Bailout - Let's make a deal - another pork barrel

[Dave McReynolds]

RightSpin, JonRan, and Tallman, you all just responded with examples showing China as exploitive of their workers, destructive of their (and our) environment, and immoral in their treatment of their citizens. And yet I believe you all still support free trade with them. Why?

• One hopes China's still-primitive society will mutate to one that is much more humane. I'd offer, conditions in pre-industrial China were less good
• Pragmatically, one cannot ignore the alternative which is war, sooner than later. China's policy of eliminating female infants has created an immense skew in it demographics. There now exists a disproportionately large number of unwed (thus, socially undocked) males who have left their homes for work in industrial centers. High unemployment and unrest in this group could politically destabilize the country. China's option is to export this problem in the form of an army.
• It's their country, not ours, and unlike our current prez, I do not believe in proactive intervention to bring about political change in other countries who do not pose an imminent threat to US.
• We have no alternative because we do not have the political, moral or financial resources to do so

 

Are we better, or worse prepared to deal with a Chinese military threat after 30 years of building up their industrial base?

 

I like Chinese food.........they like my money.

Yeah, the melamine gives it a nice zesty flavor!

[John Ranalletta]

Are we better, or worse prepared to deal with a Chinese military threat after 30 years of building up their industrial base?

Likely, it doesn't matter because victory then as now will go the the country with the fastest strategic nuclear capability and the will to use it. That contest will go to the Chinese.

 

 

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia...Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

 

Vizzini, The Princess Bride

[steve.foote]

RightSpin, JonRan, and Tallman, you all just responded with examples showing China as exploitive of their workers, destructive of their (and our) environment, and immoral in their treatment of their citizens. And yet I believe you all still support free trade with them. Why?

 

Dave, I didn't say any such thing. I was only asking Ken a question. I'm trying to better understand the ideal society which Ken often refers to. He brought up China.

[Dave McReynolds]

RightSpin, JonRan, and Tallman, you all just responded with examples showing China as exploitive of their workers, destructive of their (and our) environment, and immoral in their treatment of their citizens. And yet I believe you all still support free trade with them. Why?

 

Dave, I didn't say any such thing. I was only asking Ken a question. I'm trying to better understand the ideal society which Ken often refers to. He brought up China.

 

My comment wasn't based on anything you said in this string. It was based on comments I thought I remembered from previous strings, apparently incorrectly. My apologies. The memory is the second thing to go....

[TyTass]

But Sean, you can’t/couldn’t survive on your own. No one can.

 

Actually your metaphor is quite a good one. And in it which is most likely to perish first? The ‘free’ bison of course.

 

But the point I’ve tried to make (more than once) is that you, or any singular person can’t prosper, or even survive in ‘bison mode.’ Humans require each other to survive. We require the betterment of the whole to have betterment of individual selves. It’s mandatory for the type of creature we are on this planet.

 

Yes ... you have indeed made these (and other similar) points before. And then as now you state them as axioms that prove your viewpoint … Man is not only social but can only progress through collectivist thinking and effort, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and therefore socialist programs and [arguably] collectivist governments are better suited to serve humankind because they hold society above the individual. Above you assert, apparently with a touch of frustration, that those who do not agree simply aren’t accepting the truth in your words (ostensibly due to selfish stubbornness or in abject ignorance).

 

If these were indeed axioms – statements one must accept in order to discuss the subject rationally/objectively – I would have to admit you had a valid point. However Ken, all you have accomplished [yet again] is to state your value set, equate them with the good of society, and make a conclusion that you believe supports those values. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

These viewpoints cannot be held as axioms simply because it is not at all necessary that any society hold such a view in order to "progress" or "better" them selves. While the definition of “better” or “progress” varies, to conclude a socialist/collectivist form of government best suits society one must choose to believe the words “society" and "government" are synonymous. That is a matter of choice – and is nowhere near a fact.

 

To equate the interpretation of those two words does however betray an adherence to one axiom at least … that those who subscribe to collectivist thought believe people are to serve the government – rather than the other way around. Irrespective of the form of government since time began – no matter whether a monarch, an emperor, a congress, or politburo – that belief was absolutely essential for all abuses of power to occur … regardless of motivation (i.e., greed for money, power or fame … hate of those unlike that government, whatever).

 

 

[Lawman]

But Sean, you can’t/couldn’t survive on your own. No one can.

 

Actually your metaphor is quite a good one. And in it which is most likely to perish first? The ‘free’ bison of course.

 

But the point I’ve tried to make (more than once) is that you, or any singular person can’t prosper, or even survive in ‘bison mode.’ Humans require each other to survive. We require the betterment of the whole to have betterment of individual selves. It’s mandatory for the type of creature we are on this planet.

 

Yes ... you have indeed made these (and other similar) points before. And then as now you state them as axioms that prove your viewpoint … Man is not only social but can only progress through collectivist thinking and effort, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and therefore socialist programs and [arguably] collectivist governments are better suited to serve humankind because they hold society above the individual. Above you assert, apparently with a touch of frustration, that those who do not agree simply aren’t accepting the truth in your words (ostensibly due to selfish stubbornness or in abject ignorance).

 

If these were indeed axioms – statements one must accept in order to discuss the subject rationally/objectively – I would have to admit you had a valid point. However Ken, all you have accomplished [yet again] is to state your value set, equate them with the good of society, and make a conclusion that you believe supports those values. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

These viewpoints cannot be held as axioms simply because it is not at all necessary that any society hold such a view in order to "progress" or "better" them selves. While the definition of “better” or “progress” varies, to conclude a socialist/collectivist form of government best suits society one must choose to believe the words “society" and "government" are synonymous. That is a matter of choice – and is nowhere near a fact.

 

To equate the interpretation of those two words does however betray an adherence to one axiom at least … that those who subscribe to collectivist thought believe people are to serve the government – rather than the other way around. Irrespective of the form of government since time began – no matter whether a monarch, an emperor, a congress, or politburo – that belief was absolutely essential for all abuses of power to occur … regardless of motivation (i.e., greed for money, power or fame … hate of those unlike that government, whatever).

 

 

 

Wow! good stuff...

[Pilgrim]

Satisfaction and contentment, followed by happiness, then self-actualization is more a function of the system’s, any system’s, ability to deliver peoples needs, than by some esoteric “freedom” than does nothing to provide for the populous. Freedom and liberty in and of itself solves/provides nothing.

Yikes!

 

What are those people to do whose source of "satisfaction and contentment" is having the freedom to try and fail? A system you describe that provides "satisfaction and contentment" for some, takes it away from others. Unfortunately, it takes it from those who take risks and create jobs. I guess we can all work for the government. It seems to be working out for France.

