[Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more than gas?

Sat Nov 15 19:17:58 CST 2008

> Nationalized, they will become administrative monsters like universities,
> constantly wasting money, perverting reforms, and continually begging for
> new infusions of money

Aren't they already that as non-nationalized private organizations? The
taxpayer has been supporting private enterprises for decades via subsidies
and supports, tax laws and incentives, grants, and exclusive bidding and
contracts.  The only difference between nationalization  and what we have
now is that now the taxpayer has no control over the operation of the
companies and gets none of the profits returned to them which would not be
the case if the companies were nationalized. I doubt if anyone will be able
to find a way to reverse history so as to go back to an old 18th and 19th
century agrarian/entrepreneurial society in which companies were of the mom
and pop variety or with less than 50 employees; they were also owned by the
proprietors who managed them and served as laborers as well. For better or
for worse, I think we are destined to have bureaucracies and large
bureaucratic organizations to maintain a functional society in this day and
age.

Those are all things that plague any bureaucracy be it big or small; and
bureaucracies seem to be inevitable in an industrial and post-industrial
society.   In fact, it may be that such things as waste of money,
inefficiencies, and perverting of reforms are what enable bureaucracies to
survive, adapt, and be productive.  These days the term "small business"
refers not to "mom & pop" enterprises which have few employees and
administrative tasks to deal with the would require or benefit from a
bureaucracy; it typically refers to organized enterprises employing 50 to
1000 or more employees and an extensive number and variety administrative
tasks.

>Let the collapsing big companies die like so many old dead trees, 
>so that fresh new growth can occur.

I think that is totally optimistic and inaccurate to think that the
existence of big companies NECESSARILY prevent new growth, although they may
handicap and slow down new growth, and that the elimination of big companies
will stimulate fresh new growth.  There are many large companies that  wait
for small companies to take the risk of developing something and then they
buy them out; just as there are many startup companies that will undertake
projects with an eye to getting bought out by the big companies or they
otherwise would not take on the project.  Furthermore, many of the so-called
fresh companies will only take risks of doing something innovative if there
is no risk to them for doing so (i.e., they only do what there is definite
guarantees of funding for the undertaking in terms of available venture
capital, certain profits and sales, and protections from competition).
Fresh and new growth does not generally mean more competition, more
innovation and risk-taking, or better companies. Lastly, like in the case of
forests, there is and will be a long time lag between the death of the old
growth and the maturation of the new growth to the point that the new growth
can pick up the slack left from the lost old growth.

Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 3:13 PM
To: LAURIE SOLOMON
Cc: kmedina at illinois.edu; 'peace discuss'
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more than
gas?

The big companies need to fail because inherent decay and obsolences.

Nationalized, they will become administrative monsters like universities,
constantly wasting money, perverting reforms, and continually begging for
new infusions of money.

Let the collapsing big companies die like so many old dead trees, 
so that fresh new growth can occur.

LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: 

Try this on for size:  If a company is too big to let fail, it should be
nationalized since it is no longer a private operation with only local
impact and consequences but a national operation with societal impact and
consequences.  The whole notion of Capitalism and free enterprise was, as I
understand it, based on small local enterprises owned and directly run by
entrepreneurial individuals whose own money was at risk so as to justify
their getting the profits.  It was not based on large national and
international corporations run by hired managers who have little personal
stake in the corporation other than employment and are protected by "Golden
Parachutes" on behalf of institutional stockholders and third party
investors who have little actual control over operations.

If these corporations are going to use national resources and have such
significance to the national economy and the lives of so many individual
citizens, then they should be owned and operated by the citizenry for the
benefit of the common good of the citizenry under governmental supervision
and control.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
Johnson
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:47 PM
To: kmedina at illinois.edu
Cc: peace discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more than
gas?

Just simply let the big companies fail.  They eventually will anyway, and
bailing them out only prolongs the agony and intensifies the impact.
If the tree doesnt produce good fruit, why do we burden the ground with 
a bad tree?
Cut the dead trees down, and make room for good new trees.

If there is any benefit to the society from domestic auto production, 
some wise
entrepreneurs will rise up and start producing cars again, or mopeds or 
bicycles or 3 wheel bikes, etc. which they could do
now if they were not being crowded out by the giants who use government 
regulations as
a barrier to competition and entry of useful new small businesses. 

Deep psychological blow? 
Oh my dear. You break my heart. Things are tough all over guys. 
But hey. I understand.  Here's a hug and a hanky.

Karen Medina wrote:

Ricky wrote: >   
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=washingtonstory
<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=washingtonstory&sid=aBlCucXR33Jw>
&sid=aBlCucXR33Jw

"The failure of those companies would likely bring down parts-makers,

dealerships 

and suppliers in addition to inflicting a deep psychological blow."

The whole argument about "too big to fail" is frightening. I think there

should be 

restrictions on how large any company / bank can become. Wouldn't a bunch

of 

smaller companies create a more competitive environment? Allow the

industries to 

change directions a bit faster? Spread out the profits? Have fewer

extremely high 

paid individuals? Be kinder to their workers? Lay off fewer people in hard

times? 

-karen medina
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081115/782baa7b/attachment-0001.htm