As American policy-makers are hard at work finalizing a bailout of the big three automakers--mere weeks are bailing out the banking industry, when exactly did this paradigm shift occur in which it is okay for government to come to the rescue of poorly run companies? what happened to the free market?

Why aren't the economists of the 1980s screaming mad as their ideas are being ignored?

while japanese makers have been onto the right path for well over a decade, making small, efficient cars, the brains behind the American big three lobbied hard to have SUVs categorized as trucks to avoid stringent emission guidelines. last year's spike in the price oil pretty much made the monstrous SUVs a permanent fleet of unsellable junk.

a former co-worker boasted getting an amazing deal on a Ford truck only to find her fuel costs exceeding her monthly payments. why a single woman needs a truck is beyond me to begin with?

not to brag or anything; but the writing on the wall was years ago to anyone who has the rudimentary grasp of economics that oil prices were not sustainable at the levels of the 1990s with global demand exceeding the production capacity. now, whether stalls to improve refining capacity is a tactic to keep prices artificially high is subject to its investigation. regardless, the signs were there i dumped my 3.1 GM engine for a tiny 1.8 Honda engine when i purchased an Integra. With the expect ion of this summer's wild rise in prices, a full tank of gas normally does not exceed $40 dollars.

still, the companies do not get it; it boggles the mind Ford is dropping advertising dollars during telecast to promote its F150 series trucks.

the Ontario economy is particularly sensitive this debate as a large part of its economic activity is tied to the auto sector. directly and indirectly, the figure is something like 60% of Ontario dollars travels through the auto industry. for years now, the ontario government has been propping the industry up with subsidies and each year, the big three Canadian branches find itself on Queen's Park doorsteps lobbying for more dollars. it's "too big to fail" mentality makes their position more flexible given Ontario's dependence on the auto industry.

at what point is chasing good dollars after bad still justified? GM, Ford, Chrysler have done little in the ways of innovation other than churning out a product for which there is no longer a demand. with Ontario's deficit all but assured, what is the use of dumping tax payer dollars that will end up being a sunk cost a year from now?

is Ontario going to suffer is the government lets the auto sector fail? yes, towns like Oshawa and Windsor will virtually come to a stand still resulting in at least 100 000 jobs lost over night.

a bailout of the auto industry means cuts are likely to follow and biggest government expenditures are on education and health care. what factors into a sound and dynamic economic model is an educated and healthy pool of labour; by decreasing those in order to finance a fail business simply perpetuates the problem.

in the long run, letting the auto companies go under while investing in the future through human capital infrastructure is bound to attract winning businesses. investment seeks environments not where the costs are lowest, but where there is sound opportunity for returns, where the work force has the skills and innovative talents to build on. ontario is rich in its highly-educated labour pool, yet, the government fails to utilize such skills instead discussing how to throw money into a black hole to avoid short-term pains.

with each every day, it seems more and more evident, a provincial government really does not have the slightest vision than reactive poorly thoughout strategies that bankrupt the province's ability to prosper.

newfie jokes are going to be a thing of the past; ontario is the punchline of the confederation, if you ask me.