How does handing over a subsidized Chrysler to Fiat herald the revival of an American car company?  This is the same Fiat that has failed miserably to enter the American car market. 

There was also a major emphasis in the speech on what the car company has done for the workers - housed, fed, clothed them, sent their kids to college, etc. 

But the same can be said for industries building nuclear weapons, tobacco products and dangerous toys.  Every worker could have been doing something else for the same compensation.   Public purpose is about opportunity cost under full employment conditions.  Obama defended this plan not on public purpose but on the issue of whether there will be losses of "taxpayer money".    He said no company can be supported on the endless stream of taxpayer dollars.  What about the defense industry or other industries of public purpose?  The difference is that Chrysler's output has no public purpose.

And then there was the vicious attack on the legally secured creditors.  Was there any consideration, for example, to what would happen to credit availability and interest rates for private borrowers if secured lenders expected to have to take discounts if the borrowers got in trouble? There would be no lending as we know it.

Yes, removing debt and reducing obligations to workers makes a company financially stronger and gives it a competitive advantage.  But done this way it's a transfer of wealth previously subject to contract law.

 

How does handing over a subsidized Chrysler to Fiat herald the revival of an American car company?  This is the same Fiat that has failed miserably to enter the American car market. 

There was also a major emphasis in the speech on what the car company has done for the workers - housed, fed, clothed them, sent their kids to college, etc. 

But the same can be said for industries building nuclear weapons, tobacco products and dangerous toys.  Every worker could have been doing something else for the same compensation.   Public purpose is about opportunity cost under full employment conditions.  Obama defended this plan not on public purpose but on the issue of whether there will be losses of "taxpayer money".    He said no company can be supported on the endless stream of taxpayer dollars.  What about the defense industry or other industries of public purpose?  The difference is that Chrysler's output has no public purpose.

And then there was the vicious attack on the legally secured creditors.  Was there any consideration, for example, to what would happen to credit availability and interest rates for private borrowers if secured lenders expected to have to take discounts if the borrowers got in trouble? There would be no lending as we know it.

Yes, removing debt and reducing obligations to workers makes a company financially stronger and gives it a competitive advantage.  But done this way it's a transfer of wealth previously subject to contract law.