Live Online Debate Today: The Auto Industry Bailout
The US auto industry’s woes are well known — we’ve covered them here at Gas 2.0 many times — but are these companies deserving of taxpayer money for a government bailout, or should they be left to deal with a mess that they mostly created?
This is the question that will be debated live on NPR.org today at 3 PM EDT (19:00 Greenwich Mean Time).
- » See also: CARB Unveils DriveClean, a New Web Tool to Help Consumers Pick Green Cars
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
The panel of debaters includes:
Dan Mitchell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a free-market economist who argues that economic forces not special interest deal-making (subsidies and handouts) should determine whether industries succeed or fail.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, who is in favor of government intervention.
Maryann Keller, independent consultant and author of Rude Awakening: The Rise, Fall and Struggle for Recovery at General Motors.
It’s a topic I feel many of our readers are interested in and hope that you’ll head on over to National Public Radio’s website to share your valuable opinions and get, hopefully, a balanced view of the situation.
When: Today, October 29, 2008, 3 PM Eastern Daylight Time (19:00 Greenwich Mean Time)
Where: live on NPR.org
I don’t think the government should intervene in the private sector more than it already has. That is the nature of an open market and capitalism. If a company doesn’t create a product that people want to buy and said company is not strong enough to survive, it should be allowed to die out.
This sets a dangerous precedent. If this happens and the government loans them money for some sort of bailout, where do you draw the line for future corporate buyouts? Will the government come to the rescue of every company that is in danger of going under? How will any lessons ever be learned about what works and what doesn’t work if large companies aren’t allowed to fail? Those mistakes that set companies on the course to failure will simply be repeated.
I am aware that jobs would be lost and the economy would take a hit. Let it absorb that hit, it will bounce back and it will come back stronger than it was before.
These companies are paiding price for refuseing to greatly improve ice teck and wasted money on fuel cells. If they did what they should we would have engines with thermal efficiencies in 70′2 and mid size car would get 60mpg
If we are going to bail them out, then I want to see better fuel economy in there vehicles and green initiatives in their business practices. 45 mpg by 2015
I don’t think the question should be “To bail out, or not to bail out” but should be “If we agree to put out $5Billion, what method will work best?”
With that question, the answer is to develop new technologies - get http://www.Aptera.com and http://www.teslamotors.com funding so that we develop new technologies instead of trying to hang on the old ways.
No bailouts for these hypocritical parasites. They just spend the last 8 years telling us how welfare = communist and anyone who asks for any help for any reason is a total loser.
The criminals who ran these companies into the ground are guilty of Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility - and it’s a Felony.
They should be stripped of all the money they paid themselves out of the worker’s labor and the stockholder’s savings, assessed a criminal penalty and then spend the rest of their days sorting medical waste for recycling to pay back all the damage they’ve done to America.
There are many companies with better technology and better management that deserve to replace these buggy whip manufacturers who spent all their money on bonuses & bribes.
At least in GM’s case, they seem to be making fuel economy a high priority. They currently offer the Cobalt/G5 XFE that get 37 mpg highway for 2009 (that’s under the 2008+ EPA rating system…that’s equivalent to 42 mpg under the old 2007- EPA rating system). With tuning and upgrades, they brought their G6, Malibu and Aura 4-cylinders up to 33 mpg (equivalent to 37 under the old EPA system) which is excellent for mid-size cars with 170 hp.
GM’s trucks/SUVs have always gotten the best EPA rated fuel economy for their class (even compared to Toyota and Nissan) and GM was the first to offer a full-size SUV hybrid.
They have coming the Chevy Volt (plugin hybrid) and the Chevy Cruze (supposedly going to be slightly bigger than the Cobalt and get 45 mpg with a 1.4L turbo-charged engine).
…and just for the record, back in the 90’s GM had the Geo brand that included the Metro XFi that got 58 mpg, and the regular Metro that got 50 mpg, along with other small cars (Storm, Prizm) that got 35-38 mpg. They also had the Saturn S-series that got 37-40 mpg. They’ve had the least expensive small car (Chevy Aveo, was $10K until 2008 and gets 37 mpg) on the U.S. Market since the early 2000’s.
Don’t forget gentlemen, we bailed out Chrysler and we actually made money on that deal.
Don’t forget gentlemen, we bailed out Chrysler and actually made a profit on that deal.
“I don’t think the government should intervene in the private sector more than it already has. ”
Hmmm…
Considering Fuel Economy Standard,
Emissions Standards,
Safety Standards,
Workplace Pollution Standards,
Workplace Safety Standards,
Workplace Hourly Pay/Overtime Rules,
Legal Unions,
EEOC Requirements,
…
Seems the government intervenes an awful lot already, much of it giving a competitive disadvantage to domestic producers.
Its all my fault.
I told everyone not to buy another gasoline car. Their sales are so far off now that GM won’t even be able to make it to 2010 and the Volt.
I’m so sorry now.