With the political powers in the U.S. in transition mode, and with the parliament prorogued (suspended) in Canada until the end of January, it seemed the car industry bailout was in danger. The Big Three asked the U.S. government for $25 billion initially, increased it to $34 billion later, and are now likely to be getting an immediate help line of $15 billion (which is likely to increase later). They are asking the Canadian government for $6 billion.
Two and half million jobs are at stake here if the auto industry doesn't get the help it needs. This is the doomed if you don't scenario. It's true that many other companies are going bankrupt and don't get government aid, but it's clear that even if one hates this favoritism when it comes to doling out taxpayer funds, it still would save 2.5 million jobs -- 2.5 million jobs that would otherwise add to the rising unemployment, further increasing the downward spiral that now seems to lead us to one of the worst recessions.
But it's the short sightedness of this bailout that is the doomed if you do part. Is delaying what now seems as the inevitable really better? Isn't this the exact same sort of pursuit of short-term gains and fixes that has landed us in this situation in the first place? Are we risking starting something we're not sure the end of? Will the trickle of bailout money turn into a gush we don't know how to stop as the recession deepens, as many predict it will? The auto industry's problems have started long before the recession and the financial crisis we're in, they started because of bad management and lack of insight and foresight. The financial crisis only aggravated what was already wounded.
I'm in favor of the bailout. No, I'm not saying General Motors (NYSE: GM), Ford (NYSE: F) and Chrysler have done such a good job that they deserve it. And I'm definitely in favor of changing some of that incompetent management, especially at GM. But I'm hoping the bailout would be like a tourniquet to stop their bleeding, and if the arm or the leg, or both, need to be cut off later, at least something was saved. I'm in favor of the bailout not to save the companies, but to help the people who work for them.
The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-10-2008 @ 10:02PM
TX CHL Instructor said...
Any bailout should have a prerequisite that all members of the board, and all senior management must invest at least 90% of their personal net worth in the common stock of their company.