to discuss it bears directly on the relationship between government & corporate capitalism. This is one of those classic "macrocosm in the microcosm" situations -- the specific situation accurately reflects all salient elements of the big picture.

You write that "The US cannot afford to allow the Big Three to go down." Strong arguments can be made for that. If they went down, there would be horrific consequences in terms of unemployment, & the US would lose a big chunk of its already-dwindling manufacturing base. // On the other hand, the auto companies illustrate everything that's wrong with American capitalism. They have been wasteful & short-sighted for decades, always basing their products on appeals to consumers' fetishes (desire for status & luxury), & on ignoring the fact that oil was not a sustainable basis for an economy over the longer term. And as you say, government coddled the automakers every step of the way, encouraging their childish short-sightedness, & protecting them from ever having to face the consequences of their own wastefulness, inefficiency, & detachment from reality.

Now the inevitable crisis has come. Government can place the burden of paying for the crisis on the Big Three's management, on its workers, or on taxpayers, or of course on any combination of these. However, this is a capitalist government. This means one can confidently predict that government's ultimate solution will place almost all the burden on workers & the taxpayers. (Needless to say, this is exactly what has already happened with the Wall St bailout, with the overwhelming support of both parties.) This is what happens when there are only 2 parties, and both are 100% capitalist -- the interests of private capital are protected first. Then workers & taxpayers may receive some second-rate protection -- but only if capital feels unusually magnanimous about it, & if there's any money left.

I agree with your statement that Obama will fail if he tries to solve the problem "inside the box." However, his box is corporate capitalism. He has never in his political life murmured a serious challenge to corporate capitalism, & all his leading advisors are corporatists. In the last days of the 1936 campaign, FDR said in Madison Square Garden that

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master...

To put it mildly, Obama doesn't talk like this about "the forces of organized money." If you aren't willing to take on the forces of Big Money, you are essentially owned by it.

Rob's article also rightly notes that "The US has engaged in wars ... because of our dependence upon foreign oil." However, neither Obama nor the Democrats in general have the nerve to acknowledge this truth. They have never openly admitted that the Iraq War was basically a war for oil. This is because they themselves are owned by Big Money, so they can't admit the sins of Big Money. And if they can't start speaking such basic truths, they won't be capable of "thinking outside the box," either.

One obvious example of "thinking outside the box" with the auto companies would be to impose a solution that puts serious restrictions on the privileges of capital, while doing much more to protect workers & taxpayers. For example, fire all of present management, and strip them of their lavish compensation packages, while at the same time retooling the auto companies to produce highly efficient vehicles, & to build efficient mass-transit (high speed intercity rail, etc). One could also give taxpayers seats on the board, & an equity interest. // In reality, though, a capitalist government is not capable of considering this kind of solution, because it treats capital in an adversarial way; as something whose dictates must be combated, rather than submitted to.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:54:34 PM

  (0+)

we should not bail out any of the car companies-or it would be discrimination ---many companies need a bail out, why them-another to big to fail??? i say defalt on all of owr  loans and start over--what --is everybody afraid of? the chinese will not borrow us any more money ,thats why we are trying right now to borrow from the arabs,2 trillion for next years budget--or i should say theft----it is time to tear it all appart for we have reached the time when the problems of the world are ahead of our intelligence--we -nobody can solve the problems we face so be resigned to watch it all fall apart which is only right,for we got way ahead of ourselves this time

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:49:59 PM

  (0+)

Simple one this time. No bailout. Just point these greedy sob's to the nearest bankruptcy court. They'd do the same for us, right?

by Jack Harrington (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 675 comments [70 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:05:15 PM

  (0+)

I do hope that Obama suprises me, but I don't believe that he will effectively lead this country out of the hole that has been dug over the past 60 plus years.  He did not gain his office purely at the will of the people.  He is indebted to corporate interests as well.    If he is the right person for the job, he will stop all of the hoax wars of terror that where a complete scam to begin with.  The AlQeada and bin Laden had nothing at all to do with 9-11, except as pre-arranged patsies.   The World Trade Center was not brought down by the airliners that were made to crash into the WTC, nor did the resulting fire have anything at all to do with the expertly planned and installed demolition.  Watch any of the several privately taken live videos of the so called "collapse" that was no collapse at all, but a very profession multi multi explosions from top to bottom of each building.  The instilling of terror into the masses was very effective for the Bush Administation, and necessary for him to get the peoples backing for his allready planned invasions into the Middle East.  Obama can suceed, but only if he uses truth.  The People are tired of the cowardice of the democrats in both houses of the Congress, and tired of their taking corporate bribes and only pretending to be working for the people.  Obama can be Herculean if he does make a genuine stand with real justice and turn back the illegit powers of corporate interests that are driving the corruption in squandering this nations future.  The United States Government is supposed to belong to the People, and not to corporate greed that should have no voice at all. 

