The Coming Auto Bailout

[gags]

This is amazing, the Treasury is going to give them the money. Bush, the guy who the Democrats have despise for 8 years, is now going to give one of the most important groups in their political power base a new lease on life. This final act of stupidity from Bush just confirms that he is one of the worst presidents in the last 100 years.

[brian0918]

At this rate Bush could have a cushy job as DNC chairman in his future!

[K-Mac]

Maybe he's just giving the country what they voted for.

[adrock3215]

Why do the politicians seemingly accept the idea that if GM or Ford or Chrysler goes bankrupt, that means they'll just shut down completely?

I'm not sure.

Keep in mind that a bankruptcy of either would be catastrophic for the economy, but it has nothing to do with all the reasons the politicians tell us. It has to do with the trillions of dollars tied to CDS contracts written on the Big Three's debt obligations.

[Benpercent]

Boy, I have never seen a worse case of biased and provocative journalism than when I read the front page of my local newspaper: "U.S. Senate to Auto Industry: DROP DEAD".

[iamjohngalt]

Then it was said that large, established [auto manufacturers] were essential to the public welfare; and that the collapse of one of them would be a national catastrophe; and that if one such system had happened to sustain a crushing loss in a public-spirited attempt to contribute to international good will, it was entitled to public support to help it survive the blow. -- Taken verbatim from Atlas Shrugged, with [auto manufacturers] substituted for "railroad systems" AS p 77.

How different is the argument for government involvement in the auto industry from the philosophy expressed (by the looters) in Atlas Shrugged?

Edited December 14, 2008 by iamjohngalt

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

How different is the argument for government involvement in the auto industry from the philosophy expressed (by the looters) in Atlas Shrugged?

The point that most of us in this thread have been making is that it isn't different from the cry of the looters in Atlas Shrugged. Maybe the only difference is that the looters wanted to help those who didn't care to compete on the free market and kept blaming the competition for their ills. I haven't heard Ford, Chrysler, or GM complaining that they cannot compete with Toyota et al, at least not as their central argument -- they just want a hand out. The other difference is that In Atlas the companies wanting a handout didn't have a lot of regulations against them, unlike the auto industry which are currently hampered by regulations. Oren Boyle couldn't compete against Rearden Steel, but that was not because Oren Boyle was hampered by unfair regulations.

Now, if the modern auto manufacturers would come out for capitalism, and state how the regulations are strangling them, then they would have my sympathies. In that case, I might even be willing to let them have a government loan while regulations are rolled back, as a kind of repayment for being so hampered; but I don't see the auto industry fighting for their freedom.

[gags]

Now, if the modern auto manufacturers would come out for capitalism, and state how the regulations are strangling them, then they would have my sympathies. In that case, I might even be willing to let them have a government loan while regulations are rolled back, as a kind of repayment for being so hampered; but I don't see the auto industry fighting for their freedom.

I agree. Instead of fighting for their freedom, they'd like to see more statism in the form of national healthcare, etc.

[Zip]

It's extortion.

[dadmonson]

I'm just getting back from a "discussion" on this topic. After I said what I said. One person asked me "Are you for letting people starve?"

How the heck do you respond to that?

Edited December 15, 2008 by dadmonson

[Mammon]

I'm just getting back from a "discussion" on this topic. After I said what I said. One person asked me "Are you for letting people starve?"

How the heck do you respond to that?

Say that being unemployed doesn't mean being unemployable. These people can still work and make money to eat. And with $75 an hour you have plenty of money to save up in case of emergencies or being laid off.

[Benpercent]

I'm just getting back from a "discussion" on this topic. After I said what I said. One person asked me "Are you for letting people starve?"

How the heck do you respond to that?

I second Mammon's points.

If, however, you were looking for a response in more formal logical terms: It's both a straw man and an argument from intimidation.

[dadmonson]

Well, I said that it wasn't necessarily immoral to let someone starve as long as you aren't using force in any way.

I came off as a jerk but that was the best response I could come up with at the time.

Edited December 15, 2008 by dadmonson

[utabintarbo]

I'm just getting back from a "discussion" on this topic. After I said what I said. One person asked me "Are you for letting people starve?"

How the heck do you respond to that?

I would probably have turned it back on them: "Why yes. Yes I am. Starting with you." Then you could have gone into the logical fallacy thing. Nothing like some sarcastic disrespect to answer a cheesy straw man like that.

[adrock3215]

I'm just getting back from a "discussion" on this topic. After I said what I said. One person asked me "Are you for letting people starve?"

How the heck do you respond to that?

The appropriate response is to say "No, of course not. I do not want people to starve, which is exactly why I am against this bailout."

Then establish that the bailout proposes to steal from the productive firms in the agricultural and food industries and give the stolen capital to the failing auto industry, where it will be squandered away. Proceed by asking him for his proposition on how the agricultural and food industries will be able to invest in the necessary factors of production to continue producing the desired amount of food and agricultural goods.

[brian0918]

I'm just getting back from a "discussion" on this topic. After I said what I said. One person asked me "Are you for letting people starve?"

How the heck do you respond to that?

I'd ask them, "are you?!" and then point out how their plan (whatever it may be) is unsustainable and would inevitably leave more people starving than before.

I'd also point out how their plan leads to more governmental power over the individual, and how this results in the liberty and property of every individual being delivered over to the whims of whatever politician happens to be in power, or whatever group pays the most to his campaign. Sure, your favorite candidate (Obama) may be supporting your favorite legislation right now, but there's no guarantee that he will continue to if/when something more politically profitable presents itself. That is the inherent danger in handing over all responsibility and liberty to a leader.

The "teach a man to fish" saying also comes to mind.

Edited December 16, 2008 by brian0918

[Mammon]

I'd ask them, "are you?!" and then point out how their plan (whatever it may be) is unsustainable and would inevitably leave more people starving than before.

The problem with that is -- how do you figure that? You'd have to establish some convincing causes and effects there. I don't think it's enough to just say it out right like that. Like "well, more people will starve when the bail-out passes!" That's a stretch for most.

[K-Mac]

No, I don't like people starving, but why is it my responsibility to feed everyone or anyone? Why is it okay for you (or the government or anyone else) to steal from me, to feed someone else? Are you okay with me starving? Do you really think that these people losing their jobs are just gonna roll over and die?

[adrock3215]

The problem with that is -- how do you figure that? You'd have to establish some convincing causes and effects there. I don't think it's enough to just say it out right like that. Like "well, more people will starve when the bail-out passes!" That's a stretch for most.

Reasoning spelled out above.

[gags]

The WSJ is reporting this morning that GM and Chrysler are back at the merger talks. However, on the radio they are saying that GM is denying the story. Who knows.

What we do know is that the Bush administration is getting ready to write some pretty big checks.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Hmmm, I made a pinewood derby car that didn't do so well when I was a kid. Do I get a check?

[gags]

As long as you can claim with a straight face that millions of jobs depend on your getting the cash, the check is in the mail.

[Maximus]

I used to build model cars when I was a kid. I need a bail-out so that millions of model auto industry workers can feed thier families.

How was that?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

That face looks pretty straight to me.

All I've got the the subtle threat of a mach-3 high altitude bomber.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

An auto bail out has been approved by the White House, taking money from the emergency fund for the financial industry. It's going to be a loan, and the government will own part of the auto industry, though the report didn't say how much.

The plan requires those companies to provide warrants for non-voting stock and to accept limits on executive compensation, including the elimination of perks like private jets.

It's hard to say from the article, but it looks like another government take-over of industry for the sake of "saving capitalism."