Osler's Razor

No, it's not socialism.

It wouldn't be bad if it was.

As it stands, this is sort of a bandaid that ignores the larger problem. If GM is producing faulty cars, having the government warranty them protects consumers, sure, but it also puts the government in the position of having to assume the risk that consumers voluntarily assumed by buying a GM car.

A smarter move, in my opinion, would be a regulation of the auto insurance industry so that premiums are more affordable and coverage is increased. That way, when cars fail, it's the insurance companies that have to pay out instead of the government. Now, setting explicit limits on what insurance companies and charge and telling them what they have to pay out for does sound a lot more like socialism. And it's good.
 

Something bugs me about firing the CEO. It just seems wrong that the government can fire the head of a private company-- I'd rather the government just had never given them money.
 

Why does the government have anything to do with this? If GM is going to fail, it should just go bankrupt right away, like any other business.
 

This is bad in so many ways. What are all of these politicians and rappers and celebrities supposed to drive now if no more Escalades are made???? Has anyone thought of them?

The CEO was FIRED by the President and that does not feel right but then the guy made 20 million or so a year for like ten years and the entire time the company SUCKED so its not like he was doing a great job.

The only American car I would buy these days is a Ford because supposedly they will notbe taking any bailout money. I feel bad for Chrysler but what do these two companies, GM and Chrysler have in common??? Lack of foresight.


GM has a few stupid hybrids that are overpriced and ineffective Chrysler does not even have one hybrid and none of its cars are that appealing. I say if we HAVE TO save them? Let Cadillac or Saturn make the cars, GMC the trucks, Chyrsler the minivans and dump the rest. Get rid of the existing inventory for fleet sales like for cabs or govt vehicles or cops.

What I am amazed by is that 9/11 happened, it was horrific and it made all of us wish we had no dependence on the oil made by terrorists. Yet it did not seem to motivate ANY of these companies to build fuel efficient cars, or revive the electric car GM is looking to perfect the battery on the much over hyped VOLT, the car that is supposed to save them and save us all? SO maybe they should get the batteries out of the EV-1s they THREW AWAY ten years ago and start with those? besides NO ONE from Gm has EVER EVER given ANY LOGICAL reason at all or explanation why they killed that car.. WHY??????

And now we are supposed to bail these guys out????? For making terrible decisions followed by hundreds more terrible decisions all with this level of arrogance like they exist in some kind of bubble?

FORGET IT!
 

Osler, I thought you'd find this blog particularly intersting:

http://harriscountycriminaljustice.blogspot.com/
 

There is so much about this bailout thing that is insane that it is difficult to even know where to begin. A couple of quick hits:

-This may not be full-blown socialism, but it is certainly something that may be looked back on 50 years from now as the first steps towards socialism.

-And yes, that would most definitely be a bad thing.

-The government should force insurance companies to charge less and pay for more. Why don't you just say, "the government should eliminate insurance companies." It would've been shorter and more direct and meant the same thing.

-A world in which the President is in charge of who runs private businesses is a very scary world because it means that decisions aren't being made based on what is best for the business or consumers, it means that decisions are being made based on political motivations.
 

My initial reaction to the Obama administration calling for the GM CEO’s head was much like those expressed here. I realized, however, that this is another case of federal government “carrot-and-sticking.” Much like federal highway funding laws condition federal funding on the state setting its legal drinking age at 21 years old, the folks doing the bailout conditioned continued funding of GM’s bailout on Rick Wagoner hitting the door. At least I tell myself that if GM, still a private company, really liked Rick Wagoner, they would have kept him and told the federal government to keep its money. Of course, that’s not going to happen, but at least the federal government didn’t actually tell GM what to do.
Whether it’s capitalism or socialism, at least it’s constitutional. And to an extent, this specific step doesn’t bother me because it’s the other side to the old saw that whatever the government funds, it can control. Rather than blindly throwing money at the situation, at least the government now controls to some extent what it funds. If the federal government is going to be in the business of bailouts, then it has a right to direct how that money is spent. Otherwise, we’re left with the Bank of America fiasco from last fall where money given for one purpose – loosening the credit market – is used for an entirely different purpose – acquiring Chinese banks.
 

Why don't you just say, "the government should eliminate insurance companies." It would've been shorter and more direct and meant the same thing.

Baby steps, sir. That's eventually where I'd like to end up.
 

"Baby steps."

RRL and Lane, can you guys get a talk show together? This stuff is great.