Here's your chance to be helpful.
Many conservatives, including some in my own family, have been griping about the bailout of the the Big 3 automakers. They say brilliantly observant things like "If my business went bankrupt, the government wouldn't bail me out," and "If I wanted to own a car company, I would have bought their stock." They seem extremely unhappy that the Obama Administration is doing everything it can to keep the Big 3 in business.
It seems pretty clear that if the government hadn't intervened, Chrysler and General Motors would be gone. Kaput. Out of business. They may still be, but for now at least, they survive.
Failure, of course, means that around 300,000 Americans instantly lose their jobs. That's huge. It also means that if Ford fell, America would be out of the automotive business. No one could possibly start any of these concerns back up. We would be completely dependent on foreign companies like Toyota, Honda, Volvo, etc. for our cars. (This doesn't bother me that much because we've never actually bought an American car.)
So here's what I don't understand. I thought Conservatives were supposed to love Big Business. When in power, they go out of their way to pass tax breaks and to deregulate industry. So what did the automakers do to earn this stick in the eye from their usually loyal protectors? And if the Administration had just let the car companies die, wouldn't the conservatives be going nuts about how the Democrats killed the all-American industry? It seems to me that doing anything or nothing was a lose-lose prospect for the Administration.
So, if you understand, please explain it to me. I suspect the answer will be that "they're just a bunch of asshats," but I'm hoping to be surprised.
9 comments:
Actually, it's probably closer to 1,000,000 jobs, not 300,000.
Auto parts suppliers also immediately go bankrupt. What about glass and steel production?
Dealers are also kaput. A small number of them will survive on service alone, but that will mostly go to existing private mechanics.
Losing one car company would be a monster hit to the economy. Losing all 3 within a year might well be something our economy actually can't handle, and could make the Great Depression look like an easy ride - permanent 3rd world nation status.
They’re being consistent with laissez faire economics--minimize regulation and taxation, and then let businesses sink or swim on their own merits.
And it isn’t like the auto manufacturers would instantly evaporate into thin air if they didn’t get a government bail out.
I don't think there is anything inconsistent about it at all. A conservative would argue that we are not for Big Business per se but that the market should be allowed to determine all economic outcomes. If the market decrees that big businesses are more efficient, then so be it.
Obviously, once in power, Republicans are often hypocritical about providing corporate welfare. But from an ideological perspective, it's not inconsistent at all to say that the auto companies should stand and fall on their own.
You can argue about whether laissez faire is the appropriate policy. And, obviously, some of this is coming from politicians in the South that have foreign auto plants in their states and, therefore, don't have to worry about what happens to jobs there.
But, from a purely ideological perspective, this is what conservatives should be saying. If the car companies have screwed themselves up, let the market decide their fate; in the long-run, if not the short-run, the economy will eventually adjust and be better off.
I don't think that's a realistic policy today, but it's certainly not inconsistent. And, frankly, if the consequences weren't so dire, I think the car companies should be allowed to fail because they have been incompetently run for so long and the unions have not helped. There is a reason that you and I don't buy American cars.
All good points. But it is inconsistent with their "Buy American" mantra. We can't buy American if America is out of the market.
I know very few people who would only buy American and most of them are union workers. When buying something so expensive people have to do what is best for them. Unfortunately the American auto manufactures have been playing catch up for far to long. I think we are doing better than in the past but foreign cars have been more dependable and a better buy.
I only own american cars, not because they are better, not because I am more patriotic but rather they were the best deal at the time. If the auto manufactures in the U.S.were to go bankrupt they wouldnt just disappear they would start over again and hopefully learn from their mistakes and do it better the next time, and if they didnt, their mistakes should be on their nickel not my kids nickel.
All this being said lets not look past the huge power grab this is by our government. It certainly fits right in line with our presidents philosopy of the bigger the government the better.
Mark J
Mark J, I have a hard time believing anyone could afford to start up anything like the Big 3 automakers. The market is too chaotic, profits too uncertain and costs too high for new automakers to enter the market. I think if they went bankrupt, they'd be gone. I appreciate your attitude about buying the car that's best for you and I share it. But I can't lightly dismiss the economic impact that the President is trying to save us from here.