by Philip Dennany (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 150 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:08:44 PM

  (0+)

I hope Obama will suprise us as well and take a new path. The old will not work.

by Sharon Roach (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:58:51 PM

  (0+)

I think his first task should be to rerout the Potomac right through the front door and out the back of the Whitehouse.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:13:42 PM

  (0+)

They are inherently different things.

Capitalism is often derided on this site, but it seems few actually understand what it is. Capital is wealth or resources that can be used to create more wealth. It is how things are produced. When it comes down to it, humans and their efforts, are the primary capital of business. You are your most valuable asset. Capitalism, in a pure sense of the word, means that you own yourself and your labors, that you are not a slave and you are able to reap the rewards of the hard work you do. This motivates people to work harder, longer, and more passionately because all that they do is to their own benefit. An "economy" is a composite of myriad decisions made by individuals every day, and so if you have a population that is highly motivated, then your economy becomes stronger.

This way of envisioning an economy is much more in line with the Austrian School of economics than the failed policies endorsed by Keynes and adhered to by many governments over the past century. It is Keynesian ideas that pervade this world's financial systems and tarnish the name of "capitalism." The effects of centrally-planned economies are being seen, but the solution that is being offered to fix the problem is more central planning at an even higher level with more power. Unfortunately, when "economics" is taught in schools, it is the kind espoused by Keynes, with few people ever having heard of the Austrian school or the great Ludwig Von Mises. Thankfully, the ideas of the Austrian School have been picking up steam as more people are being introduced to these ideas through public figures such as Ron Paul. (For anyone interested in this way of thinking, I would recommend LewRockwell.com) After a careful analysis of both ways of thinking about an economy, I believe you will find one to make an incredible amount of sense, and the other to seem terribly ineffective and counter-productive toward creating wealth for the people of a country.

So what would a society based around truly "capitalistic" principles look like? I suggest that there would unprecedented peace and prosperity. You might argue that the "evil corporations" would still exist and seek wars and exploitation, but without the state as a vehicle to achieve these ends, corporations that seek to destroy, poison, and brainwash would gradually wither away and die. What you would have left would be corporations competing with each other to provide superior services at the lowest cost to you. Competition is a great thing; it drives people and companies to excel and evolve. This is how innovation is born.

What we have right now is Keynesian Corporatism. You could term it a form of socialism, fascism, oligarchy, dictatorship, or any number of names, but the fact of the matter is that it is not based on free market principles and is not worthy of the name "capitalism." Never in a society of free individuals would people willingly accept a rectangular piece of cotton as "capital." 

If you reject "capitalism" then you are owned by the state. You no longer have claim to your means of production, which includes yourself, and have no claim to the fruits of your labor. You are a slave.

Distressingly, this is the direction our once great, prosperous, and free land is heading day after day. We need to return to the principles that made this country the envy of every other nation. We need to recognize that our strength lies with our people and not our government. When a group of free individuals comes together (collectively) for a cause they believe in, then there is very little in this universe that can stop them. The problem with "Collectivism" is that it is not voluntary - it lacks choice, and therefore the people are not motivated. 

I know the responses to this post will be that I am a self-serving, greedy libertarian. This is simply not the case. The more actual wealth that is created by each and every individual (not counterfeited by the Fed), the more wealthy we become as a whole. And besides, I am not a libertarian. I am something much "scarier" to some of you- an anarchist. I desire to see all of those around me living free in a society where they can grow to be healthy, wealthy, and wise with me. :)

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:27:15 PM

  (0+)

I love it when libertarian/anarchist folks post their thoughts which just presume that the government isn't really needed at all.  If there is one thing which ought to be obvious to all of us right now, that is the fact we've had TOO LITTLE GOVERNMENT since Reagan. Libertarian/anarchist folks simply want to move us in the wrong direction.

