[Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more
than gas?
LAURIE SOLOMON
LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET
Sat Nov 15 19:57:35 CST 2008
I fail to see how letting the industry die will help anything - especially
since I do not see the people of the US giving up their cars and trucks and
since there are so many already interdependent industries and businesses
connected to the auto industry. Given all the people employed by that
industry and all the directly and indirectly related industries, I think it
would cost more to cushion the unemployment and retrain all those employees
than it would to nationalize the industry and keep it functioning. Just
because under private control management had stupid unproductive policies
and made unwise decisions is no reason to kill the industry per se;
nationalizing it and changing the premises and policies would provide a
remedy to the mismanagement problem without killing the industry or creating
massive unemployemtn and iots associated costs.
-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of
n.dahlheim at mchsi.com
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 7:01 PM
To: E. Wayne Johnson
Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; laurie at advancenet.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling more than
gas?
While I agree with Laurie's analytical breakdown of why the Big Auto
companies should be nationalized
and the implications this has for the capitalistic myth that continues to
bewilder so many and inspire so
many a failed policy; I think Wayne is basically right. The car companies
must die---they have had
poor management for a very long time. AG Daimler was positively thrilled to
sell of Chrysler to
Cerberus not too long ago; Chrysler's American management routinely insulted
the German members
of the car company's management team with their intransigence and obstinancy
regarding company
governance. GM, as we all know, under CEO Rick Wagoner bowed to oil company
pressure to shut
down the production of EV-1 electric cars in the mid-1990s. And, despite
the overwhelming evidence
that global oil production was getting set to peak in the early 21st century
and the growing
dependence of the United States on foreign oil imports, GM decided to avoid
investing in capital
improvements to build fuel-efficient vehicles. Instead, GM decided to
produce gas guzzling "light
truck" SUVs in order to take advantage of loopholes in the CAFE standards.
GM did not reinvest in
retraining its workforce, refurbishing factories, or developing much more
efficient vehicles. As such,
there will be heavy consequences for GM's failure---the govt should cushion
the blow to GM's
workers---but, let the company die. Spending precious money on them in a
time of credit crisis is
foolish when there are so many other social needs and many other businesses
succumbing to failure in
this current economic depression.
Best,
Nick
---------------------- Original Message: ---------------------
From: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Cc: 'peace discuss' <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Auto bailout - gas guzzlers guzzling
more than gas?
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:12:54 +0000
> 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&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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list