Four Views of the US Auto Bailout: The Controversy Continues

June 6, 2014
There Were No Alternatives to Auto Bailout   Four Reasons Why the Auto Bailout Wasn't a Mistake   U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Pay Poorly and Cost Much to Create  

Was the Obama Administration's bailout of US auto giants General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 a good idea? The following interviews, conducted May 21 at the Brookings Institution, represent four different viewpoints as to the wisdom and value of the bailouts, which cost taxpayers at least $12 billion. For more information, IndustryWeek's Steve Minter explains why public opinion is a house still divided.

There Were No Alternatives to Auto Bailout

Chrysler Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne says failure to act would have destroyed the US auto business.

Four Reasons Why the Auto Bailout Wasn't a Mistake

Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council for the Obama Administration, examines four reasons why the bailout turned out to be the right public policy action.

U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Pay Poorly and Cost Much to Create

Steven Rattner, who led the Obama Administraion's auto restructuring team, says U.S. manufacturing is not the answer for boosting employment.

Foreign Cars are Better than U.S. Cars

Clifford Winston, a senior fellow at Brookings, says the auto bailout interfered with the natural progression of consumer preferences in automobiles.

Sponsored Recommendations

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of IndustryWeek, create an account today!