This does a variety of things. First of all, it staves off killing a monstrous industry in the midst of
So we stipend them, keeping them afloat on an annual basis until the economy is stable and strong again. Then we pull funding and let them sink (or swim if one of them pulls off a miracle in the next however-many years).
We just can't let them fail right now, but we must let them fail ultimately.
3 comments:
You say the US auto industry *needs* to fail. Do you mean that they need to radically alter the way their businesses are structured, in which case I probably agree (depending on what you think needs to change).
Or, do you mean that they need to go away because there is no place for automotive manufacturing by a company based in the United States.
In the case of the former, I would amend your statement to read "constructively fail". In the case of the later, I don't understand.
I mean that any company that can't compete needs to fail. If they pull out of their nosedive themselves, fine, but the government propping up a company on the basis of the unwarranted feeling of the importance of that industry is just wrong thinking.
Do we *need* an auto industry? I have no idea why the answer to that question is "yes". We need clothing, but no one seems to think we're doomed as a nation because we no longer have a textile industry in the US. It's not an industry we compete in well, so we happily buy our clothes from other countries.
Why is the auto industry more important than the textile industry?
Along with the stipend, lets figure out how they and everyone else can better afford health care. Providing health care is becoming a more and more difficult problem for my company, and that's with owners who are deeply personally committed to doing so. Before long companies period will not be able to help with health care and be competitive with global competition.
Post a Comment