, if we should bail out private companies, how could we not bail out the government of California or New York?
The bailout is going to end up costing the taxpayer some measurable fraction of the entire current national debt, maybe 2 trillion (with a debt of just over 10 trillion). It is the darkest stain on the Bush presidency and will haunt us for years to come, especially after the leftists we just put in charge take it to its logical conclusion.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Our Cash for Bush's mistakes
As soon as I read the headline: The bailout's logical next steps: Our cash for failing industries and governments, I knew this was another rambling dialogue from our friend Ross, the last living Libertarian in Boulder , Colorado.
I can agree with Ross that a debt of just over 10 trillion is the darkest stain on the Bush presidency and will haunt us for years to come. But where does he come up with “especially after the leftists we just put in charge take it to its logical conclusion”.
In the last 20 years the federal deficit has gone up by billions of dollars when Republicans have been in office and decreased when Democrats have been holding the presidency. Ronald Reagan and George W are the two biggest deficit spenders in the history of our country.
Instead of passing on debt to future generations through the borrow and spend policies of George Bush, Democrats may actually ask to pay the way to get the country back in order.
I can see why Ross is against this, his personal taxes may go up. Too bad, at sometime we will have to pay the piper for the Bush mismanagement of the country
Doug Hubka
The logical conclusion. Kaminsky is an idiot.
I'm amazed someone with your intelligence and analytical skills (thats what you keep preaching to us) could brand a new administration before they've had a day in office. You really are a fool.
Its always about the unions who gouged GM and Ford. Isn't your precious "free market" to blame for some of this mess. Detroit was merely manufacturing cars the public wanted making big profits on the gas guzzling SUV's and monster trucks. The market wanted big and Detroit answered the call. The working stiffs in the trenches wanted good jobs with benefits. Thats why they support their unions. Are they not allowed to unionize and earn a living like everyone else. Isn't that what its all about Kaminsky profits and jobs and a stable economy.
Didn't your "free market" Republicans consistently block legislation to improve mileage standards which might have led to better economic consequences for the auto makers. Your free market Wall Street thugs fleeced America for trillions and you whine about 25 billion to bail the auto makers. Please spare us your sanctimony and self serving slop about liberty and the free market. You are a pompous a**.
You're still in desperate need of a clue
The idea that Detroit was making what the public wanted is silly. Sure, they made SOME models the public wanted, but they still didn't have the market share of Toyota, Honda, even Hyundai.
http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/10/us_automakers_lose_ground_in_a.html
You must be kidding to blame the free market for Detroit's mess, as if Detroit were incapable of doing what needed to be done in terms of model selection or making more efficient cars without the government forcing them.
Are you seriously saying that Detroit has made inefficient cars because the government didn't require them to make more efficient cars?
If that's not an argument for letting them go bankrupt, I don't know what is.
The companies are incredibly inefficient, and just bailing them out won't fix that.
Take a look at this chart:
http://media.npr.org/news/images/2007/jul/19/profit_chart.gif
I didn't say the workers shouldn't be allowed to unionize. What I say is that if they demand more than the market will be able to bear, and the company goes along with it, then they all deserve to suffer the consequences rather than coming to taxpayers to fill their wallets.
One relevant story:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/payne200511290819.asp
So, to answer your question: Yes, the free market is in a way responsible...it showed the auto makers and the rest of us that the auto makers are making and have made big errors. That's what the market does. It gives signals in terms of prices, profits, etc., that show whether you're doing things right or wrong. It punishes people for doing it wrong. And how else should it be?
Besides regularly showing that you know less than nothing about economics, you represent what I regularly say about the far left of the Democratic party when you say "slop about liberty". Don't worry, you'll be losing your liberty (and your job) sooner than I will be, and you can apologize to my side later (and hope we'll hire you).
Your understanding of economics is so bad, I'd almost take you for a union member except that I don't think unions accept children.
Kaminsky and the Libertarian "Rapture".
Russ Kaminsky the mighty Liberatrian of our time has spoken. The free market gives signals and punishes people for doing things wrong. The unions demanded more than the market could bear and the companies went along with it. Detroit collapsed. Simple as that. Russ always has an answer for everything. You get migranes its the governments fault. You get hit by a drunk driver its the unions fault. You win the lottery its a free market reward for being a patriot and liberty loving Libertarian.
Russ says we're going to lose our liberty, our jobs, and we will be forced to grovel at the altar of Libertarian theology. (To listen to Kaminsky its almost like listening to Joe the Plumber speaking in tongues)
Russ is a visionary. He consults his star charts, drinks some wine, checks the astrological forecast and boom. Those of us who voted for Obama will be left behind to face the apocalypse while Russ and the .01% of Libertarians who voted for Bob Barr will be raptured into free market heaven. Won't it be nice.
Really??
"The idea that Detroit was making what the public wanted is silly."
Is the truth silly?? Please...
"as if Detroit were incapable of doing what needed to be done in terms of model selection or making more efficient cars without the government forcing them."
Well, the govt. might start out by incentivizing the sale of SUVs LESS than hybrids...thanks GOP Congress of not that long ago!
"Are you seriously saying that Detroit has made inefficient cars because the government didn't require them to make more efficient cars?"
Yes. Why?? Because it's cheaper to do so...just ask the automakers.
"One relevant story:"
Translation: Here's another Right-wing opinion piece, written by a cartoonist of all people, that I'll try & pass off as fact.
"Your understanding of economics is so bad, I'd almost take you for a union member except that I don't think unions accept children."
What a joke...so much for "rational thinking about the world" eh??