I don't claim to be a mental giant when it comes to business (or anything else, for that matter).
But I'm perplexed. How is it that the federal government (i.e. the Obama administration) is able to decide who will/will not be the CEO of a large US corporation? I don't want to extrapolate this to the extreme, but if they can do that, then can they also decide who will be the manager of the speech therapy deparment at IU/Riley Hospitals? And if they can't -- why not?
And if they can? Oh. My. God.
What's the distinction? If it's about money -- well, I'm sure that my employer receives plenty of government funds. If it's about sending a message to the public -- well, healthcare is an easy target, too.
By the by, I don't really have an opinion one way or another about Rick Wagoner or his handling of GM and I'm just as sick of highly-paid executives begging for money to keep their poorly-operated business afloat as the next guy. But still... I'm concerned about the fine line between the government "bailing out" a company and the governement "running" that company. Where does it stop, exactly?
1 comment:
Ownership - mostly - the government feels that it's purchasing the company, due to the investment. Other goverment funds coming to Riley, for example, are part of the budget. It wasn't budgeted to provide the funding to the car companies. Thus, just as a shareholder gets to vote on the management of a publicly-held company, the government wants that same right in this case. Don't worry - they're not coming after you next! (Kevin)
Post a Comment