Social Security is Socialism
Nov. 13th, 2008 03:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Was that a squirrel?
The year was 1979, and Chrysler - the smallest of the big 3 automakers but perhaps 10th largest corp in USia, was facing financial crisis. They begged for help from congress and Carter. Not only had they made cars that people were not buying, SPECIFICALLY MAKING GAS GUZZLERS SHORTLY BEFORE THE OPEC EMBARGO, but they had the lowest quality ratings of ANY car company. It was felt that guaranteed loans were a way of saving this ailing company that was too big a part of the landscape to let die of natural causes. Some in congress cautioned that this would set a dangerous precedent - others chided them that this was a one-time event that could never happen again. Shortly after the oil embargo, GM was venturing into electric cars, which they promptly abandoned when the price of gas stabilized (they gave the idea "to the Japanese")
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96231032&ft=1&f=1001
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler#Government_loan_guarantees.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do in one regard - I think it is healthy for the US to have car companies, but it is clearly not healthy to give them government aid. In 30 years they have had the freedom to wind up making the exact same mistake with the same result. It's not like the writing wasn't on the wall - oil prices have a history of volatility, and at the same time USian companies were making the hummers and monster vehicles, the "foreign" companies (hey isn't GM a German company now, even after the spinnoff?) were making not only fuel efficient vehicles, but hybrids.
There is nothing patriotic about using hard-earned dollars to support the failure of the weak that free market economy is supposed to allow. The allegedly US car companies are asking for an untaxed unlimited profit on the upside with no regulation (blowing money on lobbying congress not to impose fuel and environmental standards) but when their errors and bad business judgments show themselves, the public is asked to "loan" them their dollars to bail them out, again, or in short - not facing the downside of the freedom they were granted.
Fun factoid #1 - misplaced patriotism of rednecks support democrats! Huh? Well, buying the inferior US cars, "buy american" campaigns by the right, propped up absurd Union salaries where manufacturers were able to pay their workers 80k-six figures for HS level work. The unions in turn propped up the democrats.
As an aside discussed last night, Carter had solar panels installed on the white house. Reagan had them removed at taxpayer expense with no stated reason early upon his arrival to the white house.
The year was 1979, and Chrysler - the smallest of the big 3 automakers but perhaps 10th largest corp in USia, was facing financial crisis. They begged for help from congress and Carter. Not only had they made cars that people were not buying, SPECIFICALLY MAKING GAS GUZZLERS SHORTLY BEFORE THE OPEC EMBARGO, but they had the lowest quality ratings of ANY car company. It was felt that guaranteed loans were a way of saving this ailing company that was too big a part of the landscape to let die of natural causes. Some in congress cautioned that this would set a dangerous precedent - others chided them that this was a one-time event that could never happen again. Shortly after the oil embargo, GM was venturing into electric cars, which they promptly abandoned when the price of gas stabilized (they gave the idea "to the Japanese")
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96231032&ft=1&f=1001
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler#Government_loan_guarantees.
Honestly I'm not sure what to do in one regard - I think it is healthy for the US to have car companies, but it is clearly not healthy to give them government aid. In 30 years they have had the freedom to wind up making the exact same mistake with the same result. It's not like the writing wasn't on the wall - oil prices have a history of volatility, and at the same time USian companies were making the hummers and monster vehicles, the "foreign" companies (hey isn't GM a German company now, even after the spinnoff?) were making not only fuel efficient vehicles, but hybrids.
There is nothing patriotic about using hard-earned dollars to support the failure of the weak that free market economy is supposed to allow. The allegedly US car companies are asking for an untaxed unlimited profit on the upside with no regulation (blowing money on lobbying congress not to impose fuel and environmental standards) but when their errors and bad business judgments show themselves, the public is asked to "loan" them their dollars to bail them out, again, or in short - not facing the downside of the freedom they were granted.
Fun factoid #1 - misplaced patriotism of rednecks support democrats! Huh? Well, buying the inferior US cars, "buy american" campaigns by the right, propped up absurd Union salaries where manufacturers were able to pay their workers 80k-six figures for HS level work. The unions in turn propped up the democrats.
As an aside discussed last night, Carter had solar panels installed on the white house. Reagan had them removed at taxpayer expense with no stated reason early upon his arrival to the white house.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 12:56 pm (UTC)GM isn't. Chrysler was until fairly recently.
Carter had solar panels installed on the white house. Reagan had them removed
And they're (allegedly... I have no way to verify) back as of a year or so ago, though I'm not sure if the current inhabitant was in any way involved (or even knows).
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 01:08 pm (UTC)Would be cool if they were up - lead, lead by example.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 01:32 pm (UTC)The only reason I can see to do this is that it is a difficult industry to start. A factory is huge and expensive, car designs are very expensive, and the liability on cars can be huge so you need whole teams of engineers and (ugh) lawyers. So if we lose this industry, we may not get it back - or just have it as we do now, foreign companies with factories in this country.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 02:46 pm (UTC)There should be some sort of incentives or funding for development of fuel efficient cars and a LOT of economic support for the communities which are going to be hit by their failure. Michigan, in particular, is in big trouble economically.
As harsh as this sounds...
Date: 2008-11-13 02:48 pm (UTC)Desperate times breed the most severe changes. And what we need right now--especially in the American auto industry--is severe change.
If the existing corps can't manage that change on their own and dissolve or vacate their production facilities, I'm sure some enterprising entrepreneur will be happy to grab that real estate and equipment at bargain basement prices.
Like you pointed out, this is (at least) the industry's second strike in the economic game. I don't think we can afford to support them until they make that third.
(And, yes, I know this would do horrible things to the employees... but I think it's slightly better to end up in a bad situation, employment-wise, when there's more people having the same problem. It builds a certain solidarity and, again, leads to more creative community-based solutions. Or, at least, that's what it seems like looking back at the early 1930's.)
Re: As harsh as this sounds...
Date: 2008-11-13 02:53 pm (UTC)Both the workers and the execs made huge mistakes. They gambled and lost, or were incredibly isolated/short-sighed. Fawkem - that's the USian way.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 04:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 04:12 pm (UTC)Rich Country, Strong Military
Date: 2008-11-13 06:15 pm (UTC)Japan's resistance to colonialism came with a feeling that Asian countries that had succumbed were weak and in need of control. "Asia for Asians" was their rallying cry, but it was just imperialism with a different ethnic group at the helm.
The sacrifice of private industry's decisions about what to manufacture goes hand in hand with the idea that individual goals should be sacrificed for the good of the state, in large part to protect the homeland from the Other.
I can phrase this better and provide sources after my marathon on campus is done tonight.
Re: Rich Country, Strong Military
Date: 2008-11-13 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-11-13 11:44 pm (UTC)For reference, construction workers have tougher conditions and not nearly the pay. In fact, I think they need more training.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-14 12:05 am (UTC)people who do hard work should be well paid. the fact that some aren't does not make that point any less valid.