Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopper
I agree with DGthe3 on this. What the other poster referred to is the potential for a conflict of interest. People sometimes remove themselves from debate to avoid this potential because it's not worth the hassle. Some others admit their position won't allow them to be truly objective on an issue and remove themselves. In any event, it isn't an actual conflict of interest until actions are taken and two parties with similiar situations are treated differently solely based upon a relationship of an unobjective third party. The government pulled GM and Chrysler in for hearings both before and AFTER they took ownership stakes. They've done the same with financial institutions. They did this to understand the truth and to give the those that needed it a public flogging. If you don't think these hearings negatively impacted the value of the government's stake in these companies, you're kidding yourself. If congress was just out to protect their financial interests in these companies, they wouldn't have hearings and would have went silent after they put the money in.
Bottom line...they're doing the same thing to Toyota as they previously did to GM, Chrysler and the financial institutions and they are doing it consistently. Giving them the public flogging they deserve. Yes, political grandstanding is involved and that goes with the territory. If somebody can prove GM acted slowly and inappropriately in the past with regard to product recalls and it cost lives, I would expect GM to be taken to the carpet in the same fashion, regardless of the government's ownership stake. If that happens and the government takes no action, then you can talk all you want about conflicts of interest and I will support you. Right now, all I see is a government acting properly on behalf of it's citizens, despite accusations to the contrary.
|
You admit to political grandstanding... but then imply that it is ok. Sorry, it's never ok. Nor is it ever benficial. As you stated.. this will negatively impact the governmental ownership of GM & Chrysler. This is because the public sees the owner of GM & Chrysler dangling the president of Toyota by his feet. People see the conflict, and thus are even more discouraged by the government owning auto companies. If the government wasn't in the auto industry... no conflict, period.
You say this is the same thing as pulling GM & Crysler in for hearings... I absolutely disagree, those companies
were asking for help. They went to the government to get some of the 'bail out'. This is completely different than a political flogging of a foreign auto maker.
Here's where we agree... I absolutely believe that everyone should be held accountable for their accomplishments as well as their errors. But who in the end will hold Toyota accountable... it's not the government, it will be the consumer!