4 ms·

You can't artificially prevent "human suffering" through economic ignorance. I appreciate the point, but don't see the bailout and human suffering as the only t

You can't artificially prevent "human suffering" through economic ignorance. I appreciate the point, but don't see the bailout and human suffering as the only two choices. One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place. If you see this as simply the acceleration of the inevitable (as I do) the argument you are making for a bailout is akin to saying we should support any industry that is no longer economically viable just to keep the people from having to suffer job loss. This is not a sustainable long term strategy. At some point people must move on. If this means acquisition of new skills in order to most efficiently re-integrate into the economy than society should help people who unfortunately lost their jobs in attaining these skills, but it is the wrong decision to prop up failing companies in order to help their employees, because at some point this ceases to work. There are more efficient uses for capital that help more people in the long term.

jimbokun 18y ago
"One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place." I think this is the relevant question. Is government money more efficiently spent propping up the auto companies a little bit longer, or giving it directly to all of the people laid off after the auto companies go under? As others have described in this discussion there is a real possibility of damage quickly spreading to other parts of the economy in a downward spiral if the automakers go down. So there might be a lot of people in need of that "fraction" of the money needed to keep the auto companies going a little bit longer. The decision rests on how we weigh the specific costs and risks involved for each option.

jimbokun 18y ago

"One other possible option is for the government to spend a fraction of this money to help people suffering by the collapse of the US auto industry as a buffer until (likely foreign) competition moves in and takes its place." I think this is the relevant question. Is government money more efficiently spent propping up the auto companies a little bit longer, or giving it directly to all of the people laid off after the auto companies go under? As others have described in this discussion there is a real possibility of damage quickly spreading to other parts of the economy in a downward spiral if the automakers go down. So there might be a lot of people in need of that "fraction" of the money needed to keep the auto companies going a little bit longer. The decision rests on how we weigh the specific costs and risks involved for each option.