Another concept which libertarian/anarchist folks seem to fail to grasp is the concept of "hydraulic despotism." This is a concept which huge corporations like Microsoft use to ensure their continued large profits. Yeah, we do have the option of returning to the stone age and trying to all live without computers once again. (Yeah; right!) Computers proliferate not because they are cute toys, but because people in both their business and personal lives can achieve substantial market efficiencies using computers.  Computers are "labor amplifiers" like any good tool. So, what do us "consumers" do about Microsoft's "hydraulic despotism" which largely controls the marketplace for computers? We all hope that the government (in this case, largely the EU government) will act to prevent at least the largest and most egregious thefts by Microsoft using "hydraulic despotism" as its tool of choice.

This should somewhat illuminate the point I'm trying to get to here: a libertarian/anarchist system can exist only when individuals are totally (or at least, mostly) self-sufficient (meaning that they have total freedom to take or leave any proffered economic transaction; there is no "necessity" which any person or business can monopolize through "hydraulic despotism").

Our complex modern high-technology culture quite simply cannot run in any mode acceptable to libertarian/anarchist principles. It is the nature of our modern high-technology culture that each of us becomes MORE DEPENDENT upon each other for our daily "needs" as each of us, in turn, becomes more specialized and more technological in our respective work skills.  (I could no more butcher a hog than I could run a Fortune 1000 corporation; but I sure do like barbeque pork ribs! For my food needs, I depend upon various food specialists, and they depend upon me for my technology skills, etc.) The more complex, modern, high-technology features any particular economic system develops, the more need there is for an activist/involved government which acts as umpire/referee/traffic cop for the entire economic system. This is the antithesis of what the libertarian/anarchist philosophers desire, but it is a NECESSITY so long as you have a complex, modern, high-technology economy.

So, any time you read one of these pieces by any libertarian and/or anarchist writer, just ask yourself this question: in the world envisioned by this piece, who will take on the "hydraulic despots" of the economy? Who will ensure that the economy "works" by setting a rational set of fair, transparent, and reliable rules? Who will ensure that something as basic as the money we use to denominate our economic transactions stays safe and secure from attack? (This, by the way, is a large part of what the recent financial melt-down was all about.) Only a large, involved, "activist" government can do these things, which is why when the economy goes bad, liberals get elected.

by Mr. Moderate (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:35:31 PM

  (0+)

the name of capitalism!" Let's review the history: capitalism failed, all by itself, before J.M. Keynes even wrote his life's opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest & Money in 1936. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism -- exactly the type that Ferdinand touts as something that would lead to "unprecedented peace and prosperity" -- actually led to the Great Depression, which was finally ended only because of WWII. So the name of capitalism was plenty tarnished, even before Keynes came along.

Furthermore, the economic ideas that eventually became known as "Keynesianism" -- basically government spending to stimulate aggregate demand -- were themselves a serious distortion of Keynes' own ideas. His ideas were a response to the collapse of the 1930's. But because they included a hefty component of social spending & wealth redistribution, they were seen as anathema by the ruling capitalist class -- which decided to take from them only the parts that best served their interests, & to jettison the rest. Mostly what they took was government spending on behalf of big business -- in particular, military spending. Military spending has been a central prop of the US economy since the Truman administration. (Much of what Ferdinand calls "our once great, prosperous, and free land" was prosperous only because of government 'meddling' in the economy on behalf of big business, & because of WWII's immensely favorable outcome for the US.)

Ferdinand claims that "What we have right now is Keynesian Corporatism. ....(I)t is not based on free market principles and is not worthy of the name 'capitalism.'" Actually, though, what we have right now is inevitable under capitalism, because under capitalism, the strongest & most ruthless will always gravitate towards the top; and once there, will recognize their class interests, & will organize in support of these interests. They will always find it in their interest to control the government, precisely to be able to grant special favors to themselves, in the form of subsidies, deregulation, tax breaks, etc -- and, when crisis comes, bailouts. There is no such thing as a capitalist government that refuses to do special favors for capitalists, especially when the survival of major industries is at stake.

