Government, Government, Goverment

From the wires comes one hard to believe its actually true paragraphs:

WASHINGTON (AP) — General Motors Co., not the government, will determine when the automaker will conduct a public stock offering at the heart of the company’s revival, the Obama administration said Thursday. The Treasury Department said in a statement that it expects to sell some of its 61 percent stake in GM when the automaker goes public. The initial public offering could happen as early as October. Treasury provided guidance on how it intends to be involved in GM’s much-anticipated stock sale, which is expected to be among the largest initial public offerings in U.S. history.

It’s the “tone” that strikes me. It’s written like this is all normal! So everywhere below you see the word “money” insert “government” (Lyrics courtesy of Abba):

I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain’t it sad
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That’s too bad
In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn’t have to work at all, I’d fool around and have a ball

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man’s world
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a rich man’s world

Some don’t understand my nailing of government. Well, it’s simple: they are picking winners. Said another way they are discriminating against certain people (those who would have come after a dead GM) and rewarding the losers (said with a capital ‘L’) who have failed time and time again. GM should have been dead and buried thereby allowing new and innovative people to enter the car market — it’s that simple. The government, however, picked a ‘winner’…and that is as crooked as it comes. Nothing honorable about using the public trough to reward buddies and friends.

7 thoughts on “Government, Government, Goverment

  1. Michael

    Would you not accept that there is such a thing as a company that is too big to fail?


  2. Short, but to the point… 🙂

    So would you dismiss as without merit the arguments used to justify the bailouts in the wake of the Lehmann collapse?

    And would you not accept that when a massive company goes under, there can be serious and sustained effects on the economy, including the devastation of local economies? If so, it is not conceivable that not letting the company go under might offer the taxpayer more value for money than standing back and doing nothing?


  3. No. Stop being lazy, read the books I recommended, and you will have the answers to such simplistic and naive questions.

  4. I’ve watched news programmes in which economists have argued in favour of such state intervention. I doubt the books you will recommend will tell me how their learned arguments can be summarily dismissed, irrespective of the case for intervening in a particular company.

    I accept there are disadvantages to state assistance of failing companies. But do you accept there are also benefits (even if you feel they are outweighed by the disadvantages)?


Comments are closed.