“George W. Bush yesterday handed the fate of US car makers to president-elect Barack Obama as he announced plans to lend General Motors and Chrysler $17.4bn to survive the next three months.” an article in the Financial Times爂ives us an insight into the recently announced bailout plan for the US car makers GM and Chrysler.

What is interesting to note here is that President Bush announces a bailout of the two car makers on his last 30 + days before leaving the Presidency. The article on FT clearly brings this to light: “The loan, which Mr Bush said would come with tough conditions to force the companies to restructure, means the president avoids having two of the country’s best-known manufacturers going bankrupt on his watch.”

So what does that mean, the country’s best-known car manufacturers were saved from bankruptcy solely to ultimately benefit Mr. Bush? The funny thing is which nobody hardly ever mentions is how such a bailout doesn’t solve the problem, which brought these car makers to the brink of bankruptcy in the first place.

Nevertheless, the words of Mr. Bush “sound” so caring: “If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers,” Mr Bush said. “Such a collapse . . . could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession and it would leave the next president to confront the demise of a major American industry in his first days of office.”

But is this really the right perspective to look at this problem from?