Bailing Out the Big Three
Why reward Detroit (and punish taxpayers) for making unprofitable cars?
2008 was an apocalyptic year for the American car industry, with sales of Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler cars all falling by 25 percent. Supporters of the Big Three automakers argue that the government needs to provide Detroit with at least $50 billion in taxpayer money in order to save the American car industry, on top of the billions of federally subsidized loans they've already received. President Barack Obama agrees, having attacked John McCain during last year's presidential campaign for opposing a bailout of Detroit. But while many commenters and union advocates paint Detroit's economic troubles as a consequence of the financial crisis, necessitating its inclusion in the bailout sweepstakes, the financial troubles of the Big Three long predated the current mess. Indeed, in 2007, GM sold more cars and trucks than Toyota. Yet Toyota made almost $2,000 per vehicle while GM lost more than $1,000. So why does the United Auto Workers union and President Obama want taxpayers to reward Detroit—and punish her competitors—for making unprofitable cars?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
is good
good
thank