Government ownership of GM doesn’t benefit anyone
The government has a plan for General Motors. The government will continue to give GM money, which will benefit GM and its suppliers. Adding money to the economy will benefit the economy.However, as part of the plan, the government will wind up owning about 50% of the company. This ownership does not benefit GM, its suppliers, its employees, its shareholders, its creditors, taxpayers or the economy. The economic value of government ownership is not just zero. It is a strong negative. GM loses because its leaders will have to contend with business-ignorant, government bureaucrats, when making decisions. Suppliers too, will need to deal with arbitrary, politically-inspired rules, that will impact efficiency and creativity. Employees will pay for government ownership through a reduction in salaries and benefits. Shareholders will pay through a dilution of share ownership. Creditors will pay by being cheated out of the money due to them. Taxpayers will not receive any part of the stock; only the government will own it. The economy as a whole will receive no advantage from government ownership. There is, in fact, not one good reason for the federal government to own GM stock, and myriad reasons not to. The mere fact that government bureaucrats want this harmful ownership of GM stock demonstrates the government’s lack of economic and business sense. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell |
“Jeri,
We are safe until we get hit again! Let’s try to prevent the next one instead of dwelling on the past.”
— budb1969
“Reagan,
No sir, you are wrong. We don’t need UN approval to go to war. We need congressional approval. Next???”
— budb1969
Ok, on the first post, your clearly wanting discussions regarding the actions of the moron you supported to go away… I don’t blame you, if my judgment was as bad as yours I would stop participating in elections…
On the second. Bushie violated the United Nations by invading Iraq illegally… Don’t you read?
Ronnie,
“Ok, on the first post, your clearly wanting discussions regarding the actions of the moron you supported to go away… I don’t blame you, if my judgment was as bad as yours I would stop participating in elections…
On the second. Bushie violated the United Nations by invading Iraq illegally… Don’t you read?”
— Ronald Reagan
7:00 am June 4th, 2009
Wrong and wrong on both of your points. Mine are both correct. How did you get kicked out of the military??? Discipline? Authority problem?
Ronnie,
“Ok, on the first post, your clearly wanting discussions regarding the actions of the moron you supported to go away… I don’t blame you, if my judgment was as bad as yours I would stop participating in elections…
On the second. Bushie violated the United Nations by invading Iraq illegally… Don’t you read?”
— Ronald Reagan
7:00 am June 4th, 2009
Wrong and wrong on both of your points. Mine are both correct. How did you get kicked out of the military??? Discipline? Authority problem?
— budb1969
You are seriously defending George Bush after what he did to your retirement fund and the economy?!
Good God man! I’ll bet you probably voted for John McCain… on second thought, it’s pretty obvious you did. Just imagine that…
John McCain: “The fundamententals or our economy are strong” -spoken after the economic crisis had begun to hit.
Reagan,
My apologies for the military comment. It wasn’t appropriate. You were very sarchastic in your response, and I responded in kind. My retirement fund is just fine. We all have opinions. What makes yours so superior???
“Reagan,
My apologies for the military comment. It wasn’t appropriate. You were very sarchastic in your response, and I responded in kind. My retirement fund is just fine. We all have opinions. What makes yours so superior???”
— budb1969
Are you implying that your posts/responses are never sarcastic?
RR
No! I think we all are to a point. But, we all have opinions. I’ll leave it at that.
“But, we all have opinions. I’ll leave it at that.”
— budb1969
Agreed.
What Socialism Looks Like
Have you heard that the United States is headed toward socialism? Jonah Goldberg says it is. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby says it is. Phyllis Schlafly says it is. Richard Viguerie says it is. The Republican National Committee says it is. We must be getting pretty close.
How close? This is what socialism looks like:
99.79% -Percentage of American corporate and business assets not held by the United States government
0.21% -Percentage of American corporate and business assets recently nationalized by the U.S. government
There is a serious discussion to be had here, and I think Jon Henke is having it: Socialism, like Fahrenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that nationalizes GM is “more socialist” than one that does not, even if it doesn’t mean we’re living “under socialism.” But differences of degree shouldn’t obscure differences of kind, and as Tim Fernholz says, “it’s clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration’s guiding philosophy.”
If it were, 99.79% of the American corporate assets that existed at the start of the Obama administration would not remain in private hands. The differences of degree are so small that they aren’t worth mentioning. And yet, somehow, they keep getting mentioned.
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php
Wow! For a second I thought the wingnut, fruitcake faction was right and we were already a ’socialist’ country… man, amazing the preponderance of wrong information that shows up on these pages!
“Why do you equate Socialism with state ownership of the means of production? Socialism is about using the instruments of state to reduce inequalities of wealth, income, and power. It’s about emphasizing society as a whole over the individual. State ownership of the economy is certainly one path to this objective, but it is not the only path. Sweden, for example, is more “socialist” than the US, and that’s not because the Swedish state owns a big chunk of Swedish economy.”