 

I sometimes feel compelled to fart in church - instead, I will sublimate here by saying that Ken has moved to socialist country where he feels he can best compete for a piece of a pie, rather than making the pie bigger and profiting himself thereby.

 

That is the fallacy of socialism, that the pie is of more or less fixed size, and if any one person has more than another he must have cheated someone out his share.

 

Here's how it ought to work: the energetic work hard, make money, and live well. The lame get whatever help they need, but in return they contribute what they can. The lazy starve. Nobody gets no free rides. Period.

 

Ken, where socialism has worked (and it is now failing, even there in Scandihoovia) it has been in countries with relatively small populations and a homogenous society that subscribes to a pretty much common set of beliefs. Immigration (legal and illegal) from other, poor countries into Europe's richer countries is breaking down the homogeneity and the society and the commonality of beliefs. A socialist society such as Sweden begins to break down when the lean, hungry barbarians (well, maybe not barbarians - or maybe so. Witness some of the Muslim goings-on in Europe.) from the east and south move in and discover they can get something to live on with no effort required. And that syndrome is what we are seeing here, to a precise degree of congruity.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

[Pilgrim]

But Sean, you can’t/couldn’t survive on your own. No one can.

 

Yes ... you have indeed made these (and other similar) points before. And then as now you state them as axioms that prove your viewpoint … . . .

 

Ty, I wouldn't glorify Ken's statements in these discussions as "axioms". An axiom is a self-evident truth taken for granted.

 

The proper phrase to characterize Ken's statements is ipse dixit, meaning an unsubstantiated assertion, depending solely on the speaker's authority for legitimacy. If he wants to argue from that starting point he certainly can, but we are under no obligation to accept his premise since the truth is neither self-evident nor taken for granted. And I don't.

 

There are any number of things wrong with the way the U.S. has been run in recent decades, even the last century, but the correct solution does not lie in forcing the energetic and productive amongst us into becoming members of the herd, waiting to be fed - and slaughtered.

 

Substantive changes I'd suggest?

 

• Go back to a republican form of government, with some grown-ups in the governing body. There are no grown-ups to be found when they all must respond to vox populi.
  
• Eliminate the universal franchise. If you don't know who's who on the ballot, you don't get one. The idea that every idiot who can suck air (and maybe some who don't) should vote is crazy. There are lots of other ways to do it and I won't suggest any here.
  
• Eliminate the legal view of a corporation as a "person" before the law. It was never written into law and certainly was not a provision of the Constitution.
  
• Law requires that corporate boards, etc, manage the company for the maximum benefit of the investors, that is, the stockholders. As a stockholder, I am gratified by that outlook. As a citizen, I am less so. Change it, but protect the investor class, for they are at least as valuable to the country as those who sweat, myth and legend to the contrary.
  

Enough. I'm going to bed.

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

Law requires that corporate boards, etc, manage the company for the maximum benefit of the investors, that is, the stockholders. As a stockholder, I am gratified by that outlook. As a citizen, I am less so. Change it, but protect the investor class, for they are at least as valuable to the country as those who sweat, myth and legend to the contrary.

 

While you and I disagree on much, occasionally we find ourselves in agreement on a few things. While I sometimes don't come across as such, I am a capitalist. The majority of my working life, I have been either a small owner of a big business, or a sole owner of a small one, and I appreciate the system that has allowed me to succeed.

 

But I believe the tunnel vision approach to business that focuses on "return to the investors" above all else, nay, to the exclusion of all else, has planted the seeds of its own destruction. Businesses depend on people, and people don't trust businesses with that philosophy. Even those people on the inside of such businesses don't trust them, and spend a disproportionate part of their time stockpiling wealth and planning their exit strategy.

 

I like Henry Ford's quote, "The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life."

 

Completely off the point, but I couldn't resist throwing this Henry Ford quote in too, as it seems so appropriate to today's world, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

 

I believe businesses would fare better if their priorities included (REALLY included, not just words) concern for their country, concern for their workers, and concern for their environmental impact.

 

I'm sorry if I took your idea and ran with it in a direction you didn't intend, but that happens with ideas sometimes.

[Whip]

"Eliminate the legal view of a corporation as a "person" before the law. It was never written into law and certainly was not a provision of the Constitution. "

 

Please clarify???????

 

Thanks

 

............remember I'm from the Detroit public school system.

 

Whip

[Dave McReynolds]

"Eliminate the legal view of a corporation as a "person" before the law. It was never written into law and certainly was not a provision of the Constitution. "

 

Please clarify???????

 

Thanks

 

............remember I'm from the Detroit public school system.

 

Whip

 

Pilgrim will offer his own take on this, no doubt, but one of the reasons people formed corporations, dating back well before the USA, was to protect their liberty and personal fortunes from imprudent or illegal acts of the corporation. Not all illegal acts done in the corporation's name are protected by the corporate veil, of course, but as long as anything is protected, there would be an inequity, in that something that would be punished if done by an individual would be unpunished if done in the name of a corporation. I believe that classifying the corporation as a "person" causes the corporation bear the consequences of these acts, at least to the extent of the assets of the corporation, or other punitive measures that could be taken against the corporation. I would imagine it also simplifies writing laws that apply to individual people, in that corporations are automatically included unless otherwise specified.

 

If individual people were responsible for all the illegal or financially ill-advised acts of corporations, I don't imagine there would be much need for corporations, and it would be simpler for businesses to just organize as partnerships or proprietorships. And it would probably be difficult or impossible to find anyone who was willing to invest money in them, unless they were going to play an active role in the business where they could keep an eye on things.

[marcopolo]

...Ken has moved to socialist country where he feels he can best compete for a piece of a pie, rather than making the pie bigger and profiting himself...

 

Pilgrim, I'm curious as to why you believe Canada (where Ken now lives) is "socialist country". I've lived here all my life, and I didn't know that. What's your definition of "socialist country", and why do you believe we fit that definition?

[Whip]

"Eliminate the legal view of a corporation as a "person" before the law. It was never written into law and certainly was not a provision of the Constitution. "

 

Please clarify???????

 

Thanks

 

............remember I'm from the Detroit public school system.

 

Whip

 

Pilgrim will offer his own take on this, no doubt, but one of the reasons people formed corporations, dating back well before the USA, was to protect their liberty and personal fortunes from imprudent or illegal acts of the corporation. Not all illegal acts done in the corporation's name are protected by the corporate veil, of course, but as long as anything is protected, there would be an inequity, in that something that would be punished if done by an individual would be unpunished if done in the name of a corporation. I believe that classifying the corporation as a "person" causes the corporation bear the consequences of these acts, at least to the extent of the assets of the corporation, or other punitive measures that could be taken against the corporation. I would imagine it also simplifies writing laws that apply to individual people, in that corporations are automatically included unless otherwise specified.

