OK, so I didn't even read the first one. It apparently says that only two automakers should get bailout money, based on whoever will bid the lowest price. More interesting than the idea? The source. What's Eliot Spitzer doing back in the news?
Another idea ... Why do the taxpayers have to cough up this dough? How about the government does a 401(k)-style match, essentially a subsidy for investing in the automakers specifically, so that most of the money is still coming in from the private sector? Administratively complicated, but theoretically superior, at least as far as I can tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I really like that second idea. The really great thing about that plan is that it will naturally funnel money to the right places (assuming reasonably accurate information about the various companies is available). Even with a matching investment by the government people will be unwilling to invest in shitty companies that are not adjusting to market forces and consumer taste.
ReplyDeleteThe inability of the Big Three to foresee that gas prices would go up and the USA's love affair with the SUV would cool down is mind-boggling. The engineers must have been stunned when the executives kept asking them to build 4,000 pound gas-guzzling cars like the GMC Yukon Denali. Actually, I just looked up the Yukon Denali (which is how I knew to add the word Denali to the name Yukon) and it has a gross vehicle weight rating of 7,100 pounds. How could anyone not see that a 7,000 pound car that gets approximately 12 miles to the gallon (18 on the highway) would not be the car of the future? I think car companies need to transplant some of the Sports Guy's advice and hire a General Manager of Common Sense. Forget a car czar (side note: I like czar better than tsar, but cannot really explain why), they just need a person to say "What the hell are you thinking?" when people suggest designs of this nature.