Continuing the series, I could spend a lot of time trying to articulate why the Big Three automakers should stop receiving federal funds to resolve or reduce their financial troubles.  But I wouldn't be able to say it any better than Declan McCullagh in his column yesterday. 

There are two misconceptions that are well addressed in the column.  First, saying "the U.S. auto industry" is not the same as saying "The Big Three" automakers.  As McCullagh points out, there are plenty of people employed in the U.S. auto industry who work for foreign car companies operating plants in the U.S.  (My Subaru was team crafted in Indiana a decade ago.)  Second, and more importantly, the absence of a bailout means bankruptcy, not the shuttering of factories.  In bankruptcy, the company is reorganized.  As McCullagh explains:

The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein wrote a particularly good column on the looming auto industry bailout this morning.  He cites the auto industry as one of the least deserving of a bailout, but concludes a bailout is necessary.  This is beginning to look like how Washington policymakers see it too. 

I try to keep nationalist sentiments out of economic commentary, but Tata's purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover from Ford has to make some folks in India smile.  Two of the UK's biggest brands will now be owned by a former colony that is still catching up economically.

Unsurprisingly, Ford lost money on its purchase and subsequent sale of the two companies.  In my view, acquisitions seldom lead to big improvements for the firm making the acquisition.  The market seems to recognize this, as announcement effects are often negative for the acquiring firms.