 

If individual people were responsible for all the illegal or financially ill-advised acts of corporations, I don't imagine there would be much need for corporations, and it would be simpler for businesses to just organize as partnerships or proprietorships. And it would probably be difficult or impossible to find anyone who was willing to invest money in them, unless they were going to play an active role in the business where they could keep an eye on things.

 

 

That's what I was afraid he meant........I just think we may have missed somethin.

 

I can't imagine anything good coming outa such a thing.

 

 

Whip

[Ken H.]

I think China will get it right sometime in the remainder of this century.

If you believe that a society that intentionally murders tens of millions of its infant females to accomplish its social/economic policies is "getting it right", we have nothing more to discuss.

 

Take a trip to Shanghai soon. You'll understand why Harbor Freight tools are painted red. That's so they don't have to wipe off the workers' blood off before packaging.

I said, "...sometime in the remainder of this century." You're talking the old China, I'm talking the New China. Two quite different things. I won't argue for a second that much of China's history, from the human rights perspective in particular, is dismal. But I do think they have turned the corner.

[Ken H.]

However Ken, all you have accomplished [yet again] is to state your value set,

Isn't that what we're all just doing here?

 

I've never said my opinions were anyones but my own.

[Ken H.]

I will sublimate here by saying that Ken has moved to socialist country where he feels he can best compete for a piece of a pie, rather than making the pie bigger and profiting himself thereby.

But see, in my opinion (I’m going to have to start beginning all of my post with “in my opinion” I guess) by working toward the benefit of everyone; the pie will get bigger. Because the society will as a whole accomplish more. I have more to gain by living in a successful collective society than a failed individualized one.

[Ken H.]

...Ken has moved to socialist country where he feels he can best compete for a piece of a pie, rather than making the pie bigger and profiting himself...

Pilgrim, I'm curious as to why you believe Canada (where Ken now lives) is "socialist country". I've lived here all my life, and I didn't know that. What's your definition of "socialist country", and why do you believe we fit that definition?

Yeah, I'd like to know too.

 

As the new resident I would say Canada is more socialistic that the USA, to the better IMHO, but certainly not a socialist country. Or to put it another way; comes a bit closer to a better balance between the two extremes. Which of course is why we moved here.

[Ken H.]

...one must choose to believe the words “society" and "government" are synonymous. That is a matter of choice – and is nowhere near a fact.

Synonyms? No. Permanently entwined and each 100% dependent on the success of the other? Yes. (IMHO) All successful societies require some form of government. (IMHO) It’s the foundation on which successful progress is built. (IMHO)

 

Besides Craig, nice analysis of what you think my statements are, but you skirted the question. How would you, or anyone survive individually without the benefits a successful society affords you?

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

But see, in my opinion (I'm going to have to start beginning all of my post with 'in my opinion' I guess) by working toward the benefit of everyone; the pie will get bigger. Because the society will as a whole accomplish more. I have more to gain by living in a successful collective society than a failed individualized one.

 

Let me propose a hypothetical worker who puts in a 40-hour week and earns a comfortable living. He is presented with the choice of working a little bit harder, say an extra five hours a week. How might that choice play out under a couple of scenarios?

 

Scenario A:

The society receives the benefit of his extra-hard work, and compensates him with a 25-percent increase in salary. Society is bettered through the fruits of his extra labor, and the individual is well-rewarded for his extra-hard work.

 

Scenario B:

The society receives the benefit of his extra hard work, and - through confiscatory taxation - also receives most of the extra income that the worker earned through his extra-hard work. Our exhausted worker is receives only a small boost in income, but is deliriously happy in the knowledge that his fellow citizens - many of whom come to work late and leave early just because they can - are able to receive a standardized/subsidized income because of his extra hard work. He has indeed worked toward the benefit of everyone; because he works 12 percent harder, everyone (including our belabored worker) has enjoyed a 1 percent increase in income.

 

Under both scenarios the pie gets bigger, but only if our worker chooses to work extra-hard. And most people would require serious brainwashing (or threats) before they would feel compelled to work extra-hard under scenario B.

[John Ranalletta]

You're talking the old China, I'm talking the New China.

This young lady acted as my tour guide for an afternoon in Shanghai's old shopping district.

 

 

She is a university student. When I ask if she was married, she replied with surprise, "No, I could not go to university if I am married." (meaning she WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to attend by the government)

 

Is that the "new China" of which you speak?

[Pilgrim]

...Ken has moved to socialist country where he feels he can best compete for a piece of a pie, rather than making the pie bigger and profiting himself...

 

Pilgrim, I'm curious as to why you believe Canada (where Ken now lives) is "socialist country". I've lived here all my life, and I didn't know that. What's your definition of "socialist country", and why do you believe we fit that definition?

 

A fair question, Mark, and in the strictest of terms, I don't have an answer that will stand up to close scrutiny.

 

But I do have an explanation of what I meant. This answer appears to be ipse dixit, (to refer to another post of mine here), but it's really not. Since it's confirmed by Ken when he says, ". . . Canada is more socialistic that the USA, to the better IMHO, but certainly not a socialist country" we appear to have a consensus of experts agreeing to the point. It must be true if we agree, right, Ken?

 

I painted with a broader brush than appropriate for the argument when I said Canada is socialist, which is in most estimations a term solely relating to economic practices. I don't know that that frame of reference is correct, but it'll do here. Canada is not socialist to a noticeable degree more than the U.S.

 

However, the Canadian approach to the government's role in making things comfortable for everybody differs from ours. That may be about to change down here, but for the moment . . .

 

Socialized medicine, of course, is the big item. As an end (everyone gets care) it's a sweet thought, but there is no way to reach it without reducing everyone to the least common denominator of care. That is not a worthwhile tradeoff to me. My biggest squawk with the Canadian system is not that there is a level of care for everyone, but that no one is allowed to get better care than that level, regardless of his personal efforts to improve his lifestyle.

 

Freedom of speech? My gawd, people say things that hurt other people's feelings, so let's limit freedom of speech! And let's make the definition of defamatory speech nebulous enough that people are extra cautious in how they talk lest they fall afoul of someone's sensitivities. As I have said here before, freedom of speech does not exist so you can vent and feel better, or be offensive in public places. It exists to promote the eternal search for truth (truth just being opinion solidified by pressure over time ). Being able to vent and be offensive are the necessary concomitants; they go with the territory. Shoot, maybe Indians really are inferior. I don't think so, but at what point does political correctness demand that freedom of speech stop? The Canadian government isn't going to change the mind of someone who thinks they are inferior by telling him to shut up, and it is a change of mind that is required in such cases - and others.

