MichaelRoss
January 29, 2009, 01:46 AM
Recently, our lefty leader Kevin Rudd, GAVE money to Welfare Recipients to Help Stimulate The Economy. Today, it seems, the Treasurer wants to do it again.
Maybe these Elected Kings have some deeper and more instant insight into how the Country's Economy is going. Maybe they do not. But when presented with... instead of giving money to people, why not reduce taxes and let them keep what they already rightly earned, the answer is No.
And why is that? Why so reluctant to let people keep their own money - while - giving large sums of money to others?
Bailouts. By rewarding bad business practices in the form of bailouts, you discourage good business practices. And reduce fair market competition.
Think about GM for a moment... if GM receives No money from the government, what would REALLY happen. Not Theoretically happen. Really happen. Would they really close down operations? Really?
Or... would it go like this... Private Money comes in and buys them out for a discount. After all, the sale of millions and millions of vehicles (and the profit that can be had from them) is a strong lure to an Existing Motor Company who could save a pretty penny on factory set up costs.
Think about it.
If all GM did was sell 10 million cars a year. It wouldn't be like the demand for those 10m cars dried up. There would still be a market for 10m cars. And it's doubtful an existing factory could ramp up production to cover the short fall. With the result being, GM would be bought out by someone else, and New Management put in charge who could actually run the darn thing, and still sells cars under the GM brands.
And if there truly is no demand for GM cars, why put money into a worthless thing? And what happens next year when the result is the same?
Something damn odd about that, to me.
Michael Ross
Maybe these Elected Kings have some deeper and more instant insight into how the Country's Economy is going. Maybe they do not. But when presented with... instead of giving money to people, why not reduce taxes and let them keep what they already rightly earned, the answer is No.
And why is that? Why so reluctant to let people keep their own money - while - giving large sums of money to others?
Bailouts. By rewarding bad business practices in the form of bailouts, you discourage good business practices. And reduce fair market competition.
Think about GM for a moment... if GM receives No money from the government, what would REALLY happen. Not Theoretically happen. Really happen. Would they really close down operations? Really?
Or... would it go like this... Private Money comes in and buys them out for a discount. After all, the sale of millions and millions of vehicles (and the profit that can be had from them) is a strong lure to an Existing Motor Company who could save a pretty penny on factory set up costs.
Think about it.
If all GM did was sell 10 million cars a year. It wouldn't be like the demand for those 10m cars dried up. There would still be a market for 10m cars. And it's doubtful an existing factory could ramp up production to cover the short fall. With the result being, GM would be bought out by someone else, and New Management put in charge who could actually run the darn thing, and still sells cars under the GM brands.
And if there truly is no demand for GM cars, why put money into a worthless thing? And what happens next year when the result is the same?
Something damn odd about that, to me.
Michael Ross