Ferdinand writes that "Capitalism....means that you own yourself and your labors, that you are not a slave and you are able to reap the rewards of the hard work you do." No, that's not what it means. It means close to the opposite of that. It means that we all compete under free-market survival-of-the-fittest conditions -- with the inevitable result that the most talented & hardworking, AND ALSO the most ruthless & aggressive persons, will gain an advantage. Their families will prosper & gain in influence. By a self-selecting process, eventually the most aggressive of these families will become ruling class members & will support policies favorable to their own class interests. The end result is inevitably a government of the rich, by the rich, & for the rich. In such societies, anyone who's not rich is pretty much a slave.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:11:59 PM

  (0+)

I do not consider the Great Depression to be a failing of capitalism. It was caused by the Federal Reserve. The Fed is the enemy of true capitalism. The New Deal, as executed by FDR prolonged and worsened the Great Depression. War is the primary product of central banks. It allows countries to go into massive debt to fund such campaigns. And these bankers have historically funded both sides of nearly every war. I do not blame the market, but the men who have been placed in control of it. They have been able to convince you that the more debt a country has, the more wealthy it is. Ludicrous.

The great days of America were not seen in the 20th century, and I admit that it is actually difficult to point to a specific point where the country was able to meet up to the idealism set out by the Founders. But despite all of the government intervention, anarcho-capitalism allowed for great inventions and amazing industry to revolutionize the way we conceive of business, travel, and communications. Free individuals considering new ways to do something and then businesses realizing how best to bring these things to consumers.

A strong, but Consitutional government would have no place for corporate takeover. A republic defended by a well armed, educated citizenry can stand strong against the powers of evil and influence. You mention slaves to the rich? Well, the most hardworking, intelligent, and prosperous would be rewarded for their labor - that is a given. But as for them subjugating anyone, they are restrained by laws, as ;aid out by the law and enforced by the citizens. And if that doesn't work and any small group of people was causing misery to the many, then the many might simply take their guns and take out the few.

In a free society, one with iniative always has the ability to start his own business. He does not need to be a slave to any man. He can recognize that he can share in the wealth created by others by creating value himself, whether through production, service, or even the publication of his ideas. Only those stupid enough to allow themselves to be enslaved would be slaves. 

“Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'”

As for calls for more government - I don't negotiate with terrorists. I refuse to recognize its authority in its current state. 

I am a free being existing in this universe, carrying the eternal flame of consciousness. I need no ruler of this world. 

by Ferdinand (17 articles, 4 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 259 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 8:22:37 PM

  (0+)

Ferdinand writes, "The great days of America were not seen in the 20th century." Presumably this means America's "great days" were in the 19th century. This was back in the days when labor unions were completely illegal, there were no child labor laws, no government regulation of industry to insure worker safety or to protect consumers, no Social Security or social safety net of any kind, women still couldn't vote and blacks were 5th class citizens even after nominal emancipation. Yes, those were America's glory days, all right. Oh, and by the way, there were also "great depressions" in 1873 and in 1892. There was no Federal Reserve back then on which those depressions could be blamed.

Ferdinand writes, "I do not consider the Great Depression to be a failing of capitalism. It was caused by the Federal Reserve."
- This theory conceives of the Fed as something quite distinct from capitalism -- as though the bankers & financiers who brought the Fed into existence (& who wholeheartedly endorse its continued central economic role) have nothing to do with capitalism. It is difficult to swallow the idea that bankers and financiers have "nothing to do" with capitalism. One might be forgiven for naively supposing that bankers are somehow at the very core of capitalism.

Indeed, by Ferdinand's own theory, free individuals will naturally devise "new ways to do something and then businesses (will) realize how best to bring these things to consumers." OK, that applies to banks. You get free individuals creating a bank. They succeed marvelously in bringing their innovative services to consumers. They succeed so well that they acquire great wealth & influence. Then they become aware that certain laws are "restraining them." (Ferdinand writes, "Well, the most hardworking, intelligent, and prosperous would be rewarded for their labor....But as for them subjugating anyone, they are restrained by laws, as laid out by the law.") The hardworking & prosperous bankers then unsurprisingly decide that they don't like these laws that restrain them, so they want these laws changed. When only one powerful bank tries to get a law changed, it might at first result merely in bribing a few Congressmen. But when the whole class of successful bankers does it in unison, it's no longer bribery. It's now called "lobbying," it's perfectly legal, and the big banking interests can pretty much buy the whole Congress -- which is exactly what they do, & exactly what we see, for example in the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1998, or the Wall St bailout today. // These same successful bankers would then desire to create & maintain a central bank, & to insure that this central bank served the interests of the wealthy banker class generally.

