In an (un)shocking recent news story, the Supreme Court has stalled the merger between Chrysler and Fiat. According to the Washington Post, the lower court case hasn’t been overturned, but it was given a stay while the Supreme Court attempts to find out more facts in the case. Not considered, of course, is the possibility that maybe the U.S. government should never have become involved with the failing American automaker in the first place. For more on that (hopefully un)shocking idea, go here, here, here, here, and here. Writes Ron Paul in the first link:
A vote for the Chrysler bailout is, simply put, a vote for further inflation.
Some may argue that the inflation is necessary in order to avoid unemployment, echoing the now repudiated idea of A.W. Phillips, that less inflation means more unemployment and vice versa. The past few years of our experience with inflation and unemployment should convince everyone that high inflation and high unemployment can exist side-by-side. I believe the connection is even closer: Inflation causes unemployment –- perhaps not immediately, but in the longer run – and we are now in the longer run of our past inflationary policies. It follows that a vote for aid to Chrysler, because it is a vote for inflation, is also a vote for more unemployment.
Such unemployment may not be obvious, but it will nonetheless be real. One of the things that bothers me most about this entire discussion is that it centers around only what is obvious. Saving 100,000 jobs at Chrysler is obvious; losing 100,000 jobs, one by one around the country is not obvious, but they will nonetheless be lost, should aid to Chrysler pass.
Read the rest of his arguments against the Chrysler bailout (which began all this federal involvement with the company) here.Published in