Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thGenOwner
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!
|
I wasn't implying that political grandstanding was OK, I just made the observation that it goes with the territory when the government is involved. Personally, it makes me sick, but none of us are going to change that. I also disagree that that the American public views this as the government dangling Toyota to the benefit of GM. The american public is much smarter than that. This is about Toyota and they know that. Some will talk about a conflict of interest, but I hear that coming louder from those with their own interest out front. Namely the state governments with the most to lose because they have Toyota plants in their state. I do agree that nobody would be talking about this if the government didn't have a stake in GM or Chrysler, but it would still be happening to Toyota.
I also agree the the hearings upfront were GM and Chrysler asking. The hearings after the bailout weren't. By having these additional hearings for the automakers and the financials, the government shows their impartiality. They showed they want to hold these companies accountable at the expense of the the value of the government's stake. I don't know a better way to demonstrate the lack of an actual conflict of interest when one could be perceived.
I also agree that the american consumer will be the ultimate arbiter of any company's success or lack thereof. They always are. BTW...don't take this as a flaming. Much respect to you and your take. The open minded dialog is what makes this country great.
