NAME: ZAIN JAWAID ID: 10238

CASE STUDY: The GM Bailout

Q1) How would Locke, Smith, and Marx evaluate the various events in this case?
ANS: in this case first of all talk about Locke who basically thinks that the government has a very
little and a limited role in people’s business. He also thinks that Locke would probably have felt
that when the GM was giving up its natural rights and with that Also, they would no longer be a
free market now because they were selling their souls to the government for a bailout. Even
though they have deal that they would return the amount in certain period of time but this will
not happen because when Obama came to office he set down and Created the new GM for the
market which is not a free market anymore and the new GM is called the General Motors
Company.
Now if we talk about the smith so he was a fully utilitarian. He may have felt that if GM became
a free market and remained independent, it would probably be more prosperous, rather than
seeking the help of the government. He believed in the "invisible hand" which was the
competition of the market. His theory is that if GM does something that the general public
wants, it will actually succeed and make money. He may have argued that if the demand for
something is too high and people want it badly, people will increase the price. Therefore, the
company will make maximum profit from its vehicles and there will be no need to remove the
guarantee from the government. Presumably, Smith would say that it was not because of the
failure of the ideology that GM had abandoned. This is due to lack of vision and good
management.
Now talk about the Marx, so the Marx is on a different way he argues that if a GM is now not
strong and knee down in front of them so just because of the ideologies and privatization. I
think he would argue that the government has taken full ownership of these automotive and
banking companies or at least partially owned them was a step in the right direction but social
and the working class is not eliminated, so there is still room for corruption. The cost to workers
and society in general. Marx would argue that privatization needs to be completely abolished
and that the means of production of all members of society will be collectively owned and
distributed with specific capabilities, not economic status.
Q2: In your view should the GM bailout have been done? Explain why or why not. Was the
bailout ethical in terms of utilitarianism, justice, rights, and caring?
ANS: So if I give my opinion so yeah the bailout is cost so much and the GM can be bankrupt by
this act.in my opinion they have served the utilitarian point of view but if we talk about caring
and chances so they do not give any chance to any one and they do not care about anyone. So
basically the tax payers did not pay the tax due to miss management and t hey should have been
made to go bankrupt and fail. But letting them fail also pays off, and what will happen to our
economy and the workers who depend on these jobs? I am not in favor of socialist ideology. I
believe in free trade and free trade and privatization. However, I think that in order to hold
private companies accountable, there must be some kind of mixed government control that
grows so large that their lack of management and vision cannot affect our economy and society
in this way. So in the end, I think I will go with the bailout for the degree. Ethically, I believe it
provided a useful ideological perspective as well as care.