In a word? WRONG! But, here's a piece of what I've been thinking, from Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek:
Why don't the Big Three save the money it takes to put together Congressional testimony and the time it takes for the people in charge to make the trip. Why don't they just take out ads in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times outlining what they're going to do with the money. Then they can try this really novel idea. They can sell bonds and borrow the money. If the plans look good, people might lend them the money. If the plans are lousy, they won't get the money.
This was the same advice I had for the funding of the then-proposed Lucas Oil Stadium. Alas.
Friend Michael Jarrell relates the automaker-Congressional begging to child-parent interaction, and to a drug addict intervention.
I doubt many of us would say yes to an alcoholic or drug addict when they asked for a fix, so why do politicians "have" to say yes when companies addicted to bad habits come begging for a fix from the "lender of last resort"?
Excellent.
2 comments:
In light of recent events, what confidence should we have that private money lenders know how to recognize a good business plan?
You could be tempted to tar all private money lenders with the broad brush, or to assume that because some lenders engaged in the subprime game, that all are incapable, in the same way that some folks look down on all lawyers just because some choose to represent the obviously guilty.
In that light, care to restate? :-)
Post a Comment