I see the outlook of an American; why do these companies, which have caused substantial harm to the American economy, be given millions of dollars? News agencies frequently report to the public that these funds are used to pay off high-level executives; from that standpoint, the American taxpayer is being cheated.
CBS Nightly News reported tonight about the ongoing controversy surrounding a failed solar company, Solydra, that was given $500 million. Hastily, Republicans point the finger to the White House, seizing this opportunity to strengthen the image of their party and weaken that of the Democrats. Seems as if Americans are still angered over corporations using their taxpayer dollars.
However, the stimulus package that was passed back in January of 2009 certainly was beneficial. Though there may be occasional, disappointing failures (and in this case, a $500 million one), many American companies would not be able to stand if it weren't for President Obama. And American companies mean that at least some American workers will be employed, extremely necessary given the fact that we are facing unemployment at twice the natural rate.
Bank of America, headquartered in Charlotte, received this government loan and was able to fully pay it back. This bank allows the economy of North Carolina to thrive and was on the verge of collapsing like its sister Wachovia (bought by Wells Fargo). Evaluate the situation: American banks such as Lehman Brothers have collapsed, and other companies are in dire need of money to continue operations. Contrarily, I understand that the common citizen will be irritated by this demand and even mistrusting of both the government and these corporations.
The bottom line is that had some of these companies not been given this money, they would have failed, which would have led to the unemployment of more Americans. Furthermore, foreign companies would have been able to gain more market share in the American economy; if we look at just banks, I'm sure that Barclays, HSBC, UBS Group, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank wouldn't mind having their American counterparts eliminated.
To me, it seems as if what the American government did was extremely interventionist, directly opposite of what Adam Smith suggested in his Wealth of Nations. But hey, like mercantilism, maybe heavy intervention from the government is the only way you can keep the economy of a country alive at times?
Bank of America, headquartered in Charlotte, received this government loan and was able to fully pay it back. This bank allows the economy of North Carolina to thrive and was on the verge of collapsing like its sister Wachovia (bought by Wells Fargo). Evaluate the situation: American banks such as Lehman Brothers have collapsed, and other companies are in dire need of money to continue operations. Contrarily, I understand that the common citizen will be irritated by this demand and even mistrusting of both the government and these corporations.
The bottom line is that had some of these companies not been given this money, they would have failed, which would have led to the unemployment of more Americans. Furthermore, foreign companies would have been able to gain more market share in the American economy; if we look at just banks, I'm sure that Barclays, HSBC, UBS Group, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank wouldn't mind having their American counterparts eliminated.
To me, it seems as if what the American government did was extremely interventionist, directly opposite of what Adam Smith suggested in his Wealth of Nations. But hey, like mercantilism, maybe heavy intervention from the government is the only way you can keep the economy of a country alive at times?
No comments:
Post a Comment