Quote:
Originally Posted by transjen
So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't?
|
Except that it's not the same thing, Jen. The core reason for bailing out Wall Street is that it served a UNIVERSAL purpose across the board -- in short, we ALL have money invested in Wall Street (whether you like it or not, things like your pensions and college saving funds and whatnot are back-boned BY Wall Street and as stocks and bonds). Not to mention, we obviously ALL keep our money in banks. So again, you can't let the financial system melt down because of the ripple effect it could have across the ENTIRE economy -- not to mention the fact that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people would be losing their savings and pensions and whatnot. So propping up the banking system only makes sense. Though I would agree that paying out extravagant bonuses should be cut off. After all, you don't deserve a bonus for "a job well done" if your company is taking billion dollar losses.
ON THE OTHER HAND...if you let companies like Chrysler go under -- or as I noted above simply let them slip into a Chapter 11 for financial protection from creditors while they reorganize themselves -- that serves three purposes.
First, the market is self-correcting itself, which is always the healthiest way to fix an economy.
Second, you're not taking public taxpayer money and using it to prop up a private company. Which is always bad because then you've entered the slippery slope of "Why should my tax dollars go to saving Chrysler? Hey, my local florist shop down the block is going under. So if we're just gonna give out money to businesses that can't sustain themselves...that can't drum up the business they need to stay afloat...then why doesn't he get a few hundred grand from the government to stay in business TOO? Why give Chrysler money, but not the next guy in line?
Answer: Because if you DO give it to the next guy in line, just how long of a line are you intending to create? What is the cut-off point? And, in turn, just how much of the public's taxpayer dollars are you planning to continually spend?
And third, unlike propping up the banks, no one is hurt by Chrysler going under -- well, aside from the actual workers, but that's the price ANY company pays for going under. My point being, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH competition out there, which means that even if Chrysler goes under nobody's buying choices are impeded upon. You will still have PLENTY of choices from whom to buy a car. So the consumer isn't affected either. Hell, look at it this way: the consumer is obviously NOT affected by Chrysler going under since by pure logic the very reason that they are folding is BECAUSE they were building something that no one wanted.