Lil Wesley K Clark has hit a new and vile low in the big 3 bailout debate. That's right people, it's a matter of national security!
"AMERICA’S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington’s intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative."
Ah yes, the lovely national security argument for economic distortion and protectionism. The last refuge, as they say.
As always, it's hard to know where to begin. First off, Ford and GM do not comprise "America's automobile industry". Second, if there was no GM, would it be impossible to use Toyota or Honda in the US to provide military vehicles? Plenty of countries IMPORT military equipment, don't they? Third, not bailing out the big 3 does not necessarily mean they will cease to exist (though that outcome is possible).
I'll say this for Wes, he is a grimly determined and wildly entertaining fleshmonger. After a bunch of paragraphs that pretty much say nothing he concludes with:
"This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security."
How can the NY Times print this moronic drivel?
3 comments:
your blog is so good......
I worked in the steel industry when LTV and Bethlehem went into bankruptcy. Their pension systems eventually became guarded by the PBGC, their workers took pay cuts, and the companies where bought by Wilbur Ross and resold to Mittal. I worked for Republic as a salaried employee, but everyone took a pay cut there, as well. Republic's pensions were taken over by the PBGC (never happened before), not handed over to the PBGC, but literally taken over. My point is, the steel tariff was for national security due to dumping, but I don't remember a nice direct bailout for the steel companies. The auto makers have nowhere else to turn. Foreigners passed quotas and tariffs by building cars here. Being from Kentucky, I remember when Martha Layne Collins set the groundwork for Toyota to build a plant in the middle of nowhere (Georgetown, KY) and now the rest of the foreign makers are all over the south. Count this as a no vote for the bailout!!!
I came here to answer Angus' question: "How can the NY Times print this moronic drivel?"
Practice, practice, practice!
Post a Comment