Politics
Out of context: Reply #6343
- Started
- Last post
- 33,773 Responses
- tommyo0
^^ I agree with Obama and I really wish we'd tried to go this route before. The gov involvement imo does some very very bad things when they bail out these companies.
1. The company never truly fixes what got them into the situation. I know in the case of GM, the gov was trying to force them to retool. But with the same breath, is gov really the entity well suited to tell a business how to run?
2. It makes the company look weak, thus reducing confidence in their product. Making their phoenixlike rise from the ashes even more improbable. Just look at how Wall St has treated bailed out companies.
3. It stirs up the 1984 type sentiments when you have gov firing ceos in the guise of public interest.
4. Now the gov has a stake in the companies future health, which to me this is one of the biggest issues. As an executive of a company your biggest responsibility is to your shareholders, us. To what end though? We've already watched the theories about gov favoring Goldman Sachs. We'd be venturing into new waters and frankly, gov is not an entity suited to run and manage businesses. They just aren't. They actually plain suck. They're the epitome of 'decision by committee' bureaucracy and waste.
I really don't think this is a healthy road to go down in terms of business and gov tied together. I realize we're not in ideal times but there have been systems in place to handle failing companies, it's called bankruptcy and I think we need to use that tool in favor of government handing out tax dollars. Even if you believe that Obamas administration has the integrity to handle these issues with a steady hand .. what about the precedent being set and the future leaders? Will they have the integrity? Would you shit your pants (literally) if it were Bush making the decision to fire CEOs? I would.
- You do know that when companies go bankrupt the government steps in to manage their assests right?TheBlueOne
- Through a court and not the executive branch, but it's still the government...TheBlueOne
- "the precedent being set and the future leaders?" That was set either in 1861 or 1931, depending.TheBlueOne
- I know that. It's the actually running and interest in the success of said company that I think is wrong.tommyo