In other words, you can't separate the existence of the Fed from capitalism. It arises the same way that all powerful capitalist institutions arise. If the Fed didn't exist, capitalists would create it. In fact, that's just they did in 1913.

Ferdinand writes, "War is the primary product of central banks." (I assume he means "war is primarily the product of central banks.") This is a very interesting theory about where wars come from. One might have thought it stems from the competition for control over precious resources, or for control of particular strategic regions. One might have thought it came from the struggle for control over markets, & from attempts to gain access to sources of cheap labor. One might have thought that when certain countries grew rich from exploiting colonies, that rival nations saw this, grew envious, & also wished to acquire colonies, so that they too might become richer; & that this led to war. (This kind of dynamic was actually was one of the causes of WWI.)

In other words, there would seem to be lots of very understandable material causes for war. You want to steal or dominate somebody else's oil, or gold, or diamonds, so you take it by force. You're sick of an imperialist power controlling your economy, so you want to get rid of them (the American Revolution).  You're sick of being raped by the aristocracy, so you put up with it for a few centuries, then eventually start guillotining them (the French Revolution). // It's very difficult to see all of these conflicts simply as the machinations of nefarious central bankers, especially since these kinds of wars were really no different in Biblical or Roman times, when there were no central bankers, or even any banks.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:31:15 AM

  (0+)

The idiots that've been running this country(into the ground) for the last 8 years are depending on one thing: The continued production of T-bills so they can get a bigger chunk of the tax pie next year, more people paying taxes to THEM, and the federal government being in the position of having to commit to incalculable promissory outlays. I think Mr. Obama should call Mr. Paulson aside, say, 'hey, buddy, let's put the Big Magic Checkbook in the safe, here, and no, you don't get the combination. Thanks for stopping by! Bye!' Something like that. The united states is being leveraged 18 ways from zero by parties beyond our borders, and they're using our very own politicians(representatives? Are you sure about that?) to do it. Globalization is the concept that we're all the best of friends, and that business strategies will be avoided that might prove detrimental to americans. On the contrary. Multiple ploys and excuses get used each and every day to grab ANOTHER billion dollars off the United States, and our military is no exception, they crat a trail of money everywhere they go, too, and then there's things like EADS, fighting over who builds our airplanes and all that other garbage. Let's have a federal budget of 'zero', and reintroduce the concept of Made In The U.S.A. to a lot of product shelves across the country.

How would YOU pay off $10 trillion dollars? And, that's probably a low estimate. Do YOU want to pay taxes or RENT to entities in foreign countries? Do you? Have you really thought about that? Because that's where all of this is headed.

by truthtruffle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 111 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:28:48 PM

  (0+)

I like the comment:

" Maybe we need to take the big three and nationalize them, then give huge tax breaks to persuade Americans to dump their gas guzzlers-- maybe even add taxes to people who keep their gas guzzlers."

Previously we had tax breaks for buying BIG.  It's about time we started having the roads paid for by the biggest users.  Big cars and trucks do more damage to roads than small vehicles.  Tax on gas and on the weight seems a logical and fair option. Air emission testing should include another clean-up tax.

How many other usage taxations could be utilized?  Water and electricity definately come to mind. . .

by sometimes blinded (4 articles, 106 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 615 comments [51 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:45:37 PM

  (0+)

I do hope that Obama suprises me, but I don't believe that he will effectively lead this country out of the hole that has been dug over the past 60 plus years.  He did not gain his office purely at the will of the people.  He is indebted to corporate interests as well.    If he is the right person for the job, he will stop all of the hoax wars of terror that where a complete scam to begin with.  The AlQeada and bin Laden had nothing at all to do with 9-11, except as pre-arranged patsies.   The World Trade Center was not brought down by the airliners that were made to crash into the WTC, nor did the resulting fire have anything at all to do with the expertly planned and installed demolition.  Watch any of the several privately taken live videos of the so called "collapse" that was no collapse at all, but a very profession multi multi explosions from top to bottom of each building.  The instilling of terror into the masses was very effective for the Bush Administation, and necessary for him to get the peoples backing for his allready planned invasions into the Middle East.  Obama can suceed, but only if he uses truth.  The People are tired of the cowardice of the democrats in both houses of the Congress, and tired of their taking corporate bribes and only pretending to be working for the people.  Obama can be Herculean if he does make a genuine stand with real justice and turn back the illegit powers of corporate interests that are driving the corruption in squandering this nations future.  The United States Government is supposed to belong to the People, and not to corporate greed that should have no voice at all. 

