Saturday, December 20, 2008
Save Polaroid!
It was reported yesterday that Polaroid is going bankrupt.
Now, not as many people work for Polaroid as the automakers, but a lot still do, and they deserve to keep their jobs. The US government really needs to come in and save this company, after-all, its not the employees fault that the business didn't adapt quick enough to a changing industry and can't borrow any more money to keep itself out of bankruptcy! One could call this a TRIPLE WHAMMY! Stupid management, obsolete product, and a credit crunch!
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Polaroid was purchased for $426 million in 2005, so one can assume the amount to bail out this failed company is PENNIES compared to the $17 billion being given to the automakers. The government should work out a ratio for how much money they're willing to print to save each job. Given that formula, any business should be able to apply for government loans instead of going bankrupt, the government can determine how many jobs would be saved by loaning this company money and then based on that number, print the needed dollars! And then MAGIC! POOF! No one EVER loses their job without any negative side-effects.
The reality of these policies though are that many people will lose their jobs anyway. GM is going to be forced to cut down their product lines and liquidate a lot of assets to restructure and unemployment will soar in the US. Just like the 30s though, the number of people kept out of work won't be considered a problem as long as the government can prop up union wages through price fixing.
Amazingly enough though, as the article mentions, Polaroid will continue functioning through the bankruptcy and no lay-offs have been announced. Filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy will not be the end of Polaroid's existence, just as it would not be for GM. Polaroid is even planning new product launches in 2009!
I was led to believe that if GM filed for bankruptcy EVERYONE would be destitute; GM's infrastructure would just disappear into thin air and tens of millions of people would be on the street begging for money.
Of course this isn't true.
One has to wonder who carries the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt GM has and how much influence they have in Washington, D.C. I'd bet they've been lobbying for this bailout hard to prevent GM from filing for bankruptcy protection just like Cerberus has been lobbying for Chrysler.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Polaroid is not the center of the economy, lol.
As for the bankruptcy system, obviously. Its another form of corporate welfare and orderly selling of the company using taxes, which is not a bad thing if the company finds new owners. Anyway, my goal is not the welfare of the company, but the health of unionized labor.
Without a healthy company, there is not healthy labour.
"Without a healthy company, there is not healthy labour."
Garbage. Healthy companies also want to pay lower wages.
"Garbage."
Can you please explain how labour benefits when the business employing them is not healthy?
""Garbage."
Can you please explain how labour benefits when the business employing them is not healthy?"
You keep ignoring the double whammy, so I do really need to answer you on this point.
"You keep ignoring the double whammy, so I do really need to answer you on this point."
Only because the term "double whammy" is far less clever than you think. The credit crunch is only hurting companies that have bad credit. Those with good credit can still borrow. And if you "do really need to answer (me) on this point" I think you should. How does labour benefit from being employed by an unhealthy company?
Sic, I missed "don't"
"Only because the term "double whammy" is far less clever than you think. The credit crunch is only hurting companies that have bad credit. Those with good credit can still borrow."
Then that is a really stupid reply, because "double" means two, and you have only address one, i.e. single whammy.
"How does labour benefit from being employed by an unhealthy company?"
It doesn't in the long run. The argument is not about healthy or unhealthy companies, but the power of labour and its relation to the average wage.
What? High oil prices? We can't bail out every company that fails to predict market prices of resources they depend on.
"What? High oil prices? We can't bail out every company that fails to predict market prices of resources they depend on."
Who is making that argument?
Post a Comment