As the President intervenes in more and more industries, a key question is how he does it and what he is trying to achieve. Is he trying to reorganize insolvent firms while, as much as possible, preserving the rights of stakeholders as established under existing contracts? Or is he trying to achieve a "fair" outcome as he judges it, regardless of preexisting rules and agreements? I fear it may be the latter, in which case politics may start to trump the rule of lawFor a president who considers "empathy" to be the most important consideration in a Supreme Court justice, this is no surprise. Achieving some sort of mystical social justice is more important than deferring to the rule of law. And do people care? Nope, fairness sounds to a lot of people as just what we want and who cares about the rule of law?
Banner ad
Monday, May 04, 2009
Forget the rule of law
Gregory Mankiw also has concerns about where lies the rule of law with Obama's bailout maneuvering with Chrysler.
Labels:
Auto Industry,
Economics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For some reason the name "Sulla" keeps floating to the top of my thoughts.
I wonder if someone like him is going to move on this administration and political party.
"If you cut down those trees where are you going to hide when they come for you."
... "deferring to the rule of law."
Why don't regressives show the same enthusiasm for deferring to the rule of law concerning torture?
This is another hammer to be used against foreign auto manufacturers, too. Even when they follow "free trade" laws, Obama can hammer them with not achieving "fair trade" outcomes when buyers continue to choose their products over GM and Chrysler who, after all, have billions of taxpayers' dollars supporting them.
Who knows or cares what 'regressives' think about anything? They are no more likely to post here than unicorns or leprechauns.
Empathy? What about empathy for the bondholders - who exercised their investment in good faith that the government would respect their rights?
Post a Comment