Earlier this week I took a shot at an old work pal, Rick Anderson, for taking a misguided shot at Garth Turner. Click here if you are interested in what was written.

But the second point Rick made, and I took the time to post a second comment indicating I wholeheartedly agree, involves the auto-bailout fiasco.

I’ve always been uneasy with the “bailout” concept. The most recent $10 Billion Canadian auto plea has set me over the edge. To borrow from the Grey Power TV commercial, I don’t drive a GM so why should I pay for GM?  

Don’t get me wrong, I get it, if the economy is permitted to tank completely, there are other direct and indirect costs possibly larger than the cost of the olive branch designed to prevent a freefall. But surely there are limits.

I’ve spent most of my car driving life (51-16 = 35 years) busting my rump so I could afford to drive a slightly more expensive Toyota, Honda, or Mazda versus a cheaper domestic product out of Detroit. But was that decision truly more expensive? 

Forget what my father’s 50 year collection of Consumer Reports has been saying about the quality and fuel efficiency differences between the foreign vs. domestic auto industry. I am also no longer interested in the repair service argument, i.e., “when foreign cars break, parts and service are more expensive” versus “yeah, but what if they don’t break in the first place…etc.”

None of this matters to me at this stage. I am prepared to accept the domestic argument – whether it’s true or not – that my decision to drive predominantly foreign cars over the years has possibly cost me a little more money. But if that’s the case, why am I now expected to pay, in the form of higher taxes, for my neighbour’s decision to buy domestic cheapies which, if you factor in the cost of bailouts, suddenly aren’t so cheap?

The domestic car market was in effect not so cheap if this many years after-the-fact we are forced to pay for its pigheaded refusal to downsize, both literally and figuratively.

I am all for competition, but we obviously don’t need 20+ brands of automobile manufacturer each with its full line of compact, midsize, large, sports-coupe, crossover, SUV, Van, and pickups.

Before any bailout money was distributed, a whack of forced consolidation should have been allowed to play itself out. Yes, at least a half-dozen brands would have vanished and this would have caused significant hardship for some common-folk.

The current solution is no solution. All we are doing is deferring to larger problem later. How is that any different from what got us here?