Here's some good news about somebody doing something important more efficiently than their competitors and gaining economic benefits from that. But many comments seem to be suggesting it's a bad thing because of environmental costs.
When US car companies started to recover from the recession, were people equally critical and complaining that the US's economic recovery was coming at the expense of the environment? That they should try to continue underperforming at manufacturing? Afterall, a world with less competition between car makers is surely a more environmentally friendly one. Were people complaining that GM should have been allowed to fail not because it was uncompetitive but because it was damaging the environment by making bigger cars than Japanese rivals? It seems like a double standard of people with a protectionist attitude that's pro-American-corporation and anti-American-consumer.
I can't speak for anyone else, however I can say that the reason that I, as an American, do not own an American made car (but I do own a car made overseas) is because I have no respect for the quality of engineering, workmanship, or value that those cars offered at the time I purchased.
Event today, the only American car I can truly be proud of is a Tesla; and that is because in it I see quality engineering, workmanship, and, even as expensive as they are, value. Literally the only poor things I've ever heard of relating to Tesla's involve rare owner error, more frequently error on the part of others on the highway, and occasionally a design flaw that the company owns up to and fixes.
I think most people who complain that X (car company) or Y (big bank) should have been allowed to fail (controlled orderly liquidation) see it as a lost opportunity for something smaller, nimble, and filled with the vitality of new ideas to take it's place. Being allowed to fail is the fire of the ecosystem of industry; in it's wake the green sprouts of a new better thing are possible.
When US car companies started to recover from the recession, were people equally critical and complaining that the US's economic recovery was coming at the expense of the environment? That they should try to continue underperforming at manufacturing? Afterall, a world with less competition between car makers is surely a more environmentally friendly one. Were people complaining that GM should have been allowed to fail not because it was uncompetitive but because it was damaging the environment by making bigger cars than Japanese rivals? It seems like a double standard of people with a protectionist attitude that's pro-American-corporation and anti-American-consumer.