.jpg)
It's really worth exploring whether General Motors and Ford are worthy of billions of taxpayer dollars. My inclination is to let them collapse and worry about providing funds - extending unemployment insurance benefits, for instance - for the Detroit area and its residents when the car companies finally go belly up.
I'm just curious about how many more times the federal government is going to hand over money to poorly-run companies, especially those that stridently resisted pleas to embrace more fuel-efficient vehicles.
At some point, a price must be paid and a government bailout isn't going to stop the companies' slow churn toward a financial meltdown. We have to put an end to our "welfare state" for billionaires, no?
* Don't be surprised. Sometimes I actually do care about financial stuff. But don't go expecting this too often. I'm just wary of the government continually playing the dope man to these addicted industries. Sometimes hitting rock-bottom is an option, you know?
UPDATE: Bloggers who are more knowledgable about these matters - Megan McArdle and John Cole, to name a couple - agree with the substance of my argument.
Minimiri slot şablon qiymetleri
1 month ago
2 comments:
McCardle and Cole agree with the stance that we should let the companies fail and lose the tax revenue from the company and employers but we should use tax payer money to taker care of the employees that are out of work?
Ok, some clarification is necessary: they agree that they don't need a bailout, which was the main point of the post.
Our solutions for how to handle the fallout differ. Which is not surprising, given that Megan is a Libertarian and Cole is a recovering conservative.
Post a Comment