I think Dan makes a good point. You lose the Big 3, you lose most of the suppliers, the dealers, and all the downstream industries. You'd also put a terrible hit on the upstream industries like steel. We're on the edge of a depression; the loss of the auto industry would undoubtedly put us into that depression.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that this is a power grab? What power does he gain by keeping them in business? Obama didn't cause this situation, but he's trying to fix it. The last guy sat around doing nothing until the last minute while the economy collapsed. That won't work here.
As far as power grabs, I assume you were equally upset when Bush suspended habeas corpus, grabbed power from Congress by his unprecedented use of signing statements, authorized warrantless wiretapping, misled the country to get us into Iraq, ignored the Geneva convention and ran secret prisons overseas? Those were true power grabs and forgiving them under the notion that we'll all be killed by terrorists if we don't allow the government free reign is to give up your liberty for a false sense of security.
I am certainly not saying that that Bush did everything right, after Clinton left i didn't moan about him all the time so why does the left always point the finger at Bush. He made many mistakes as they all do, so lets move on. As far as a power grab, who is in charge of GM? And who appointed him
If it was Obama than it is certainly a power shift from the private sector to the government and who is the head of the gorvernment?
Im not sure how you could say that we had a false sense of security. If I remember correctly no attacks on American soil since 9-11 I think that is certain security.
One thing is for sure, until the people in charge stop playing politcs and put the country above their own personal gain things will not change and things are only going to get worse.
This is not the Country I grew up in. Unfortunately I believe it is for the worse.
MJ
I think you can criticize Obama for the bailout if you want--there's a legitimate argument to be made--but it pisses me off when people say things like, it's a power grab or his philosophy of government is the bigger the better. That's demonstrably untrue except to conservatives that believe in no government. Obviously he believes in larger government than conservatives but, for example, he isn't pushing for single payer health care.
I would say the same about Bush. I think his policies were appalling but I didn't llke it (still don't) when people on the left would say he started the Iraq War for oil or that (as the conspiracy theorists would have it) instituted 9/11 in order to eliminate constitutional protections (although that has been the result in many cases). On the other hand, it's been pretty well documented that Cheney believed strongly in a very strong executive and was doing everything he could to aggrandize power into the presidency.
As for security, again you can argue about whether Bush's policies were good or bad, but it's sort of fallacious to say that, because there have been no attacks since 9/11, this proves the policies have been effective. We simply don't know that. And, do you really feel that much more secure because of the war in Iraq?
Mark J, you say politicians should put country above their personal gain. That's a cliche that you hear all the time, but what does it mean? The fact is, there are many competing interests and many different concepts of what the public interest involves. There are bound to be clashes, not necessarily because of venality--although I'm not naive enough to think that doesn't play a role--but because people don't agree on the public interest. To you, putting the country above politics would presumably entail much more limited government, but that's not the way I see it. We can't resolve our differences just by saying let's put the public interest first because we don't agree on what the public interest is. Now, obviously, there are a lot of groups in it for their personal gain and they often distort the political process, but the fact remains that you can't take politics out of the process.
As for the country not being the one you grew up in and it being worse, I don't know how old you are but if you look back at history, you can find the country has been distinctly different at different points in history. The country certainly isn't the country I grew up in in the 70s--it's much better. Can you seriously say that the country is worse than it was before the civil rights movement, before the computer revolution, etc.? Even if you don't like Obama particularly, do you really not think it's significant that we have an African-American president?
Mark J,if the Bush Administration broke US law, international law, and violated the Geneva Convention as there is good cause to believe, don't you think it important that we punish those responsible? What happened to taking esponsibilities for one's actions?
I don't think the govt really wants to run GM for five minutes more than necessary. If you're the President of the United States, who cares about running GM? We've taken a share of ownership because people complained when Bush gave hundreds of billions of dollars to the banks without any way to maintain control over how the money was spent.
The President reached across the aisle in the first weeks of his Presidency when he didn't have to. He made changes in the stimulus bill that the Republicans demanded. Not a single one voted for the bill.
Who was playing politics? Sure doesn't seem like the President was.
Post a Comment