Boycott of GM Gaining Traction?
Posted by Bill Dupray
on Jun 8 2009 Filed under Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
According to Autoblog, some “far right-wingers” are planning a boycott of GM. Conspicuously absent from the piece is any mention of a “far left-wing” president nationalizing a private company and giving it to political cronies like the “far left-wing” UAW.
The far right wing of the American political spectrum has begun channeling its displeasure over the federal government’s involvement in the restructuring of General Motors into calls for a boycott of the company’s products. Reportedly spearheaded by right wing pundits and radio show hosts, the boycott would be a response to the U.S. government taking a 60% stake in GM in exchange for forgiving most of the tens of billions of dollars loaned to the company over the last six months.
Autoblog offers no links to the “far right-wingers” who are calling for the boycott, so let me help them out with at least one: Patriot Room.
These Obama apologists then proceed to lecture us “far right-wingers” about what a bad idea this whole boycott thing is.
Therefore, a successful boycott of GM products could have the adverse effect of driving the company into liquidation. This would eliminate any hope of getting reimbursed for the tens of billions in loans that the government has given GM. All that taxpayer money may never be recovered anyway, but it makes sense to at least walk the path that has a chance of success.
Like me, you are no doubt drying the tears of laughter from your cheeks after reading the assertion that taxpayers would be reimbursed a single dime of the gift that was given to GM by the government.
As we have discussed for weeks in our podcasts and in many posts, the government can take over the automakers, but that only decreases the odds the company can make a car anyone will want to buy. Moreover, when the cars that nobody will buy are not bought, the government will continue to flush 10′s of billions more taxpayer dollars down the toilet trying to keep the company afloat and the unions happy.
A boycott would staunch the bleeding by forcing the company to liquidate sooner, rather than later, and save the taxpayers far more money in the long run. After all, how did we get away from the argument about whether GM deserves any tax money at all, rather than how much it should get?
People can choose to decide that the government was wrong and punish the government by sacrificing GM to prove the point. While I would gladly sign on to a boycott, it may not be necessary. Polls show that only 26% of Americans support the auto bailouts in the first place and 17% favor a boycott and only 42% of GM owners would buy another one.
Obama may nationalize the company but markets decide what gets bought.
Related Posts
- U.S. profs call for boycott of Israel
- Boycott Letterman and his advertisers
- LA Times Provides Platform for “Boycott Israel” Call by Radical Neve Gordon; let’s boycott the LAT
- Is there really a boycott of Glenn Beck? Appears overstated
- British Unions Call to Boycott Jewish Goods from Judea/Samaria
Short URL: http://libertypundits.net/?p=4475
I agree that this would be good, but probably unnecessary.
You don’t have to go to any rallies, wear signs, or throw fake blood on anybody. Just buy a Ford.
Let’s assume for a sec that there’s a difference between a boycott (foregoing a good you would otherwise buy for purely philosophical reasons) and a purchasing decision based on, inter alia, concerns about the quality of the product and the future viability of the company that makes it. It’s not that simple, but I think Scott’s saying that enough people are making the second call to make the first superfluous.
My reaction was a lot like yours, Bill; color me a “far-right winger”. They want us to choose cars for political reasons — so I hope they’re happy with the result. I really wanted an Escalade hybrid like Hannity drives, so in my case it’s at least a healthy dose of boycott in addition to concerns about the company being forced to phase out the Escalade, not supporting trade-in and service, etc. Also, I think the dealers near my house were McCain contributors, so I’d ultimately have to take my Escalade to Arlington or Bethesda to get serviced.
It’s interesting that not many people mention that GM is actually a staggering 72.5% government owned. Canada owns 12.5%. So explain the part about how we need to save American jobs, and punish companies that expatriate some elements of production, when we’re using Chinese and Canadian money to “save” GM.
I agree with you and Scott. The polls at the end of the post are just would-be purchasers’ thoughts on the issue, all of which go into the purchasing decision. Frankly, I didn’t need an extra reason for not buying a GM. My entire life I have thought they were pieces of trash anyway. And their current predicament proves that a lot of people agree with that sentiment.
Yeah, thanks for clarifying what I was thinking, Rose. I just think most people will come to the same buying decision without a boycott. May as well sign on to the boycott though. Will make it seem like we have more clout than we do when others boycott for reasons of quality, price and future availability.
The boycott angle is helpful in the sense that it clarifies how many people take into account the nationalization as a criterion for not buying. Of course a poll in 6 months would do that too.
The government will take $1 from my left pocket to give to GM, so that GM can take $2 from my right pocket then tell me how great it is for me
“far right-wingers” are planning a boycott of GM. Instead how about calling them prudent shoppers who want to get the most value for the dollars they are spending?