Fraser Institute says auto bailout remains a bad idea
2011-06-03 14:09 ET - Street Wire
This item is part of Stockwatch's value added news feed and is only available to Stockwatch subscribers.
Here is a sample of this item:
by Mark Milke of the Fraser Institute
Milton Friedman once said his greatest fear about the 1979 bailout of Chrysler by the U.S. federal government was not that it would fail, but that it would succeed. Mr. Friedman did not mean he was wrong to oppose it. What concerned him was how Chrysler's rescue (approved by the U.S. Congress in late 1979 and signed into law by then-president Jimmy Carter in 1980) might lead some to draw the wrong conclusion: the notion that such actions save jobs, among other illusions.
An example of an errant summary arrived again recently from federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty held a press conference with members of the Canadian Auto Workers union and Chrysler. They were there to trumpet how the most recent Chrysler bailout, in 2009, was a "success" because Chrysler has repaid some -- but not all -- of the money it owes Canadian taxpayers.
Several commentators followed up with praise for the government and taxpayer largesse. They argued opposition to such corporate welfare was based on neo-classical economics and "dogmatic impulses."
The remainder is available to Stockwatch subscribers.
Sign-up for a FREE 30-day Stockwatch subscription and SEE NO ADS
© 2024 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reader Comments - Comments are open to paying subscribers of Stockwatch and unmoderated,
although libelous remarks, obscene language and impersonations may be deleted.
Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.
For information regarding Canadian libel law, please view the
University of Ottawa's FAQ regarding Defamation and SLAPPs.
We go through an expensive, archaic, and deceptive process called "a democratic election" so that a whole group of people who are too lazy to work, and too stupid to operate their own profitable business, can purportedly "represent our interests", go to the Nations Capital and be called politicans. I refuse to vote, so you can't blame me for helping to elect any of these mental midgets.
Canadian politicans love to compare Canada to the United states of America. So lets compare the number of politicans. In the U.S. they have a population of approximately 330 million people. We in Canada have a population of approximately 33 million. Roughly a 10 to 1 ratio. In the U.S. House of Representatives they have 435 members (the number is fixed by Law). So, on a ratio of 10 to 1, that means we in Canada should only have 43 Members in the House. Why do we have 308? To add insult to injury, they are now openly talking about creating even more federal political positions!
As a result, we are paying for 265 MPs that we don't really need, and who have nothing better to do than spend our (taxpayers) money on really stupid ideas such as selected business bailouts.
Incidentally, each "saved" job in the auto industry bailout cost about $500,000 per autoworker. If the government had let GM and Chrysler go under in bankruptcy, they could have given me the $500,000 per person and I would have hired more staff. Instead, the Government now wants to increase not only my personal taxes, but my corporate taxes also, to help pay off the debt load created by their stupidness.
Mr Dunne,
I echo your sentiments in all but one respect. You imply that the US is governed better than Canada because their democracy is less representative of their population, following this further, a dictatorship must be the most desireable form of government. You only have to pay the one person.
Too bad this article is not going to get nation wide exposure as I fear we are in for more of the same from this government and people will be cheering all the way to the poor house.
Posted by Back Seat Driver at 2011-06-06 13:58
Comments for this item are closed