It's called R&D

Much has been covered in the press about the US government’s bailout of loan shark companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In one report in the New York Times, the writer described how investors around the world received the news with such welcome that one would think word had traversed the globe that the messiah had returned. Yet in another report only two days later, another NYT writer wondered about validity of bailing out major corporations– well, he didn’t exactly question the ethical issues involved as much as he asked what was the criteria for government intervention. The answer: the impact these companies could have on other companies, stock holders and the economy at large.
And now American automakers, after decades of having their butts kicked in efficiency standards by just about every other country’s manufacturers, after refusing to improve these standards because it would “hurt the consumer,” after building SUVs that consume more gasoline than cars 30 years their senior, and after laying off thousands and thousands of workers, they are asking the government to help them invest in alternative energy research.
It’s called R&D guys. Get with the program.

I would like to note that neither of these stories addressed the leadership of these companies. Would they be punished for their failures? Would future leaders receive smaller salaries?

It's also noteworthy that the second story also quoted a prominent Yale professor who wondered if America was operating in a market economy. If companies are not allowed to fail, he said, “we have something else.”
Something else? What is that something else, please tell me! You are a professor at Yale. You must know. Wait...it’s not glaringly obvious that America is operating in a mixed market?
Let us presume that everyone agrees that the American economy is not an autonomous market (I won’t use the word “free” because it is one of those loaded terms that conveys an image that it is part of some greater plan that is equated with fundamental rights like justice and equality), then why the hell is Adam Smith’s liberal economics hailed as the road to a strong economy and taught in elementary school, when we were required to memorize the term laissez-fare? Why does a magazine like Forbes rate the best cities in America according to their lack of regulations.
Liberal economics are the failure of politicians to stand up to corporate interests, to enforce regulations that would force business leaders to act ethically before they act selfishly and are largely a failure because they reinforce a double standard that big companies can act irresponsibly, can fire low level employees as the executives reap massive benefits, can rape the world’s natural resources without consequence and can get away with defrauding the public of millions with minimal punishment.
If little regulation is such a good thing, why did the US housing market crumble? Why have so many executives been involved in scandals? If companies want no regulation, then pay higher taxes, because I will not support their exploits of the weak and being no benefit to society. They are not a value to the community by virtue of existing, by simply employing workers.
Liberal is only a dirty word when it has economics after it.