Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Fighting for the Right to Fail

Well, I guess it had to happen. First the government takes over GM, for all intents and purposes. Then GM announces -- surprise! -- it's going to have to close a large number of dealerships in order to regain financial viability. Then an army of GM dealers descends on Washington demanding to be allowed to stay in business, in spite of the intentions of GM management. Now, I haven't seen the figures on this, but I don't think it would be stretching it too much to speculate that the dealers that GM is pulling the rug out from under are the ones below the cut, i.e. that they are part of the problem, bottom line-wise. Of course they will all contend that they are top performers... that they have been in business for generations... that they are steadfastly loyal to GM... et cetera. And, that they have been sharply dealt with and betrayed by GM, which really means by the government (and the UAW as well, I suppose). But what occurs to me is that if all of the GM dealers, all across the land, were reliable profit centers for GM, that GM would not be in bankruptcy and none of this would be necessary. Is that too much to ask? Maybe I'm crazy. It just seems to me that a company all of whose outlets are making a profit should be making a profit itself... but I forget, this is America in 2009, and nothing that should make sense according to the usual rules of economics makes sense any longer in the bizarro world we now live in.

On the other hand, it's hard to fault their logic -- the dealers', that is. If their parent company has been taken over by government, and by the unions, that means that it is no longer in business to make a profit... which means that it is not really in "business" at all, but is now just another government agency. And when you're a government agency, not only is the concept of "profits" completely foreign, but, in most cases, the idea is one that has to be avoided, and suppressed if it should ever crop up. After all, government exists to fill in the economic blanks where, under a free-market system, whoever was providing those goods, and those services, would not stand a chance of making any money. In other words, government takes care of the non-profit, "supply without demand" sector of the economy -- or, in some cases, the sector where there is a demand but no one willing to pay for it. So it makes perfect sense for (1) the government to take over the American auto industry (that would be "supply without sufficient demand" as well as "some demand but no willingness to pay"); and (2) the government to then maintain, in a sort of sheltered workshop fashion, any and all dealerships who plead hardship -- which means all of them. Thus the auto industry becomes transformed, overnight, into a typical government agency -- providing things that most people don't want even if they're free, and that a few people want provided they don't have to pay for them. Mission accomplished! Of course, what it means is that a large sector of the economy has been moved, like a piece on the chessboard, from the profit-making, supply-and-demand sector into the "ward of the state" sector where it will have to be supported by the taxpayers. But in truth, there is nothing all that unusual about this, and it is becoming more common every day -- and is destined to become even more common in the near future. The goal, of course, for the hard-core statist, is to make the government, ultimately, in charge of providing _all_ goods and services to the citizenry... for a nominal fee, or even for free. In exchange for which, of course, all economic rights and opportunities have to be given up... but this seems a small price to pay for "security" -- and, really, isn't that what the new servile state is all about? Freedom in exchange for security. But it's amazing how large a percentage of the populace is panting to make this deal. You don't suppose it's because that weird old idea of "freedom" has been, let's say, "de-emphasized" in the public schools for about two generations now? Ah yes, truly it's ideas that ultimately triumph.

No comments: