I think that I am more at odds of the idea of taxing fuel to promote decreased use from an environmental position due to the fact that we also subsidize that industry through bailouts like that given to GM and Chrysler (TARP still not paid back). By encouraging those companies to produce even more vehicles that are not highly fuel efficient compared to existing market surplus, additional production is inefficient in that a portion of the costs are passed onto taxpayers (without their express, unanimous approval). That is not a productive way to encourage increasing market efficiency (and individual automobile unit fuel economy), as it actually encourages industries to be less than responsible, knowing that if their business goes bad they can always fall back on the state to save the companies (but sadly it only seems large corporations end up being bailed out). Attempts to revive this dying giant have failed, at the expense of taxpayers. The industry is becoming a shadow of it's former self, with production reflecting a reduced supply over years past.
A Government Bailout Saved the Auto Industry, but Detroit Was Left Behind
In a free market, companies that can weather the financial storms of fluctuating demand and profits are more likely to remain responsible in their investments. When bailouts are guaranteed, those companies are less than responsible. When the state steps in to "regulate" the markets, we end up with the boom and bust cycle, made worse through inflated currency supply and decreased currency value.
Looking at the education bubble (increased subsidization of student loans have encouraged lending to those who would not otherwise qualify, leading to a bubble like we saw in the housing market). What always follows an artificial boom? And what causes booms? Are they naturally occurring?
The Higher-Education Bubble Has Popped
No comments:
Post a Comment