 

Gun control? Only a government that does not trust its citizens tries that, and the attitude of not trusting the citizens betrays a mindset that says the government is distinct from the citizens, as opposed to having no existence except through them. I damn sure don't trust a government that doesn't trust me. In fact, I don't trust a government at all, not ours and not anybody's. (But I'm gonna put something in another post where this statement may come back on me.)

 

And so on. The U.S. government was formed by a bunch of guys who were students of history and had seen man's tendencies to use government to oppress his fellow man. They didn't trust government, either, so they split up authorities and duties and made sure that things turned over fairly often. As a final security measure they put together the Bill of Rights and said "Here government shall not tread". The U.S. has forgotten much of what it knew about all that at one time and we are paying a price for it. It'll get worse.

 

As near as I can tell, Canada never approached government that way. From down here, it seems to me that Canadians believe it when government comes along and says, "Hi! I'm from Ottawa and I'm here to help you. Hand me your wallet, please, so I can get started."

 

Yeah, Ken's distinction is a useful one. I should have been more careful in my original post.

 

Pilgrim

[ghaverkamp]

As near as I can tell, Canada never approached government that way. From down here, it seems to me that Canadians believe it when government comes along and says, "Hi! I'm from Ottawa and I'm here to help you. Hand me your wallet, please, so I can get started."

 

It's important to bear in mind that Canada is small (in population) and spread out (because it's huge in area.) It's much easier to trust a remote government than one that you see every day.

[TyTass]

However Ken, all you have accomplished [yet again] is to state your value set,

Isn't that what we're all just doing here?

 

I've never said my opinions were anyones but my own.

Ken I wasn’t attacking you or your right to state your opinion. I was pointing out to you that you were presenting your point of view as an argument based in logic – at times somewhat rhetorically but most often in direct opposition to the views/opinions of others. You presented a case for analysis – constructed it in logic but at the same time were making correlations in terminology and concepts and presenting that as fact – then rather overtly claimed there was but one conclusion. Then, in a bit of subtext, you seemed somewhat flummoxed by the fact that people have been missing your point for some time.

 

My point was to communicate to you that your argument failed the logical foundation to support any conclusion because it wasn’t founded on facts (axioms) – that it was indeed simply your opinion.

 

In other words, I was pointing out that your argument, point of view, and/or opinion so constructed resembled more of the religious insisting their religion is the correct one. Knowing your disdain for strict religious adherence to unworldly and provable claims, I figured I did you a favor by pointing that out.

 

Seriously though, I am reading your words and would buy into your point if you did present me with an axioms that I had to accept. Your 2nd reply to my post is more along the lines of a discussion – at least to gain and understanding of our terminology and concepts – and I’ll have to get to that later.

 

[Pilgrim]

. . . I guess) by working toward the benefit of everyone; the pie will get bigger. Because the society will as a whole accomplish more. I have more to gain by living in a successful collective society than a failed individualized one.

 

Ken, there is no reason you must accept Adam Smith's thoughts on the matter, but you should at least know that if you don't you are rejecting seminal thought on the matter of economics. Perhaps you have read in his studies; if so, forgive me.

 

Briefly, Smith held that the sum total of individuals working for their own, individual ends works to the overall benefit of society by moving it forward. He called it "the invisible hand."

 

There are, of course, caveats there. Chief among them is that people should work to generate value, not just wealth (Dave Mc, this is what Henry Ford was referring to, of course). It was a failure of that element that led to the recent collapse. Too many people were working like hell, but they were not generating anything of value that others could turn to their own use.

 

Ken, IMHO, the biggest fallacy in your point of view is that no one can know that he is working toward the benefit of everyone; society is just too complex. You cannot see the ramifications of what you choose to do. The collapse of communism came about because a collective society requires an overall guiding hand, too, but when that guiding hand is mans' thought processes it is bound to fail. Nobody can plan and administer a modern society successfully, and even to try requires that people be treated like digits in a spreadsheet, at best. Or cattle, at worst.

 

Pilgrim

[smiller]

In other words, I was pointing out that your argument, point of view, and/or opinion so constructed resembled more of the religious insisting their religion is the correct one.

Funny you should phrase it thay way as I was thinking just the same thing, except that in all fairness both sides of the debate seem to be equally religious in their fervor, certain that their side is based on simple common sense.

 

There is however a middle ground between socialist, confiscatory taxation and only the properly educated being permitted to vote, a line that we've done a relatively good job at navigating these past few hundred years. Universal suffrage and a pluralistic society have kept us more or less on track and in spite of the doomsayers I don't see any reason to think that it will not continue in the future. It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, and in fact the most successful socities seem to the ones that can best manage the balancing act.

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

"The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life."

 

Chief among them is that people should work to generate value, not just wealth (Dave Mc, this is what Henry Ford was referring to, of course).

 

How disillusioning to find that he expressed such a lofty sentiment solely for the purpose of getting people to work harder to build better cars! I was hoping that he was referring to the spirit that motivated Edsel to establish, and Henry himself to fund with a major bequest, the Ford foundation.

[Pilgrim]

"Eliminate the legal view of a corporation as a "person" before the law. It was never written into law and certainly was not a provision of the Constitution. "

 

Please clarify???????

 

Thanks

............remember I'm from the Detroit public school system.

 

Whip

 

Whip, I didn't know Detroit had a school system! Who knew? When I lived in Port Huron (1979) and went downtown I thought all those buildings with bars, chain link, and razor wire were some sort of prison.

 

Dave McR, this is going to include stuff relating to your post about corporations, too. And someone will (properly so) bring back to me something I said to Ken about not trusting government.

 

However . . . here we go.

 

First, and most important, let me say that the protection offered to stockholders in a corporation is absolutely critical to our economic model. In no way am I suggesting that the corporate veil be torn in that respect. Do so, and investment grinds to a halt, along with most of the other good things about modern life.

 

I threw out that statement about not treating corporations as persons more as a kickoff point for some discussion about the role and characteristics of corporations in modern America than I did to really suggest that they not be. But maybe they shouldn't. Let's see.

 

Begin with a statement from Noam Chomsky, whom I generally loathe, but even a blind hog finds an acorn from time to time.

