People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Even though the bailout package now seems to be debt-based rather than equity-based, the basic dynamic hasn't changed - the government is going into business with the Big Three. It isn't merely requiring such meetings, it's participating in them.
What's even weirder is Elisabeth Moss Kanter's discussion of the lack of green planning by the Big Three, as a condition for receiving public funds:
All three of the plans talk about how they're getting better at building cars to [meet] market demand. Pause for a moment and think about that. These are the biggest advertisers probably in the world. And that makes it sound like they're passive recipients of consumer preferences, as opposed to shaping consumer preferences. So I would ask [the car companies] what are you going to do in your advertising and marketing this time to guarantee that the public actually wants green cars?
Implicit in the patronizing notion that people can be bludgeoned by advertising into wanting something they don't want, is the notion that they should be. By government fiat. Leave aside the fact that the so-called "green" cars will create an increased demand for electricity that regulators are doing everything to not meet.
People aren't buying green cars because the payback periods (including increased and naturally-rising maintenance costs) extend well past the second century of the Cubs' rebuilding program. If you pay more that you have to for the same item - in this case, getting from home to your job - you'll have less left over for everything else, including reitrement. That's called a lower standard of living.
You might try to offset this by buying into one of the rent-seeking green companies, and that'll work until everyone buys in and reduces returns to market rates. Inefficient investment is no more better for an economy than inefficient purchasing.
So what Prof. Kanter is proposing is that we use our own money to persuade ourselves to live more poorly. As the Powerline guys put it, lower living standards aren't the solution, they're the problem.
