True or false? When the corporations do badly they're victims of the bad economy & workers, but when Americans?

...are doing badly, it's their own fault for being irresponsible, lazy, and/or dumb? And even though more Americans (workers and the smaller business owners) doing badly altogether has a much bigger impact on the economy than three monopolies that (millions VS about 377,000 or fewer auto workers in the US as of 2006) are wealthy enough to continue to spend billions on advertising cars they don't have, expand, and outsource American jobs--the auto monopolies are deserving of bailouts because their are benefiting the economy while Americans should never be given ';handouts'; (extending their mortgage payments, etc.)?





';At the beginning of 2006, the Big 3 automakers directly employed 377,000 people 鈥?or 8 out of 10 US auto workers.';





http://www.house.gov/dingell/documents/p鈥?/a>True or false? When the corporations do badly they're victims of the bad economy %26amp; workers, but when Americans?
I personally think that nobody should be allowed to fail if they are important enough. Every individual is too important to be allowed to fail, thus, we have welfare, medicaid, and social security. But we also have some institutions that employ too many people to be allowed to fail. You call the auto companies monopolies; there are three, and then the foreign companies. The American manufacturers are just too important to too many people to be allowed to go under. GM would not survive bankruptcy. Bankruptcy requires credit. The credit market isn't large enough currently to hold up GM, much less, the all three.





I think your intuition about things not being fair is right. But as I said, individuals should be helped as well. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. When individuals do badly it is most often not their fault. When companies do, it may more likely be, but they just affect too many people.True or false? When the corporations do badly they're victims of the bad economy %26amp; workers, but when Americans?
You have a point. The standard has to be the same. We have a thin safety net for people not doing well: welfare, medicaid, unemployment benefits. It isn't enough to live well on, but it gets you through the hard times provided you are willing to work when your situation improves. The Big 3 have to be held to the same standards. Yes, we can loan them money, but they have to restructure through a formal Chapter 11, their execs have to go. First in line to receive anything that can be salvaged are the company's customers and retirees, since they have nowhere else to go. Funds have to be set aside to pay for warranties and retirement benefits promised to those who fulfilled their side of the bargain by buying the cars and working a lifetime. Next in line are the employees, who can't all stay, and can't keep the benefits and salaries that receive now. Last are the creditors and shareholders. They get nothing. Without something that drastic, any bailout money will be simply enabling the company executives to keep doing the things that brought us to where we are now.
Yes, but unfortunately the worker's fate is directly tied to the companies- and everyone knows this. It may be morally difficult to determine whether feeding the workers one meal or giving the corporations a great big fishing net is the right thing to do, so to speak. It comes down to practicality. Bail them out if that's what it takes but insist on severe government controls like no more two ton SUV's in a diminishing oil scenario and development of alternative energy vehicles, once and for all and stop supporting the oil agenda.