 

"Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, will destroy the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It will destroy community, the environment and human values generally -- and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces." Notes of NAFTA: "The Masters of Man"Noam Chomsky

The Nation, March, 1993

 

While there are some for-profit corporations that act in the public interest as well as their own, most don't. As noted in another post, profit for the stockholders is the imperative that drives management, so there is an institutional bias in favor of making money above all. Couple that with the fact that management is rewarded in proportion to how well it feeds the stockholders and you can see it is impossible (under current practice and law) for them to act any other way.

 

What can we do to change that, to give corporations some incentive to act, uhhh, "responsibly"? Well, first, what is "responsibly"? Hell, we can't even get politicians to agree on that, much less individuals who have no directed responsibility to the public.

 

But let's assume for the sake of argument that we (keeping mind that "we" means our elected representatives, that is, politicians) decide what it means to act "responsibly".

 

Offer tax incentives? Well, maybe. But that means less income to the government in exchange for some nebulous "social good". Ain't gonna happen on any major scale, 'cause politicians hate losing money like Satan hates losing souls.

 

Appeal to their better natures? Yeah. Sure. Try to sell that to the stockholders. Maybe in some better world, but not here.

 

Trouble is, corporations act just like people (hmmm, a connection there?). Some are good guys, some are asshats, and most just try to get by. The asshats do the damage.

 

I'm trying to find some sort of lever in waaay past practice. Up until the 19th century, corporations were chartered by the government, and those charters included a set of expectations. There are no such expectations for the modern corporation. It has only to file articles of incorporation in the state most favorable to the end design of the corporation, with nobody tapping the Secretary on the shoulder saying, "What about social responsibility?"

 

I know where this leading me, and I don't like it, but perhaps more than simply more bookkeeping oversight, corporations should have someone on the BoD empowered to say "Bullsh**!" In Germany, employees are represented on the BoD. Is there some way for "the people" to have some meaningful say, short of control?

 

How 'bout if, when a corporation fails in prescribed duties described in the the charter (yeah, "charter", from the government) someone steps in to give some firmer guidance into socially acceptable channels? Oh, wait. It's already doing that with federally-chartered banks. Can't wait to see how that turns out.

 

Does anyone have other thoughts?

 

Pilgrim

 

 

 

[Pilgrim]

"The highest use of capital is not to make more money, but to make money do more for the betterment of life."

 

Chief among them is that people should work to generate value, not just wealth (Dave Mc, this is what Henry Ford was referring to, of course).

 

How disillusioning to find that he expressed such a lofty sentiment solely for the purpose of getting people to work harder to build better cars! I was hoping that he was referring to the spirit that motivated Edsel to establish, and Henry himself to fund with a major bequest, the Ford foundation.

 

I see no conflict there, Dave. Generate value and people give you wealth with which you can establish foundations (or donate to Save the Children, or . . .) to give back value to them.

 

Pilgrim

[David]

There's all this talk about how critical the middle class is to our way of life as a country, uttered from all persuasions, it seems. All I know is this about that: unless this country encourages people like me to take the risk of starting companies that employ people and throw off profit, we're screwed in a not so very holy way.

 

I don't care what we call it: socialism, capitalism, the betterment of the unwashed masses, or whatever, if people like me get squeezed out via policy, we're taking a step backward.

 

My business views are very simple:

 

1) All my business decisions start by requiring that I make money as a result.

 

2) Followed closely would be the requirement that I have impact (people need to be better off for having worked with me).

 

3) I must do both in a sustainable manner. Here I don't mean ecologically, but rather in my approach. I take the long-term view and want to make sure the big picture is in view, regardless of short-term results.

 

It's ludicrous to think that a worker who is not inclined to take entrepreneurial risk should seek to "level" things out for the betterment of society.

 

When you separate all the chaff from the wheat, the reason we enjoy the standard of living we do in developed countries is because the middle class has the opportunity to control their destiny. That control must be shaped to prevent a violation of the third of my three points above, but it must not be so restrictive that the middle class business owner shrugs and says, "what the hell...every xxx cents of each dollar I make gets redistributed to xxx."

 

Other than Canada and Australia, there is no significant nation on earth that rivals both our standard of living and the favorable business environment in which we are able to impact it. The middle class (and perhaps the rich--I don't know--you'll have to ask them) are getting stretched a little thin in being asked to do more for the betterment of society.

[Dave McReynolds]

Taking Pilgrim's and David's posts together, this is what I understand:

 

Pilgrim maintains, and I agree, that corporations are not acting "responsibly." David feels that whatever we do to make them act "responsibly" should not be at the expense of discouraging people from taking the risk of starting new business enterprises or taking existing enterprises in new directions. I.e, removing the profit incentive.

 

I think those are worthwhile goals. I definitely think there are areas where corporations could be made to act more "responsibly" without removing their profit incentive.

 

As Pilgrim said, it is going to be really hard to get anyone to agree on what is "responsible." But I'll try.

 

One area where I think corporations could be more responsible is the health coverage of people who have preexisting medical conditions. Failure to cover people with preexisting medical conditions is causing people to remain in dead-end jobs and keeps them from realizing their full potential. It is bankrupting people. It is costing society as people without medical coverage incur hospital bills they can't pay.

 

Corporations have no way of changing things on their own. Any corporation that agrees to cover people with preexisting conditions would be at a competitive disadvantage with those who won't. So they won't do that.

 

But requiring all corporations who wish to insure people to offer coverage without considering any preexisting conditions would put no corporation at a competitive disadvantage. Medical insurance rates would go up, of course TINSTAAFL, but unreimbursed costs of hospitals would go down, and hopefully the system as a whole would benefit.

 

Nobody pays any extra taxes. Insurance companies remain competitive. Nobody is discouraged from starting a new business enterprise. I think it fits Pilgrim's and David's definition. But I'll bet they don't think so.

[bimmers]

haven't read all posts but why would anyone believe that GM or anyone else would be better off with a bailout? THey have legacy cost that will not go away.

 

Suggestion, Chapter 11 and let the bailout be focused on transferring the legacy liabilities for health and pensions (to some degree) to social security and medicare.

 

mho

[steve.foote]

Pilgrim maintains, and I agree, that corporations are not acting "responsibly."

 

Dave, I would like to point out that a significant majority of corporations are acting responsbily. Or, maybe better put, a significant majority of the people who run corporations are acting responsibly. The manner in which you are framing your points is painting with a broad brush, creating the aire of gilt by association.

 

One area where I think corporations could be more responsible is the health coverage of people who have preexisting medical conditions. Failure to cover people with preexisting medical conditions is causing people to remain in dead-end jobs and keeps them from realizing their full potential. It is bankrupting people. It is costing society as people without medical coverage incur hospital bills they can't pay.

