
Lots of news today about the Big 3 hitting up the US taxpayers for more money.
I have posted elsewhere that I strongly support deficit spending and am clearly not a libertarian.
However, I simply can not fathom how it makes sense for the American Taxpayer to protect the stockholders of GM, Ford, and Cerberus (the Hedge Fund that owns Chrysler).
First, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe that these companies are somehow a matter of national security. If these firms go into bankruptcy, they will eventually come out. America will not lose its ability to design, engineer, manufacture and sell cars simply because they go into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is the legal way firms deal with the problems the Big 3 are facing. I view their current tactics as shameless opportunism.
Second, it defies logic that automobile labor in Michigan deserves to earn $70/hr and life-time benefits while those who perform the same tasks for Nissan, Toyota, and Suburu in Tennessee, Indiana, and Alabama earn approximately half-that. Why should all the US taxpayers subsidize these overpaid laborers? To bring a sharper point to it... the Big 3 are asking the working families of those non-union auto-workers in Tennessee to subsidize the inflated values of Detroit unions with their tax dollars. Is that fair?
Finally, I doubt anyone gives much credibility to the Big 3's assertion that this "loan" will somehow be a "bridge to a brighter future". In fact, these companies will continue to create low-quality products with little innovation and outsized energy requirements.
I am not always so Darwinian...but in this case I say "let them eat cake." The Big 3 have made this mess and we should let the management and owners who brought them to the brink of bankruptcy pay the price. Externalizing the costs of their poor judgement on the rest of the country is short-sighted and wrong.

My thoughts exactly.
ReplyDeleteWasn't that whole mortgage crisis based on the ridiculously unaccountable loaning of money to people without clear proof of their ability to pay them back?
Isn't this the same? Loaning money to bailout companies who actually demonstrate their poor management of resources?
Am I stupid not to understand this?
Does this info mean that other automakers who pay their employees considerably less are doing better financially?