So what do you guys think about the government bailing out businesses in danger?

Dumpy Dooby · 11-17-2006, 12:52 AM

After 9/11, we bailed out the major airlines. Bush just met with the American automakers a few days ago. Toyota's market cap is more than all three American automakers' combined. If something doesn't happen, the Japanese will squash us. So let's just say that, hypothetically, the American automakers are about to go under. Would you support bailing them out? How did you feel about us bailing out the major airlines after 9/11?

I'm really not one to support government subsidies, but I have a difficult time not supporting them in the case of 9/11. Afterall, the government told the businesses that they couldn't conduct business. It only seems fair that we pay for the hit the took because of us. And with minimum wage laws, taxes, etc. handicapping businesses, I have a difficult time not accepting at least some responsibility when a major industry is about to collapse. On the other hand, I prefer to just say "Oh well" and wait for the industry to pick itself up again.

Kytro · 11-17-2006, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

After 9/11, we bailed out the major airlines. Bush just met with the American automakers a few days ago. Toyota's market cap is more than all three American automakers' combined. If something doesn't happen, the Japanese will squash us. So let's just say that, hypothetically, the American automakers are about to go under. Would you support bailing them out? How did you feel about us bailing out the major airlines after 9/11?

It depends on viability. 9/11 was a single event and it could be argued the market would return to normaility at some point, or at least adjust itself to become more profitable.

Government help should be in the form of low-interest loans if at all and then only if the market is likely to become viable once again.

ballz2wallz · 11-17-2006, 08:56 AM

Terrible idea.

Diesel66 · 11-17-2006, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

airlines. Bush just met with the American automakers a few days ago. Toyota's market cap is more than all three American automakers' combined.

??

Diamond Cross · 11-17-2006, 09:12 AM

I don't see why the government should. Personally I'd love to see the two separate.

Dumpy Dooby · 11-17-2006, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

??

You don't understand the relevance? Toyota is worth more money than all three American automakers combined. I went on to talk about how they're in danger of going under.

I guess it didn't really flow well, but I was tired. Besides, you'd have to be a dullard to not understand what I'm discussing.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-17-2006, 12:33 PM

I'm against it in 99.9% of circumstances.

Thomas Crown · 11-17-2006, 12:40 PM

It depends on the circumstances and the actions taken beforehand.

If a company is still paying it's executives multiple millions a year, no.

If a company has made an honest effort to turn around and they need a little help, I don't have a problem with that (depending on circumstances).

The idea being that a company that has truly tried but failed and their collapse would put thousands of workers on the streets and then on the government payroll, a measured intervention isn't something I disagree with.

TheScatman · 11-17-2006, 04:43 PM

Im against what happened after 9/11, in fact it highlights why Airlines need to pay for their own security from private firms, and not have DHS take it over. Then and only then will airlines find the appriopriate level between security and comfort of passenegers

R-Type · 11-17-2006, 06:14 PM

What are businesses but a whole group of people? If it's not ok to bail out 'failing' individuals, then it's not ok to bail out failing businesses either. Barring a major catastrophe like the depression, if a business can't make money, government shouldn't be inventing markets/creating false scarcity (think copyright cartel), nor bailing them out financially. Ford et al have been sitting on their asses for years, selling heavy, inefficient. and poorly constructed vehicles knowing full well that fuel prices are/were going to steadily rise.. they should die in their own excrement if they can't extricate themselves by competing on product value.

AVengeance · 11-20-2006, 05:08 PM

It's always a bad idea. Always.

Rouger2 · 11-20-2006, 05:42 PM

The businesses that are going out of business because of unfair trade should be helped by having the playing field leveled by our government. Our companies should not have to compete with over seas companies that do not have the exact same costs that our companies have like enviormental costs, employee safety costs, unemployment costs, Health insurance costs and retirement costs because all of us are going to lose those benefits if we keep competiting with over sea's companies that don't have those benefits.

Ardentfrost · 11-20-2006, 06:53 PM

So, are you saying that the government should stop adding to domestic business costs so that they can compete on the global market, or that they should add tarriffs on importing goods to make the prices even with domestic prices?

RMNIXON · 11-20-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It depends on viability. 9/11 was a single event and it could be argued the market would return to normaility at some point, or at least adjust itself to become more profitable.

Government help should be in the form of low-interest loans if at all and then only if the market is likely to become viable once again.

Good point.

Also 9/11 was a politcal event. It was not caused by the negligence or bad business practices of the Airlines themselves.

But when you bail out major business failures that works against the free market and becomes an insentive not to worry too much about bad business practices over the long term. Very bad news! Plus the money spent could just as easily create jobs in some other part of the economy. That is why you invest with people that have a good track record, not a bad one!

TheScatman · 11-20-2006, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Good point.

Also 9/11 was a politcal event. It was not caused by the negligence or bad business practices of the Airlines themselves.

But when you bail out major business failures that works against the free market and becomes an insentive not to worry too much about bad business practices over the long term. Very bad news! Plus the money spent could just as easily create jobs in some other part of the economy. That is why you invest with people that have a good track record, not a bad one!

why cant they pay for their own security? why must the taxpayer pay for it? i fail to see how them not properly screening passengers for box cutters (or realizing what people could use box cutters for) is anyones fault but their own.

