Hacker News Reader

Comment by Yoofie | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't matter, they are too big to fail™.

Ford is the only major automaker that didn't need (or get) a bailout.

This is technically true but they sort won in a prisoners dilemma type situation. Had no auto makers been bailed out, the shared suppliers may have all folded causing Ford to go under. So while they didn't take any direct money, the bailouts kept their upstream suppliers afloat. Ford also benefits from high import tariffs on foreign built trucks, a tariff basically designed to protect the F-150. If you check subsidy tracker[1], you're see that Ford is an enormous recipient of corporate welfare. They've received $5 billion from Michigan alone since just 2010.

[1] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/ford-motor

> Ford also benefits from high import tariffs on foreign built trucks, a tariff basically designed to protect the F-150.

Protect it from GM, Toyota, Rivian whom builds their Trucks in America?

No American truck buyer wants a Mitsubishi or Hyundai truck. Full stop.

Rivian didn't exist, and Toyota didn't enter the US market until a year after the tariff and didn't build trucks for the US market then. Sure GM builds trucks too and benefits, but it was basically designed as a giveaway to Ford while keeping VW light trucks out of the US market in retaliation for Germany tariffs on chicken.

> No American truck buyer wants a Mitsubishi or Hyundai truck. Full stop.

Then why maintain a tariff from 1964 designed by the Johnson administration?

> Then why maintain a tariff from 1964 designed by the Johnson administration?

No clue, but seems pretty bipartisan. Maybe “National Security” or whatever excuse .gov comes up with…

Tax credits are not bailouts.

Money is fungible and government handouts are government handouts. Moreover, many of those subsidies are in the form of bonds, low interest loans, and so on not just tax credits.

If you think even about the etymology of "hand-out", it is not in fact the government handing out money — the company is handing less money to the government.

When the federal government gives a tax credit for installing residential solar panels, it is not a "consumer bailout" or "welfare".

We have a perfectly good term for this, which is "tax credit", because that is what it is.

Again they're receiving more than just tax credits and rebates. They're also receiving loans, a recent $101 million Critical Industry Program grant, tariff protections, and on and on.

However, if you just want to talk taxes we can. A tax exemption or rebate is an asset given to you by the state. It operates not unlike loan forgiveness. You owed something and now they(the state) are waiving that liability.

> When the federal government gives a tax credit for installing residential solar panels

This is absolutely a handout to the solar industry.

A tax credit is still a handout, and double so when they're given to favored industries and companies.

That doesn't mean that shareholders can't be wiped out. See GM:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_re...

They aren’t too big to become GE.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com