 

Corporations have no way of changing things on their own. Any corporation that agrees to cover people with preexisting conditions would be at a competitive disadvantage with those who won't. So they won't do that.

 

But requiring all corporations who wish to insure people to offer coverage without considering any preexisting conditions would put no corporation at a competitive disadvantage. Medical insurance rates would go up, of course TINSTAAFL, but unreimbursed costs of hospitals would go down, and hopefully the system as a whole would benefit.

 

Nobody pays any extra taxes. Insurance companies remain competitive. Nobody is discouraged from starting a new business enterprise. I think it fits Pilgrim's and David's definition. But I'll bet they don't think so.

 

Nor do I. Caring for the health and wellbeing of an employee never was a deed tasked to companies. Over time, the healthcare insurance benefit, which began as a voluntary form of compensation used to lure employees, has evolved into an entitlement. Fringe benefits are the unfortunate result of competitive one-upsmanship and should be viewed as a flaw of the system rather than some form of benefit to society. In a perfect world, non-monetary compensation would have been forbidden from the start. Companies would have exclusively been in business to conduct business, while individuals would have an undeniable incentive to take care of themselves. Each would have been stronger as a result.

[Dave McReynolds]

Nor do I. Caring for the health and wellbeing of an employee never was a deed tasked to companies. Over time, the healthcare insurance benefit, which began as a voluntary form of compensation used to lure employees, has evolved into an entitlement. Fringe benefits are the unfortunate result of competitive one-upsmanship and should be viewed as a flaw of the system rather than some form of benefit to society. In a perfect world, non-monetary compensation would have been forbidden from the start. Companies would have exclusively been in business to conduct business, while individuals would have an undeniable incentive to take care of themselves. Each would have been stronger as a result.

 

I think you're missing my point. The corporations I'm talking about are the ones offering the insurance, not the ones consuming it. The problem of lack of coverage for people with preexisting conditions exists whether insurance is employer provided or purchased by individuals.

 

In any event, insurance for people with preexisting conditions is not really the subject of this discussion. I'm just using it as an example of something I consider to be a problem beyond the capacity of business to solve on its own. An opinion I'm sure at least half of our board would disagree with, which just underlines Pilgrim's comment that many of us would agree that there is a lack of corporate responsibility, but few could agree on exactly what or how to solve it.

[steve.foote]

I see, in that case, I did misunderstand your comments.

 

I think one of the problems we experience discussing issues like these is the unintentional mixing of terms and topics. For example, when talking about corporate responsiblity, we should be clear about with whom. There is a very different relationship between a corporation and its shareholders and employees vs. a corporation and its customers and vendors. While it is true that in both cases there should be an exceptable code of conduct, they are not mutually interchangable.

[TyTass]

...one must choose to believe the words “society" and "government" are synonymous. That is a matter of choice – and is nowhere near a fact.

Synonyms? No. Permanently entwined and each 100% dependent on the success of the other? Yes. (IMHO) All successful societies require some form of government. (IMHO) It’s the foundation on which successful progress is built. (IMHO)

 

Besides Craig, nice analysis of what you think my statements are, but you skirted the question. How would you, or anyone survive individually without the benefits a successful society affords you?

Responding in reverse order ...

 

Skirting the question? Yes, as I hoped to spare you and others too long a post dealing with too many issues. Previously, I was just dealing with the axiom vs. opinion issue. Though I did reveal the one axiom, I hadn't even thought to join in yet with the discussion of the small amount I know and what I believe to be the problems with socialist programs and any form of collectivist government.

 

Now, about the question you continue to pose - how would anyone survive individually without the benefits a successful society - is what I see as the very problem in the presentation of your point of view in the first place. Though I came late to this discussion, I read thru it entirely. No one is arguing there's no such thing as society, nor is anyone arguing that there's no need for government. I think it overt in the extreme that the message in Sean's humorous (though poignant) analogy was not to say every man for himself – though it seems apparent that all you interpreted it. It was to illustrate simply the relationship between a controlling government and one with a more laissez-faire approach. So, your question, as posed, implies all who believe goernment can protect the rights of an individual without harming that society actually is in fact an anarchist and will fail.

 

It is however a historical fact that when any number of peoples within a society tries to limit the power their government holds - or will hold - over them, supporters of that larger, more authoritarian form of government have proffered that same argument. Most often it's posed as an “either you accept our rules or you'll have nothing, no government, no money, no resources, etc. (because they usually take it with them or destroy it). So, let's agree to learn from history and drop that one. I'm not accusing you of planning to take that point of view to its logical conclusion and you needn’t believe people here support anarchy. If we agree that government is necessary, then let's accept that as an axiom and move on, OK?

 

However, there is a valid element in the question you pose ... what is the relationship between society and its government? One could take issue with the way I phrased that question as it implies that the government serves its society. While I believe that to be true, others may not. So, let's first identify terms. I just looked up 10 different sources for definitions of the word “society” and “government”. Here are the most appropriate, widely held definitions from Merriam-Webster:

 

Society:

3 a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

 

Government:

5 a: the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it b: the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out

6: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization: as a: the officials comprising the governing body of a political unit and constituting the organization as an active agency

 

So, wouldn’t you agree that they are not in fact synonymous? They are complete and distinct concepts. Now, how they relate to one another starts yet another discussion that after quite a few axioms, thousands of agreements and disagreements on how/why the US got two where we are and we’d eventually get to what this discussion is about.

 

I would suggest, if we really want to talk about Utopian societies and their relationship to their government, we should start a new thread.

 

My hijack is over.

[Pilgrim]

Dave, I would like to point out that a significant majority of corporations are acting responsbily.

 

Steve, lest there be any misunderstanding, let me reiterate what I said, not very clearly, in my post about corporations.

 

IMHO, only a few corporations are actually hostile in fact (if not in intent) to social good. They poison the well for the huge middle ground of corporations that go about their business, creating jobs and a way of life. And a few make positive efforts to be good citizens. It pleases me when I see that, although Ben and Jerry set my teeth on edge.

 

David, your thoughts please, as someone who has established and run a business. I have not, and I'm really not even a one-eyed man when it comes to knowledge of the subject. Can you imagine a way in which the country could establish a culture of positive corporate contributions beyond a payroll? If I were in charge and socialistically (to use Ken's word) inclined, I'd say a corporation would have to design some socially-responsible contribution that it would make in the course of its day-to-day business before it would receive a charter from the government. Renewal of the charter from time time would require showing that the corp had done what it said it would.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here, and being more specific in what I just said than I like, but my overall wish is to get much of what government adopts (and executes poorly) as its role in caring for people replaced by a network of responsible citizenship, corporate and personal. Somebody has got to cherish and care for this country and its people up close and personal, for the real reasons it's worth protecting, and it's not happening now.