I Don't think so, nobama is as corporate as he comes, supported by AIPAC.

by Afi James (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:19:39 PM

  (0+)

On your main point, Rob, I'm for nationalizing the "Big Three" automakers. The current management has refused to "get the message" for decades now, so its time to toss them all out and put in management which will do what the marketplace demands.

We need "reliable" automobles. We need "fuel efficient" automobiles. We need to "get ahead" of the Japanese and Korean automakers for once. We have too many automobile brands and not enough "good choices." Why have five versions of the same automobile, all equally bad, because all five come off of exactly the same assembly line?

I am generally against government take-overs of businesses.  However, in this case, I will make an exception. The US automobile manufacturing industry is "too big to fail." It should fail, but we dare not allow it to fail. So, we will do the next best thing, which is to nationalize it at the current stock price (pay off the existing shareholders) and then put all three of the "Big Three" into a common trusteeship where the US Trustee has a charter to implement a few brands of fuel efficient vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.), and to reorganize the dealer network around the few remaining brands of vehicles. Ultimately, the reorganized corporation should be spun-off to the US Taxpayers using a mechanism similar to the stimulus payment checks, but instead of checks, the government will distribute stock certificates in the new reorganized US automobile industry.

That is my suggestion, and you are all welcome to it!

by Mr. Moderate (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 5:47:47 PM

  (0+)

Yes, Obama faces tasks even Superman and Hercules would find daunting, no doubt. A stinkin' heap awaits him.

But, it isn't as if he just landed here from Mars: Senator Obama is well aware of the issues.

And yes, I agree the automakers brought this upon themselves, just think back to when Bush took office, and they lobbied to remove the mileage standards already in place, and Bush even gave an "SUV" tax break for purchaces, remember? F'em.

And yes again, their collapse would cause huge displacement and unemployment nation-wide.

As did the introduction of automobiles: Horse carriage factories went kaput. Life will go on.

I would not say they are "too big to fail" (which is meaningless sloganism, to my mind, a meme without merit), hell, even Toyota, as fine a run corporation as it is, is facing big declines in sales.

"Rescuing" them, Rob, doesn't put money in the pockets of the tapped out, flat broke and over-leveraged consumers in the US. Who's  going to buy the cars and trucks if they are broke or unemployed? Pour cash into consumers hands if you must have "bailouts", THAT will circulate cash through the system, instead of these Wall Street Banksters hoarding the "bailout" cash, to use to acquire other, weaker competitors.  Jebus, it is so WRONG!

I'd say, let them fail, go bankrupt and reorganize, whatever, without leaving the same idiots in charge.

Then use taxpayer funds to purchase the factories, and train the unemployed workers to build the "Volt" G.M. is ready to introduce, while training others to manufacture cutting edge alternative power sources, like solar and wind, to charge the Volts, and make a product the world would desire. "Exports", what a novel concept!

Make them inexpensive enough for the factory worker to purchase, the Third World consumers as well, someone named Ford tried that once. Worked awfully well.

Like you say, nationalize them. But NO MORE taxpayer cash to these capitalist crooks.

And WHEN is Congress going to ask King Paulson Where TF that $700 BILLION is going????? Or why we are loaning $125 Billion+ to a "dead man walking" corpse like AIG? Or the trillions we will lose when Fannie and Freddie  fold?? And FOLD they will. Ponzi schemes always do.


Because personally, I can see a MUCH better place to use it: REPAY THE FICA FUNDS D.C. has "borrowed" from us!!!! Increase the S.S. benefits to a level our senoirs can live with dignity and without stress. I say double it. Tax the incomes over the cutoff limit, why do the wealthy not have to pay on all THEIR income, but some bus driver or nurse has too??? Makes NO SENSE.

LOT'S of hard decisions, and reversal of "business as usual"  tactics to overcome.

But We Will!

by David Hastings (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:36:34 PM

  (0+)

Globalization is a giant pile of manure that needs cleaned up. Sometimes manure can be used as fertilize and other productive means but when allow to accumulate unregulated big problems arise.

