Least surprising headline of the day:
Politicians Butt In at Bailed-Out GM
- from today’s Wall Street Journal
This headline called to mind this letter that I sent to Time back in June of this year:
On Monday President Obama proclaimed that G.M. “will be run by a private board of directors and management team. They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around.” And yesterday, two high-ranking members of his administration, writing in USA Today, seemed downright insulted that anyone would doubt the President’s word that politics will “play no role” in running this company.
Alas, this political chicken wasted no time coming home to roost. You report today that “Top executives from General Motors and Chrysler face tough questions from lawmakers about sweeping plans to close hundreds of car dealerships as the auto companies undergo government-led bankruptcies” (“Senate Reviews Close of GM, Chrysler Dealers,” June 3).
The wonder is not that politicians are meddling. The wonder is that America is populated with a sufficient number of persons so gullible as to encourage Mr. Obama to issue his ‘no politics’ assurance with a straight face.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 32 comments }
See – We saved jobs!
I think Rep. Rehberg has it exactly right – GM should not have been bailed out in the first place, but as long as taxpayers have money dedicated to it they shouldn’t be voiceless. It’s a second-best solution, to be sure (and a distant second, at that) – but it’s better than handing out cash with no accountability.
Daniel: Perhaps you’re correct, but your second-best solution implies that Congressional meddling introduces accountability. Judging from the obviously political motives of the interveners, it seems as if the unaccountability of politics is being piled atop the unaccountability of being subsidized.
Certainly – there’s no guarantee that “oversight” in the generic sense is responsible oversight. A good reason not to have done the bailout in the first place.
I think a lot of people conflate these bailouts and stimuluses together inappropriately. This is the enormous difference between purchasing assets and purchasing equity. Purchasing equity like this was a bad idea to begin with. It’s only now starting to dawn on people (and even now it’s not dawning on everyone).
“a lot of people conflate these bailouts and stimuluses”
Conflate? No. Just pointing out that they are both instances of political malfeasance.
Well that’s one opinion. Put it this way – they mush together the specific implications of asset purchases, loan guarantees, equity purchases, etc. – and put them all under the umbrella of “political malfeasance” which conveniently avoids the messier arguments about whether certain policies make sense in certain situations. You may still not like it all, but you don’t seem to be denying that you’re putting it all in the same bin.
No, they’re politicians if they exploit people. The fed was created to exploit people, a political act, a policy. The purpose of ending it would be to stop exploiting people, an anti-political act, the end of a policy.
And yes, politics equals exploitation. I don’t use the word in an inherently negative sense. Exploitation is a natural human behavior. Farmers exploit land and animals. Politicians exploit people. They’re people farmers. Of course, resentment of being exploited is also natural human behavior. Karl Marx did have a point.
No, they’re politicians if they exploit people. The fed was created to exploit people, a political act, a policy. The purpose of ending it would be to stop exploiting people, an anti-political act, the end of a policy.
And yes, politics equals exploitation. I don’t use the word in an inherently negative sense. Exploitation is a natural human behavior. Farmers exploit land and animals. Politicians exploit people. They’re people farmers. Of course, resentment of being exploited is also natural human behavior. Karl Marx did have a point.
You said “Butt”
hehehehehhee
You said “Butt”
hehehehehhee
Quote from danielkuehn: “- but it’s better than handing out cash with no accountability.”
LOL. Oh, if there was just honor among thieves.
What I found always interesting is that the main reason for the bailout was that the demise of GM would cost the US too many jobs in manufacturing. Now, most defenders of regular bankruptcy said this wouldn’t be so, that the capital would be used by other companies or put to use in different fields. It turns out that those defenders are right:
Fiskers has bought a plant from GM and wants to produce their electric family car there. I’d wager this is something which gets no news, though it is very interesting and a good fact for everyone defending the regular approach to bankrupt companies.
And I bet ya if it does get any press it will be a goofy attempt to criticize the idea of “green jobs” because they’ll be building electric cars there.
Goofy and ironic as well. Non-electric cars in the U.S. are powered by gas. Electric cars in the U.S. are powered by coal. I’m not sure I quite see the difference.
Believe it or not, right now, one is run on gas and the other on natural gas.
Power companies, at least in the southeast, are stockpiling coal; it’s too expensive to burn right now. The generators are running on natural gas.
SHOCKER!!!!!!
SHOCKER!!!!!!
Why would I deny it? I classify nearly all of what the political class does as malfeasance. Its the politicians who want to bury the “messier arguments” by simply asserting their power.
There’s no reason why you and the politicians can’t both be wrong
Don’t mistake my critique of you for being a defense of politicians.
The mistakes I make only effect me and those who depend on me. For politicians… two words, Fatal Conceit.
Yes – I understand the argument. It doesn’t make every policy you oppose identical, and it doesn’t bind everyone else to treat all policies identically, just because you do.
A “policy” is an action of a politician.
OK… I agree. What conclusions are you drawing from that?
You’re trying to draw distinctions between piles of political crap. Saying, “Look, that one’s dark brown and lumpy and that ones light green and runny.” I’m saying they’re both crap. Further, you’re saying that I’m supposed to care about the classifications of crap just because you and the politicians care about the classifications of crap. Well, I don’t, ’cause I’m not a politician.
How do you get from “policy is the action of politicians” to “everything politicians do is crap”? That’s your leap of faith.
I’m not drawing distinctions between two pieces of crap – I’m arguing that one isn’t crap.
You’re essentially saying “everything brown is crap”. You’re identifying a legitimate characteristic (in this case, that something is done by a politician) and building a completely illegitimate case on that one legitimate characteristic.
Politicians exploit people like me. That is their primary characteristic and the only one that matters to me. Until the day this is not true my case is completely legitimate.
So if a politician abolished the Federal Reserve that would be crap too?
You’re not even making sense any more, Randy. You have to consider each policy on it’s own merits.
Such action would not be the action of a politician, but rather the action of a productive person. I can conceive of a “government” (for lack of a better word) made up of productive persons, but it is highly unlikely given the evolutionary dominance of the politicians.
Oh I see – so they’re only politicians if Randy disagrees with them. You’re making LOTS of sense now.
Oh I see – so they’re only politicians if Randy disagrees with them. You’re making LOTS of sense now.
Moving this back out a few notches.