 

Kent

[Boffin]

David, your point 3 stands out to me. Too many corporate entities, and indeed political entities seem, to overlook this simple truth. I see in my company, policies that will maximise profits over the next three to four years but will, IMHO, impact our ability to make profit over the next twenty.

I have long held that public expenditure should be mandated to be optimised to minimum cost over a period of not less than 20 years - or about 4 terms of office in the UK - and I believe that a similar approach should be taken by business. Planning for long-term growth and profit benefits society as well as the business. Employees can plan for the future - who would consider making a long-term financial commitment, such as house purchase, when they cannot have reasonable expectation of continuation of income? I look at the direction taken by most manufacturing industry in the UK and know that within 5 years the only wealth-generating companies will be those in small and specialised niches.

 

For societies to prosper, be they socialist, capitalist or somewhere between, corporate failure to look beyond the end of the current financial period is short-sighted in the extreme.

 

Andy

 

[David]

David, your thoughts please, as someone who has established and run a business. I have not, and I'm really not even a one-eyed man when it comes to knowledge of the subject. Can you imagine a way in which the country could establish a culture of positive corporate contributions beyond a payroll? If I were in charge and socialistically (to use Ken's word) inclined, I'd say a corporation would have to design some socially-responsible contribution that it would make in the course of its day-to-day business before it would receive a charter from the government. Renewal of the charter from time time would require showing that the corp had done what it said it would.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate here, and being more specific in what I just said than I like, but my overall wish is to get much of what government adopts (and executes poorly) as its role in caring for people replaced by a network of responsible citizenship, corporate and personal. Somebody has got to cherish and care for this country and its people up close and personal, for the real reasons it's worth protecting, and it's not happening now.

 

Kent, there are already some pretty clear options built into the system.

 

The first is the deductibility of charitable contributions by a corporate entity, thereby helping the business owner maximize his/her contribution with an effective multiplier. This allows the owner to control where it is used, too.

 

The second is the existence of a not-for-profit corporation where the "charter" must be defined very specifically and where no distributions of profit are allowed and the "charter" is enforced.

 

The third is the heavy taxation of corporations (or the proceeds distributed to the owners of those corporations) "for the common good" in that the government receives that money and builds bridges and buys tanks with it.

[John Ranalletta]

An auto industry bailout was not in the headlines when this thread started; but the auto bailout question provides a setting for the socialism vs. capitalism arguments.

 

How has the UAW responded to the current crises? Has it come to the table with proactive, risk-oriented, game-changing proposals to change the business model? It hasn't. Have the GM bailout proponents in DC demanded a change in how the auto companies operate? They haven't. IMO, this is why not:

 

The UAW is a socialistic (Mommy) apparatus and tends to demonstrate these characteristics:

• It exists to insure equality across its ranks and to make sure each person is treated fairly - to make sure no one gains disproportionately from his/her individual efforts.
• It is reactive, views change as a threat; and, is willing to absorb a bad result (bankruptcy) to protect the status quo.
• It exists to eliminate risk.
• Insists upon one set of rules and uniform pay/benefits for everyone.
• Promotes team vs. individual contributor environments, e.g. seniority.
• Is tactical while eschewing responsibility for strategic goals

Entrepreneur/capitalists (Daddy) tend to demonstrate these characteristics:

• Not satisfied to be treated "fairly", i.e. to get an equal share.
• Do not need or desire to have someone else advocate for their welfare.
• Savor the opportunity to test themselves individually.
• Desire to take risk, make their own rules and enjoy the excess profits or suffer the bad outcomes.
• See the perceived "safety" of the herd as limiting and intolerable.
• Take a strategic (result-oriented) view

These needs are irreconcilable. One cannot take risk and chance simultaneously. So, we argue here and attempt to settle the argument at the ballot box which give one side the upper hand until the next election. Politically, the US has zigzagged from "daddy" (Newt Gingrich) to "mommy" (Nancy Pelosi) states. "Mommy" wants to take care of and treat everybody fairly while "daddy" wants people to stand on their own and compete.

 

LA Times:

The late conservative economist Jude Wanniski once dubbed Republicans the "Daddy Party" and Democrats the "Mommy Party." On Tuesday, Obama seemed to prove his point by laying out the more expansive government role in caring for middle-class Americans. And he mentioned not only his mother, but his wife and grandmother too.

Tilt too far toward mommy-ism and totalitarianism results; too far toward daddy-ism and unregulated greed takes hold. Mommy's won control of the agenda; so, expect GM (and others) to be bailed out with no demand for changes in bankrupt business models like that which the UAW is fighting to preserve to its own long term, strategic disadvantage. It can't help itself; for, to act otherwise is contrary to its purpose and nature.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

An auto industry bailout was not in the headlines when this thread started; but the auto bailout question provides a setting for the socialism vs. capitalism arguments.

 

How has the UAW responded to the current crises? Has it come to the table with proactive, risk-oriented, game-changing proposals to change the business model? It hasn't. Have the GM bailout proponents in DC demanded a change in how the auto companies operate? They haven't. IMO, this is why not:

 

The UAW is a socialistic (Mommy) apparatus and tends to demonstrate these characteristics:

• It exists to insure equality across its ranks and to make sure each person is treated fairly - to make sure no one gains disproportionately from his/her individual efforts.
• It is reactive, views change as a threat; and, is willing to absorb a bad result (bankruptcy) to protect the status quo.
• It exists to eliminate risk.
• Insists upon one set of rules and uniform pay/benefits for everyone.
• Promotes team vs. individual contributor environments, e.g. seniority.
• Is tactical while eschewing responsibility for strategic goals

 

You might find this interesting. It's about Ford, not GM, but the same rules apply:

 

Ford's most advanced assembly plant operates in rural Brazil

 

The punchline comes right before the end credits.

[John Ranalletta]

The first is the deductibility of charitable contributions by a corporate entity, thereby helping the business owner maximize his/her contribution with an effective multiplier. This allows the owner to control where it is used, too.

Governments should not promote or discourage private charity (or any other behaviors) through tax policy. The same tax code allows deductions for million dollar sky boxes at Yankee Stadium and country club dues. Allowing deductions for charitable contributions simply imposes a portion of the cost of giving upon other taxpayers.

 

I'd prefer to not share the cost of the skybox or others' charitable endeavors.

