Sunday, June 14, 2009

The President's Willpower

I missed this George Will column on the government takeover of GM. It isn't his first on the subject but it may be his best.

Money Q:
"What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM," says the president who, when not firing GM's CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members, is designing new products (imposing fuel economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety). The president, overcoming his professed reluctance to run GM, resembles the journalist Don Marquis when, after a month on the wagon, he ordered a double martini and exclaimed: "I've conquered my ***dam willpower."
Read it all.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"imposing fuel economy requirements that will control size, weight, passenger capacity and safety"

Every car company has to improve fuel economy. More small cars would improve overall safety and reduce large-small collisions which KILL more people than small-small collisions. Also, more people are killed by the extra pollution of the larger cars. Finally, the larger cars are top-heavy and MORE likely to roll over.

What's so wrong about "GM's CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members"??
Those idiots ran the company into the ground. They deserve to be fired.

June 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"More small cars would improve overall safety and reduce large-small collisions which KILL more people than small-small collisions. Also, more people are killed by the extra pollution of the larger cars."

I'd like to see the source for this claim.

"What's so wrong about "GM's CEO, purging its board of directors and picking new members"??

Nothing. Except that it cost $60 billion taxpayers dollars when it should have been handled by the board of directors and the company should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy at no cost to taxpayers.

Typical Obama-phile. He can do no wrong. Let him run your business.

June 14, 2009 at 10:13 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Small cars simply do not work for everyone. Larger families or people who need hauling/towing capacity can't deal with small cars. Auto companies are successful building cars that people actually WANT not cars that political elites THINK they need.

As to pollution, we can all agree that reducing pollution is an admirable goal. However, all the cars in the WORLD produce 6-8% of total greenhouse gases. The net result of EVERYONE driving a hybrid would make this number perhaps 4%. The costs to the consumer, however, would be enormous. Planes and large cargo ships produce far more pollution. In fact, the largest 15 ships produce as much greenhouse gas as every car in the world.

This is what happens when politicians run things and not the free market.

June 15, 2009 at 10:32 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is article on crashes
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/automobiles/13suv.html

"Collisions between an S.U.V., pickup or minivan and a car kill more people than car-to-car collisions, statistics show. When all types of crashes are considered, occupants of sport utilities and pickups actually have a higher death rate than car occupants. This is mainly because sport utilities and pickups are more likely to roll over when they strike another vehicle, a curb or a guard rail, or if they miss a turn or swerve."

Why would YOU trust the board that put GM on the wrong path in the first place by making cars that people didn't want or need?

If GM went into bankruptcy itself, we would have seen it go out of business completely. ALL the dealerships would have gone under. The connected industries like Steel would have faltered. Do you have ANY idea what that would have done to the economy?

As we are already seeing, TARP funds are getting paid back, with interest. If GM turns around, the $60 billion will get paid back as well.

June 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Here's another article from the New York Times on the dangers of smaller, lighter cars.

"Why would YOU trust the board that put GM on the wrong path in the first place by making cars that people didn't want or need?"

First, I wouldn't. That's why I never bought any GM stock. And now that the federal government is picking its management team, I will be even less likely to do so.

Unfortunately, I don't have any control over this government and how its decided to "invest" my tax dollars. But most Americans are against having their taxes used to bailout out GM and to pay off the UAW for getting out the vote for Democrats.

Second, when it comes to deciding what people "want or need," in the way of cars, I'll take the free market over government every time.

June 15, 2009 at 2:55 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

This comment was inadvertently deleted:

Anonymous said...

"to pay off the UAW for getting out the vote for Democrats"

You just lost the argument with that partisan nonsense. You sound all
to happy to stick it to union workers, even if the rest of the country
suffers.

BTW, your link to "another article" doesn't go anywhere.

June 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

The link works now.

And the connection between the President's bailout of GM and the protection of the UAW and its leadership is clear to any sentient political observer.

But I guess that old saying needs updating, "What's good for the UAW is good for the country... NOT!"

June 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Oh yeah and BTW, the story about SUV's and roll-over says nothing about more Americans dying from pollution from big cars than from small-car crashes.

June 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home