An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not
source: http://www.economist.com/node/16846494?story_id=16846494&fsrc=nlw
-
-
- ampersand
- added this
AMERICANS expect much from their president, but they do not think he should run car companies. Fortunately, Barack Obama agrees.
This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public (see article).
Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government’s arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape. Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.
Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy.
The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief
Yet the doomsayers were wrong.
The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.
http://www.economist.com/node/16846494?story_id=16846494&fsrc=nlw|hig|08-19-2010|editors_highlights
This week the American government moved closer to getting rid of its stake in General Motors (GM) when the recently ex-bankrupt firm filed to offer its shares once more to the public (see article).
Once a symbol of American prosperity, GM collapsed into the government’s arms last summer. Years of poor management and grabby unions had left it in wretched shape. Efforts to reform came too late. When the recession hit, demand for cars plummeted. GM was on the verge of running out of cash when Uncle Sam intervened, throwing the firm a lifeline of $50 billion in exchange for 61% of its shares.
Many people thought this bail-out (and a smaller one involving Chrysler, an even sicker firm) unwise. Governments have historically been lousy stewards of industry. Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy.
The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief
Yet the doomsayers were wrong.
The lesson for American voters is that their president, for all his flaws, has no desire to own the commanding heights of industry. A gambler, yes. An interventionist, yes. A socialist, no.
http://www.economist.com/node/16846494?story_id=16846494&fsrc=nlw|hig|08-19-2010|editors_highlights
-
- tags:
- Barack Obama, General motors, The Economist
-
-
notrepublican
-
Its your turn to apologize next, teabaggers.
- 1 year ago
-
notrepublican
-
-
ampersand
-
What is choice about this is that these are the words and apology of the premier arch-capitalist conservative money magazine.
(The same magazine that twice supported George Bush for President and once ran a cover shouting for Bill Clinton to resign.) - 1 year ago
-
ampersand
