Do we need the buggy whip industry? We hear about the whip companies getting a bail-out, and how important the whip industry is to the nation's economy as if it's indisputable. Why is it indisputable? The 3000,000 jobs? That many jobs are important sure, but what evidence do we have historically that when industries go under that those jobs are lost forever? The musket-ball manufacturers (or their natural decedents) found jobs. You can't convince me that Massachusetts would be worse off today if Farrier and Shoester had failed in the 1910s. It stretches credulity to think that it could be worse there.
Tell me why the buggy whip industry is a special case in the economy like the banks.
6 comments:
Because we still drive cars, maybe?
I can see your point since Toyota, Nissan, Jaguar, Honda, Subaru, Volkswagon, Saab, Mercedes, BMW, Peugeot, Fiat, Renault, Hyunadai, Suzuki, Daimler, Mitsubishi, Mazda, Kia, Tata, Daewoo, Volvo, and Porsche aren't really making cars.
with many plants in the US, no less.
Many of them are subsidized by their governments in the form of nationalized medicine.
* * *
My point was that cars are not obsolete. So, U.S. action to keep car manufacturer's afloat so that they can adapt to the market and be a competitive market participant is very different from subsidizing the buggy whip industry.
I admit I have not studied the matter sufficiently to have a strong opinion on whether it is a good idea to subsidize the Detroit, but it is nothing like subsidizing the buggy-whip industry.
But it is like subsidizing the buggy whip industry because its chasing an industry that's not healthy. What's inherent about needing an auto industry? If it died tomorrow, would those 3M workers all die? Or would they go get jobs in industries whose financials *can* be supported by our economy?
But it is like subsidizing the buggy whip industry because its chasing an industry that's not healthy.
The auto industry in unhealthy? I guess I'm mostly bitching about your analogy, not your conclusion. It is like subsidizing a company that's not healthy.
What's inherent about needing an auto industry?
Well, at some point in history you would think American manufacturers would be more likely to keep jobs here, less likely to close plants, particularly in tough time. I guess that has all been shown to be no longer true (if it ever was).
Post a Comment