4 ms·

the most efficient thing to do is allow the free market to determine which companies live and die. auto companies make money by giving people what they want.

the most efficient thing to do is allow the free market to determine which companies live and die. auto companies make money by giving people what they want. those that don't give people what they want should not be propped up with taxpayer money.

run4yourlives 18y ago
All fine and well until you start dealing with the collapse of an industry that employs/supports literally millions of people. Millions of people out of work with no money becomes your problem, and mine. This is the only reason that the big three are getting any money at all. It stinks, but it's certainly better than the chaos that would ensue if GM didn't exist tomorrow.
- kqr2 18y ago
  The car companies probably wouldn't close overnight. Like the airlines, they would go to bankruptcy court. This would most likely wipe out existing share owners, however, contracts could be renegotiated to try and resurrect it and raise new capital. A healthier company, such as Toyota could also step in and buy some of the assets.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    >This would most likely wipe out existing share owners Which is probably about 80% of all investors in the market, btw. It would also render insolvent all their existing pensioners retirement funds, as well as every loan that GMAC finances... Not something anyone would be thrilled to deal with.
- corentin 18y ago
  And don't you think that the millions of dollars of taxpayer money given by the government to a failed industry destroy jobs as well? Look, if I take 10 dollars from you and give them to the shit sandwich maker, whose business is failing, that's 10 dollars you can't give to his competitor, a gourmet bread maker that could be thriving if only the government didn't redirect his potential income to his failed competitor. Moreover, this gourmet bread maker could actually be the same person as the shit sandwich maker, provided you stop supporting his failed business and force him to create something people really want. If you want to have social policies, at least try to have sensible ones: protect individuals themselves (not their jobs).
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    I'm not a huge fan of propping up businesses, but your analogy is flawed on so many levels. First, you're assuming that the market for shit bread is the same as the market for gourmet bread. That's ludicrous. All you've done is drive up the price of bread for everyone. The other issue is the fact that the gourmet bread maker may actually only be in existence because shit bread is the commodity. People who buy luxury brands do so specifically because they are not the most popular option. So know you've popularized the luxury item, but it's even more expensive than the shit bread that it replaced. As I said, the auto industry is certainly not the easiest to defend. To be honest, I think this is a perfect chance for the government to force them to think in ways that actually improve their business models. Of course, that's hard work and nobody wants to do that. Allowing the invisible hand to sort things out has the slight problem of absolutely crushing economies in the bad times as much as it let's them thrive in the good times.
- nazgulnarsil 18y ago
  those people's skills are currently mis-allocated to a company that doesn't give people what they want. the mistake socialists make is to treat the world as a zero sum game like the mercantilists did. As if those people couldn't be doing something that people want. Until everyone has everything they want there shouldn't be anyone wasting time doing something that people don't want.
- callmeed 18y ago
  Millions might be a stretch ... the UAW has 640K active members according to their site. I'm sure there are tertiary jobs that would also be affected, but how many really? Auto parts and auto sales?

run4yourlives 18y ago

All fine and well until you start dealing with the collapse of an industry that employs/supports literally millions of people. Millions of people out of work with no money becomes your problem, and mine. This is the only reason that the big three are getting any money at all. It stinks, but it's certainly better than the chaos that would ensue if GM didn't exist tomorrow.

kqr2 18y ago
The car companies probably wouldn't close overnight. Like the airlines, they would go to bankruptcy court. This would most likely wipe out existing share owners, however, contracts could be renegotiated to try and resurrect it and raise new capital. A healthier company, such as Toyota could also step in and buy some of the assets.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  >This would most likely wipe out existing share owners Which is probably about 80% of all investors in the market, btw. It would also render insolvent all their existing pensioners retirement funds, as well as every loan that GMAC finances... Not something anyone would be thrilled to deal with.
corentin 18y ago
And don't you think that the millions of dollars of taxpayer money given by the government to a failed industry destroy jobs as well? Look, if I take 10 dollars from you and give them to the shit sandwich maker, whose business is failing, that's 10 dollars you can't give to his competitor, a gourmet bread maker that could be thriving if only the government didn't redirect his potential income to his failed competitor. Moreover, this gourmet bread maker could actually be the same person as the shit sandwich maker, provided you stop supporting his failed business and force him to create something people really want. If you want to have social policies, at least try to have sensible ones: protect individuals themselves (not their jobs).
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  I'm not a huge fan of propping up businesses, but your analogy is flawed on so many levels. First, you're assuming that the market for shit bread is the same as the market for gourmet bread. That's ludicrous. All you've done is drive up the price of bread for everyone. The other issue is the fact that the gourmet bread maker may actually only be in existence because shit bread is the commodity. People who buy luxury brands do so specifically because they are not the most popular option. So know you've popularized the luxury item, but it's even more expensive than the shit bread that it replaced. As I said, the auto industry is certainly not the easiest to defend. To be honest, I think this is a perfect chance for the government to force them to think in ways that actually improve their business models. Of course, that's hard work and nobody wants to do that. Allowing the invisible hand to sort things out has the slight problem of absolutely crushing economies in the bad times as much as it let's them thrive in the good times.
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
those people's skills are currently mis-allocated to a company that doesn't give people what they want. the mistake socialists make is to treat the world as a zero sum game like the mercantilists did. As if those people couldn't be doing something that people want. Until everyone has everything they want there shouldn't be anyone wasting time doing something that people don't want.
callmeed 18y ago
Millions might be a stretch ... the UAW has 640K active members according to their site. I'm sure there are tertiary jobs that would also be affected, but how many really? Auto parts and auto sales?