Auto Bailout
I make no claim to an understanding of high (or even low) finance, but I don’t think that’s why I can’t quite make sense of the proposed bailout of the big three automobile companies.
They’re businesses, right? And they’re not profitable, right? So why should they be propped up to the tune of some 25 billion dollars?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just give the money directly to people who are apt to be put out of work? And give those people something to do that really needs to be done apart from manufacturing another vehicle that nobody wants to buy?
To me, the best argument for giving Ford, GM, and Chrysler all the dough they’re asking for is that big financial firms have already bellied up to the trough and frankly, it does seem more reasonable somehow to fork over our wallets to companies that actually make something rather than ones that just manipulate numbers on computerized spreadsheets.
But, like Mom always said, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” (except, I guess, when it comes to drunken threesomes), so just because those cake-eaters from AIG and Lehman Brothers got to have their asses covered, doesn’t mean we ought to ensure that the makers of the Ford Explorer, Chevy Suburban, and Dodge Durango get a free pass.
I’d be okay with ponying up some significant part of my tax dollars if the car companies would commit to using their technological and manufacturing prowess to produce commercially-viable human-powered dirigibles or even if they did a better job of making cars that didn’t rely on the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine.
And how about setting aside a couple million of the billions and billions to buy bicycles for anybody who needs one? Plus, I’d be a lot more amenable to their requests if the CEOs arrived at their meetings in Washington on two wheels rather than four.
And if they fixed their own flats, so much the better.
They’re businesses, right? And they’re not profitable, right? So why should they be propped up to the tune of some 25 billion dollars?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to just give the money directly to people who are apt to be put out of work? And give those people something to do that really needs to be done apart from manufacturing another vehicle that nobody wants to buy?
To me, the best argument for giving Ford, GM, and Chrysler all the dough they’re asking for is that big financial firms have already bellied up to the trough and frankly, it does seem more reasonable somehow to fork over our wallets to companies that actually make something rather than ones that just manipulate numbers on computerized spreadsheets.
But, like Mom always said, “two wrongs don’t make a right,” (except, I guess, when it comes to drunken threesomes), so just because those cake-eaters from AIG and Lehman Brothers got to have their asses covered, doesn’t mean we ought to ensure that the makers of the Ford Explorer, Chevy Suburban, and Dodge Durango get a free pass.
I’d be okay with ponying up some significant part of my tax dollars if the car companies would commit to using their technological and manufacturing prowess to produce commercially-viable human-powered dirigibles or even if they did a better job of making cars that didn’t rely on the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine.
And how about setting aside a couple million of the billions and billions to buy bicycles for anybody who needs one? Plus, I’d be a lot more amenable to their requests if the CEOs arrived at their meetings in Washington on two wheels rather than four.
And if they fixed their own flats, so much the better.
posted by Professor Dave at 5:35 PM
1 Comments:
I'd like to Post a Comment The recession really isn't that bad if you know where to look. The bailout money is spilling over to us believe it or not. I've done research and found that there is more money than what you think...
Bailout Spillover
Post a Comment
<< Home