Rouger2 · 11-22-2006, 04:53 PM

I don't think government is overburdaning business not with the republicans in power for the last six years and a pro business democratic president before that. The playing field could be leveled though, and tariffs would help. Slowly lowering the value of our currancy to the level it should be, because of our huge trade deficit would help also, but our wonderful economy would suffer and no president would allow that because they and their party would suffer.

Ardentfrost · 11-22-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't think government is overburdaning business not with the repulicans in power for the last six years and a pro business democratic president before that. The playing field could be leveled though, and tariffs would help. Slowly lowering the value of our currancy to the level it should be at bacause of our huge trade deficit would help also, but our wonderful economy would suffer and no president would allow that because they and their party would suffer.

Tarriffs only help certain industries.

If you want to buy a phone, and you could spend $10 on a japanese one or $20 on an American one, both of exact same quality etc... then you'd obviously buy the $10 one and then have $10 dollars to spend on something else... let's say a lamp. But if a $10 tarrif is instituted, making the American and Japanese phone cost the same (or even a bigger tarrif making the japanese one cost more), then are you essentially $10 poorer. Instead of having both a phone and a lamp, you only have a phone. Now not only do you suffer because you do not have light, but the lamp industry suffers because it doesn't have your business.

Tarriffs is one of those things we're fooled into thinking is a good thing. Failing industries want them so Americans are forced to buy their goods, but the cost is more than just to the pocket of the American people... it's also to what the American people WOULD have bought with that money. Hence the whole economy is worse off.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-22-2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Tarriffs only help certain industries.

If you want to buy a phone, and you could spend $10 on a japanese one or $20 on an American one, both of exact same quality etc... then you'd obviously buy the $10 one and then have $10 dollars to spend on something else... let's say a lamp. But if a $10 tarrif is instituted, making the American and Japanese phone cost the same (or even a bigger tarrif making the japanese one cost more), then are you essentially $10 poorer. Instead of having both a phone and a lamp, you only have a phone. Now not only do you suffer because you do not have light, but the lamp industry suffers because it doesn't have your business.

Tarriffs is one of those things we're fooled into thinking is a good thing. Failing industries want them so Americans are forced to buy their goods, but the cost is more than just to the pocket of the American people... it's also to what the American people WOULD have bought with that money. Hence the whole economy is worse off.

Very well said

Rouger2 · 11-24-2006, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Tarriffs only help certain industries.

If you want to buy a phone, and you could spend $10 on a japanese one or $20 on an American one, both of exact same quality etc... then you'd obviously buy the $10 one and then have $10 dollars to spend on something else... let's say a lamp. But if a $10 tarrif is instituted, making the American and Japanese phone cost the same (or even a bigger tarrif making the japanese one cost more), then are you essentially $10 poorer. Instead of having both a phone and a lamp, you only have a phone. Now not only do you suffer because you do not have light, but the lamp industry suffers because it doesn't have your business.

Tarriffs is one of those things we're fooled into thinking is a good thing. Failing industries want them so Americans are forced to buy their goods, but the cost is more than just to the pocket of the American people... it's also to what the American people WOULD have bought with that money. Hence the whole economy is worse off.

I never said it would be easy. It cost more at the market place to be a first world country because you are paying for the protections and benefits that are expected of a first world country. It makes us civilized. We will lose all those benefits if we keep competiting with countries that don't have them. In the eventual free market world all countries will have the same protections and benefits That means that when our standard of liveing drops and the poorest countries in the world, and all their billions of people, rise to meet ours. Yea we are bring up the standard of living of the poor of the world at the expense of our own standard of living.

Ardentfrost · 11-24-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I never said it would be easy. It cost more at the market place to be a first world country because you are paying for the protections and benefits that are expected of a first world country. It makes us civilized. We will lose all those benefits if we keep competiting with countries that don't have them. In the eventual free market world all countries will have the same protections and benefits That means that when our standard of liveing drops and the poorest countries in the world, and all their billions of people, rise to meet ours. Yea we are bring up the standard of living of the poor of the world at the expense of our own standard of living.

Being a first world nation doesn't mean we give ourselves expensive and inefficient means of protectionism. How do you expect we can maintain being so awesome (

) if we choose economic devices that slow our economy?

And the only way we can continue to increase our standard of living and economy is by letting other nations take industries that are no longer economically viable. Our limited labor force requires that (being able to buy, say, alarm clocks from taiwan allows the American alarm clock workers to be freed up for other industries that we are more successful in).

It seems you have it backwards... globalizing allows us to better ourselves more efficiently. It does also allow other nations to better themselves, but we wouldn't do it if it f'd us up. People are scared of offshoring, but the fact is offshoring has helped increase our average pay and standard of living, and will continue to as long as we don't take away too many people's incentive to work.

(sorry if some of my post randomed or seemed discontinuous... I'm usually pretty good about it, but I'm sick today and my head feels funny)