And the government is competent in judging these things?
The government forces out GM's CEO. Why not stay out of the way completely? Why get involved in determining the company's CEO?
The administration's auto team announced the departure of Mr. Wagoner on Sunday. In a summary of its findings, the task force added that it doesn't believe Chrysler is viable as a stand-alone company, and suggested that the best chance for success for both GM and Chrysler "may well require utilizing the bankruptcy code in a quick and surgical way."
The move also indicates that the Treasury Department intends to wade more deeply than most observers expected into the affairs of the country's largest and oldest car company. . . . .
Labels: Regulation
posted by John Lott at 12:34 AM
8 Comments:
These companies that are taking public money are simply selling some control of their business to the government.
I know not how to answer your question, Dr. Lott. Perhaps we should consult the Oracle of Telepromter...
Dear David:
There is nothing simple about it. The government has no expertise in running these companies, and should simply let them go bankrupt.
Dr. Lott,
I agree, the companies made poor business choices and should fail if they can not redirect their business.
The governments knowledge of running a business is irrelevant, that is not what the constitution outlines as a task of the government.
This is a matter of a policy to gain control over as much as possible and grow the government. I question the legality of this stimulus spending. I don't see where the executive branch is allowed authority to spend public money.
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" Article I, Section 8 U.S. Constitution
That doesn't say the executive has the power to pay debts. So has congress usurped the Constitution by passing their power over to the executive?
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Article I, Section 9
If Oldsmobile was the oldest automobile manufacturer in the U.S.(it was), and GM killed Olds, then is GM still the oldest car manufacturer because they at one point owned the oldest manufacturer? I'm pretty sure Ford was around before "General Motors" was created, but I could be wrong on that...
Methinks that the government is creating a situation whereupon they will be 'forced' to take over Chrysler and GM. In this, David is correct.
As to Constitution be damned, that pattern has been well established by BHO and his ilk. By what means can we stop them from continuing to do so?
P.S. Remind me to check my spelling before posting. I surely would not wish to offend The Oracle of Teleprompter!
I suppose this formalizes the ascenscion of Bama to Chairman of the Board of GM, and its nationalization.
Hugo Chavez has nothing on our Barry!
Wagoner was quite dull in trying to avoid Ch. 11, but Ron Gettlefinger of UAW has been no less intractable about granting any concessions. What will the Dear Leader do about him?
The lesson is to never take any "government" money. You are then at the mercy of the poltical class, a venal lot by and large, getting worse.
As if anyone is confused, this is everything about politics and nothing about what may pull GM out of the dung heap.
Barry's Excellent Adventure continues...I bet he and his cast of 500 are having fun in London.
Post a Comment
<< Home