Social Security is Socialism
Nov. 13th, 2008 03:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzWas 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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.