Answer a few questions, due tonight, easy I supply other student answers

Student answer

(a) Olson talks about the encompassing special interests organizations in chapter 4, discussing how it affects the incentives it faces when seeking redistributions to its clients, and when deciding whether to seek improvements in the efficiency of the society. He points out the imperfection between incentives and policies, stating that these special interest organization's leaders may be mistaken abut what policies will best serve its clients and which ones will achieve growth. These special interest organizations, like GM with no direct competitors, may have no corrective mechanisms apart from the reactions to the setbacks the society suffers. This was seen in Roger and Me, when as a result of the outsourcing of jobs, laid off workers were facing evictions. Olson says, "... there is no guarantee that encompassing organizations will always operate in ways consistent with the well-being of their societies, or that the societies with such organizations will necessarily prosper." (Olson) I do believe Olson's depiction of special interest groups, but also believe that GM should have taken greater responsibility and concern for the communities in which it has done business. I think the way the Obama administration went about handling the bailout was flawed, and should have been looked at more intensively, but I get that something had to be done. Instead of just giving the money to UAW, there were other ways in which the situation could have been less troublesome. As stated in the Wall Street Journal article, "... the president could have both kept the auto makers running and avoided losing money. The preferential treatment given to the United Auto Workers account for the American taxpayers' entire losses from the bailout." (WSJ) 

Student answer

The bail out of the auto industry certainly corroborates Olson's argument against special-interest organizations. Michael Moore's Documentary frames the negative effects that powerful special-interest groups create over the economy as a whole. At the same time, the legal (or illegal) practices of a free enterprise system allow social irresponsibility. Firms such as GM have used such practices to increase economic power among special-interest organizations, while government regulations do nothing but contribute to disproportion economic distribution among societies. The bail out of 2009, clearly delineates government action to favor the UAW, while increasing tax payer expenses by doing so.

Student answer

I would frame the decision to rescue GM in 2009. The GM company is exclusive coalition, which is interested in its own surplus and income. As we see in the movie Rogers and Me, GM is absolutely not social responsible: tens of thousands people from Flint suddenly lost their jobs, and, as a result, the town appeared in the list of the worst towns in the US. According to M. Olson, the exclusive coalition has influence on the government (special interest group could have ideological influence on workers in “suggesting” the most appropriate candidate or could sponsor a candidate in election race) and close connection with it. It is interesting to compare two events when in the late 1980s the US government was not concerned about social interest and in 2009, when the US government rescued the company with spending taxpayers’ money saying that it is concerned about social interest. In 2009, the US government should not have given so large amount of money, since GM and the UAW could have cooperated and cut their expenses. I think that the government as well as the GM company and the UAW overused their power concerning just about their own interests.