In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term" infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right i

admin2015-06-24  26

问题     In theory, a government bailout should provide a short-term" infusion of cash to give a struggling company the chance to right itself. But in its aggressive dealings with U.S. automakers, most recently General Motors, the Obama administration is coming dangerously close to engaging in financial engineering that ignores basic principles of fairness and economic realities toachieve political goals.
    It is now clear that there is no real difference between the government and GM. For all intents and purposes, the government, which is set to assume a 50 percent equity stake in the company, is GM, and it has been calling the shots in negotiations with creditors. While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers (UAW). How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is going to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion? It’s highly unlikely that the auto industry professionals at GM would have reached such a deal if the government had not been watching them—or providing the money needed to keep the factory doors open.
    GM is widely expected to file for bankruptcy before the end of this month. If this were a typical bankruptcy, the company would be allowed by law to tear up its UAW collective bargaining agreement and negotiate for drastically reduced wages and benefits. Surely, the government won’t let that happen. Still, the threat of a contract abolition probably played a role in the union’s agreement to cost-cutting measures last week. It’s never easy for unions to make concessions, but the sting of handing back money is being softened by the government’s desire to give the union a huge ownership stake in GM.
    The administration argues that it could not risk alienating the union for fear of triggering a strike that could permanently cripple GM. It also assumes that it had to agree to protect suppliers and fund warranties in order to preserve jobs and reassure potential buyers that their cars would be serviced. These are legitimate concerns. But it’s too bad that the Obama administration has not thought more deeply about how its bullying of bondholders could convince future investors that the last thing they want to do is put money into any company that the government has—or could—become involved in.
In its dealings with U.S. automakers, the Obama administration has

选项 A、been hard on shareholders and auto industry labor force.
B、helped struggling automakers to right themselves with a short-term cash-infusion.
C、narrowly avoided ignorance of basic principles of fairness and economic realities.
D、successfully saved the automaker-giants while striving for political goals.

答案C

解析 事实细节题。答案在第一段。其中讲到奥巴马政府过度干涉美国汽车制造商,特别是最近通用汽车公司的问题,险些卷入金融操纵的危险境地,那样就会无视公平的基本原则和经济现状,C项与之相符。A项labor:force与后文讲述的政府与UAW交好的事实相悖;B项是理论上政府应该采取的策略,然而并没有证据表明政府已经这样做;D项successfully saved与原文dangerously相悖。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/lhFRFFFM
0

最新回复(0)