Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Your phrase the "US government has bailed out a car company" is quite deficient. The US Government did not merely bail out a car company, but instead the US Government currently has a majority ownership interest and a huge financial interest in one of Toyota's top competitors.
It's a lie to pretend a conflict of interest does not exist here. A conflict of interest exists here by definition.***
The argument is that conflicts of interest matter and we ought to take them seriously. If you want to argue that my position is crazy, you ought to atleast acknowledge and address the conflict of interest aspect of it, as this is the entire basis of the argument.
***I read very recently that GM-Newco is planning an IPO sometime this year....I'm sure the folks at the Federal Government are, unlike the rest of humanity, too honest and decent to do anybody wrong, but the conflict of having one institution take in cash from an IPO at precisely the same time it sets in judgment of a competitor of that offering seems readily apparent to me.
|
the conflict of interest exists if you assume that USG is one large monolithic entity, and would operate as a regular shareholder with a financial stake. Somehow I don't think Geithner is getting stock options...
the potential mercanilist conflict of interest (defending a US flag company against foreign comp) is much more tangible and present. MUCH