How can free trade and globalization be defeated one might ask. Truth can defeat it, truth reveals that free trade and globalization weaken a country dramatically by making them dependant on their trading partners for a variety of things essential to their independence and survival as a sovereign country. Self sufficiency is a very important asset for any country with food, energy and manufacturing being far too vital to outsource. Today the U.S. may be outsourcing its very existence as a sovereign free country and the large multinationals don't care. Big business wants to reinvent slavery but one problem remains, slaves cant afford their goods.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:50:19 PM

  (0+)

To understand in which direction a coming Obama administration is likely to take (subject, of course, to change due to events beyond its control), I suggest we should keep our eyes on the advisers he appoints - and no less important, their advisers. Who is he appointing to important advisory positions in the economic field ? What policies have these persons advocated hitherto ? Just as the appointment of a Rahm Israel Emanuel to the position of coming White House chief of staff - and the rumours concerning a possible appointment of Hillary Rodham Clinton as coming US Secretary of State - says much (that I personally deplore) about the US foreign policy the coming US administration will attempt to implement, knowing from what groups Mr Obama is choosing his economic and industrial advisers will tell us a great deal about the policies the new administration will adopt in these areas....

With regard to the other question that has arisen on this thread, I do hope that an open policy, which welcomes all serious postings relevant to the subject at hand, can be maintained. This will require restraint not merely on the part of Rob, but also of us posters - let us try to keep our eyes on the ball, rather than on each other....

Henri

by mhenriday (0 articles, 17 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 157 comments) on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:48:21 AM

  (0+)

I did an archive save when I first read your initial posting .. just to see...

and read it again in comparison to the current version when preparing to go to the office and perform a forensic evaluation on a patient. So I thought I'd take a moment before heading out the door to comment regarding what the new version of the oped reveals.

Unfortunately, Scott, you are entirely correct. And I have to ask Rob, what possible purpose does it serve you to act in such a manner? It only serves to discredit you and the site, which must now suffer the tarnished pallor of extreme censorship.

And now, even the second incarnation of the oped has disappeared into the ether. 

Rather sad. And terribly revealing.

dr. richard welser

p.s. I imagine this version of the oped will disappear as well. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:15:08 AM

  (0+)

Without the big three, who have the largest union memebership, Unions will be forever dissolved. That's like sinking the boat in order to save the ore. Unions are vital in these times. VITAL. They deal with slavery and we are nothing but slaves to these rich wealthy huge corporate thugs.

Rob, you will have to buy me that new energy saving car because I can't and yes, I have a gas guzzler but I don't go much so I am absolutely SURE that I don't burn the gas that others do. One tank a month.

I am losing faith in Obama every day.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:15:21 PM

  (0+)

in my lifetime. IAMAW, Boilermakers and Allied Workers unions. I know how they improved working conditions for ALL, including non-union workers, Ms. Reece. I'm now a small business owner, a contractor, but I don't forget my roots.

But, you do not say HOW shoveling billions of tax dollars to automaker executives will "save the Big Three", as even you state you can't afford a new car. Do they even have a PLAN on HOW they will use the funds to "save" union jobs? NO.

Soooo, how does that "save" anything?  My point was, give the cash to tapped out consumers if you MUST give out cash (which the largest debtor nation in the world, the USA, can NOT afford to do), at least they will spend it on surviving the depression, not give it out in "bonuses" to execs that led them into this mess, or use it to buy Chrysler. Geeez, G.M. is bleeding billions in cash every month, and they were talking about BUYING Chrysler?

HOW CRAZY is THAT??

Let'em fold, if they can't compete. The union workers can go get jobs with the surviving  domestic automakers, IF there is demand for their products.

If not, let's refrain from throwing good money after bad.

Nobody cried alligator tears for us union defense workers in the late 1980's (for very good reason) when defense spending went down.

I won't be crying any for 50-something UAW retired assembly line workers, either. Earning 90% of their wages, and retired in their 50s? No wonder the automakers are going broke. Along with the horrid decision making by obscenely overpaid execs, they NEED to go into bankruptcy, and reorganize, to really survive.

Bankruptcy court keeps the companies going, while shedding it of debts it cannot afford to survive.

THAT is what is needed. Let Ford sell the Lions for a billion or so before we GIVE them cash, geez. Bailing out billionaires, what freakin' kind of nonsense is that?

by David Hastings (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:49:41 AM

  (0+)

It is not Obama's "job" to fix the Domestic and World economy.  In fact, the government has no business spending our money on private ventures.

by ScarySquirrel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 11:13:11 PM

  (0+)