 

About bridges and tanks, corporate taxes are a business expense and as such are simply passed onto customers in the form of higher prices. Why disguise the tax in this manner? Even Robert Reich has proposed the abolition of corporate taxes in favor of a tax on shareholders. Certainly, under that scheme, a shareholder will demand a greater return from the corporation, but this sham of a tax system with all its arcane deductions and allowances would be eliminated.

[smiller]

Have the GM bailout proponents in DC demanded a change in how the auto companies operate? They haven't.

Can you guess who said this?

 

"So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan — what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? So that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere."

[David]

The president elect in the 60 Mins interview.

[John Ranalletta]

Thanks, Mitch.

 

Assemby line production depends upon having employees who work well where variability is eliminated; thus the work attracts people who have a low tolerance for change, either in processes or protocol. It's not fair to turn the tables on them in a crisis and ask them to become comfortable with change overnight. They can do it, but it's not going to be easy.

 

Toyota and Honda understand this better than most. They know how to meet these needs and have successfully fended off organization efforts because (IMO), employees trust the company to meet their needs. The aim of TPS (Toyota Production System) is to eliminate variability, accentuate team play and provide stability (layoff as a last resort).

 

The UAW doesn't trust the big 3 to do this in the US; plus, they would have to give back wages to compete price wise.

 

The UAW's response has been to promote legislation that will soon pass eliminating the secret ballot in organizing efforts. Within a couple of years of passage, look for the transplants to be organized.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Have the GM bailout proponents in DC demanded a change in how the auto companies operate? They haven't.

Can you guess who said this?

 

"So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan — what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? So that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere."

Talk's cheap, especially political speak. A bankruptcy reorganization can sort out the stakeholders interests more quickly that any political solution. The only change being bantered about is the resignation of GM's president and Carl Levin (D-MI) has said he be happy to ask for his resignation to get a deal. He didn't offer to ask for Ron Gettelfinger's resignation. Will Obama?

[smiller]

A bankruptcy reorganization can sort out the stakeholders interests more quickly that any political solution.

Yes, private lenders will be standing in line to support GM under bankruptcy.

[John Ranalletta]

A bankruptcy reorganization can sort out the stakeholders interests more quickly that any political solution.

Yes, private lenders will be standing in line to support GM under bankruptcy.

..and the problem with that is?

 

If that happened, the lenders would take over assets, renegotiate labor and supplier contracts, rationalize the workforce, redeploy assets.

 

How does that differ from what should happen under a bailout? If the companies don't operate differently after a bailout, I'm really at a loss to comprehend why would you expect the results to be different?

[smiller]

I was being a bit sarcastic I'm afraid, what I really meant that it seems unlikely that private lenders would be willing to fund a reorganization under the current economic and credit climate. One might say that this is just as well since if private lenders don't see the risk as being worth taking then it probably isn't, but that view ignores the potential fallout of a bankruptcy of the american auto industry, the result of which could be anything from a severe stress to an already weak economy to a tipping point that precipitates an economic collapse. The idea behind the government making the loan is that the government would be willing to assume more risk because it has a greater objective than simple profit.

 

I'm not necessarily in support of a bailout, in fact it seems inadvisable to me for many of the reasons you and other in the thread have been espousing. I'm only suggesting that the decision be made with careful analysis and consideration, and with respect given to the real-world consequences for the nation of an outright failure of a major industry vs. basing it on pure ideology. There just isn't a simple and unasailable answer to the dilemma and some compromise will be necessary to navigate our way through the next several years. I hope we are big enough as a nation to be able to accomplish that.

[John Ranalletta]

It will take the wisdom of Solomon and the a strong stomach to tell firms where the line ends. I suggest they merge with AIG or a big bank and apply for TARP funds. If GE can, why can't GM?

[SeanC]

That said, if I had to choose between the life of a bison or life of a cow, I'd choose the bison way without a moment's hesitation. I have little or no faith in systems and would rather struggle to meet my own needs than depend on a system to provide them for me.

 

But that's just me.

But Sean, you can’t/couldn’t survive on your own. No one can. Actually your metaphor is quite a good one. And in it which is most likely to perish first? The ‘free’ bison of course.

Lemme get this straight.... Within the context of my analogy, I stated that I'd rather die as a bison than live as a cow, and your response to this is to inform me that cows live longer? Ken. That's not the point. They could live to be octogenarians, retire with a full pension, dine exclusively on gourmet prairie grass and organically grown arugala for all I care. I'd still choose the bison way.

 

But the point I’ve tried to make (more than once) is that you, or any singular person can’t prosper, or even survive in ‘bison mode.’ Humans require each other to survive. We require the betterment of the whole to have betterment of individual selves. It’s mandatory for the type of creature we are on this planet.

Again, that's not the point. Of course we require each other to prosper and survive. The same goes for bison. The question is, must we depend on a system of government to provide our basic needs? I say not only is the answer 'No,' but that we wouldn't want such a system to begin with, let alone require it. Back to my metaphor for a moment.... Cows live under the illusion they depend on each other for survival, an illusion the rancher promotes and rewards to keep them in line, render their management more efficiently. In reality, the cows depend entirely on the rancher for their survival.

 

I believe government is necessary, but I want (demand) my system of government be entirely dependent on the people. NOT the other way 'round. I am not a cow. My life will not be managed or planned by a system. Ever. Basic needs are MY responsibility. Happiness, too, is my responsibility as well as my own reward.

 

I have a sister-in-law, who is the outdoorsy type, and we’ve got into this argument before. She is convinced she could survive on her own. Hunt, fish, make shelter, etc. To which I ask - with what? With her rifle for example she replies. Who made the rifle? It’s the product of human cooperation of course. As are the bullets. She says she could live in a tent.

Even if your Bushmaster has a 10x scope that offers Progressive View, it's still not the product of a government or society. Remington, Winchester and Beretta, for instance, are not the names of governments or nations. They're the products of individuals working either individually or in concert with other individuals. And just because those individuals happen to live in a society doesn't mean said society owns the products of their labor. I hope your sister-in-law informed you she is free to purchase these products and set out to live her life however she sees fit. She may well depend on those products for her survival, but it does not follow that she is thus dependent on a system of government to meet her needs.

 

You're using the terms 'society' and 'government' very loosely. If two or more people work together, you call it a 'collective' and imply the products of their cooperation are the products of a social system. I don't have a problem with your loose definitions, provided of course they are just loose definitions. It's when they're tightened, formally institutionalized and mandated that worries me. For instance, if you want to claim I'm dependent upon society for my survival and prosperity, fine. But if you then switch 'society' to 'government,' we have a problem.