Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Bailing Out the Unions

Why the fear of General Motors going under? The demand for cars would remain the same, so the lost manufacturing would have to be replaced, wouldn't it?
...while the cries of certain Armageddon would be ear splitting in the event of a GM failure, the U.S. auto sector would actually emerge much healthier thanks to a change in ownership that would be the certain result of GM going under.
How would auto manufacturing, and Detroit, possibly do well if GM, and others, were allowed to fold?
Far from vanishing, many of GM's assets would be quickly purchased by competent foreign automakers eager to expand their capacity in what is the world's largest auto market. Happily, the list of well-run car companies, from Toyota to Nissan to Porsche, is long.

So GM would fold, others would buy the factories, new managers with new employment contracts (and hopefully no unions) would be in charge, with state of the art cars rolling off the production lines in a sustainable business model.
With capable auto executives finally overseeing GM's poorly deployed assets, the value and utility of each would rise, thus perpetuating the existence of jobs in the sector, all the while ensuring that other businesses that exist due to GM will enjoy more stable commercial relationships with competent management.
Would Democrats ever do such a thing? Of course not. Barack has already signaled clearly he has every desire to offer the capital the broken companies need to keep overpaying their help. The bailout of the auto manufacturers is a bailout of unions, which means it will kick the can down the road, but not fix the underlying problem.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What you suggest makes too much sense. We are, unfortunately, dealing with crooks on both sides. $, greed, hell with the taxpayer. These politicians (DEM and REPUB) are bought and controlled by these unions, big corps.,etc. Isn't it amazing how these pompous creeps blatantly screw us? Will there ever be any justice?