Ralph Nader was almost spot on

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In lieu of news that all three American automobile companies might need a bail-out:

Capitalism will never fail because Socialism will always bail it out. - Ralph Nader

[ZeroNowhere]

Ralph Nader, if he was elected, and got his ideas implemented, would end up being a disaster for the US economy.
Also, wasn't this said by his dad?

[JimmyJazz]

I got pretty pissed listening to the possibility of a GM bailout on NPR last night as I was driving. Fuck this government, it will bail out the capitalists as many times as it needs to.

If I had more artistic inclinations I'd draw a cartoon with a man in a suit and tie labeled "capitalist class" holding a pistol labeled "government" sticking up a man in a blue work uniform labeled "working class". And label the whole thing "Bailouts: Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Lehman Brothers, AIG, GM, Ford..."

[spice756]

I got pretty pissed listening to the possibility of a GM bailout on NPR last night as I was driving. Fuck this government, it will bail out the capitalists as many times as it needs to.

If I had more artistic inclinations I'd draw a cartoon with a man in a suit and tie labeled "capitalist class" holding a pistol labeled "government" sticking up a man in a blue work uniform labeled "working class". And label the whole thing "Bailouts: Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Lehman Brothers, AIG, GM, Ford..."

Yep but than at least workers still have jobs.No bailout than workers have no jobs.

[AAFCE]

Yep but than at least workers still have jobs.No bailout than workers have no jobs.

Those jobless workers would then look for change.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

When the government helps out the poor, oppressed, and truly needy, it's un-American socialism.

If it's bailing out millionaires, it's to save the American Dream.


Anyway, I agree. Fuck GM, though we should fund the workers so they can go to school and get good jobs we need...and honor the buyouts of their labor contracts.

[Catbus]

Those jobless workers would then look for change.

To be honest Cult, I was expecting you to make some reference to change from Obama...


Anyway, yeah. I think the change that would be sought from those unemployed would be overally (is that a word?) better than the wage-slavery that ensues from the bailouts being passed.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not pushing any "Yeah! Go CrimethINC! Unemployment is fun!" crap. Either way, both options suck, but the former (I think, former is opposite of latter right?) is more promising.


Oh, and I was such a Nader fan-boy until I became a leftist. Looking back at myself I was kind of ridiculous.

[Dean]

Anyway, yeah. I think the change that would be sought from those unemployed would be overally (is that a word?) better than the wage-slavery that ensues from the bailouts being passed.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not pushing any "Yeah! Go CrimethINC! Unemployment is fun!" crap. Either way, both options suck, but the former (I think, former is opposite of latter right?) is more promising.
-"Overall" works in that sentence. "Overall" is already an adverb.
-"former" means before the reference point. "latter" means after. I wouldn't say that they are opposites:

I like cheese and Carrots. But I like the former more than the latter"
This means I like cheese more than carrots.


Oh, and I was such a Nader fan-boy until I became a leftist. Looking back at myself I was kind of ridiculous.
I voted for Nader, I don't see many significant differences between hid ideology and mine. Of course I propose more radical change. But Nader's ideas are certainly worth it as a step in the right direction.



Yep but than at least workers still have jobs.No bailout than workers have no jobs.

Or, they could give that 2 trillion dollars of corporate welfare to the U.S. people instead. 2,000,000,000,000/300,000,000=6666.67

or the lowest 90% of U.S. citizens:7407.40

or the tax-paying population(138,894,000): 14399.47
Sauce:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07databk.pdf

Let's see. It seems to me that if we spread that among each taxpayer - this includes the richest of the rich - we would be doing a lot better.

Edit: it is actually goign to be about 1.8 Trillion. I'm sure this will go above and beyond 2 Trillion, but for the sake of accuracy:
1.8 Trillion Given to:
U.S. Pop:6000
Poorest 90%of U.S.: 6666.67
Tax-Payers:12959.52

Source:
http://www.gopolitico.com/2008/09/bailout-costs-could-have-rebuilt.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26808715

[Bud Struggle]

And all those billions that are going to corporations ARE NOT then going to go to health care or welfare or any social programs.

So, the better off people pay more taxes and the poorer people get less services.

Not a good deal for anyone.:rolleyes:

[Dean]

And all those billions that are going to corporations ARE NOT then going to go to health care or welfare or any social programs.

So, the better off people pay more taxes and the poorer people get less services.

Not a good deal for anyone.:rolleyes:

AS a capitalist, do you thnk that you would benefit more from the bailout being applied to those corporations, or a check for $12,959.52? this assumes that you dont get any of that bailout money, of course.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Those jobless workers would then look for change.
And change they would get. Poverty, homelessness and starvation would be a pretty fucking radical change.

Seriously, it's a strange time when the socialists' main complaint is that the government isn't economically libertarian enough. Nader was right; capitalism will never fail, because socialism will always bail it out. But for those of us who don't seek failure at every turn, that's a positive thing.

[synthesis]

What I find amusing is the assertion that once capitalism "fails", then people will automatically turn to socialism as a response. If history tells us anything, it is that people are just as likely to swing to the far right in revolutionary conditions.



Seriously, it's a strange time when the socialists' main complaint is that the government isn't economically libertarian enough.

That's pretty disingenuous. The complaint is that government intervention has gone in the wrong direction.

[RGacky3]

I say bail them out, but have only the rich pay for it, tax burdon entirely on the rich, then the company becomes 100% accountable to the government and the workers, or it gets its money pulled.

Whats happening now, is the Companies want the money with no strings. They just want the government (ultimately the taxpayers) to keep pumping them with money and let them do whatever they want.

I'd be ok with the bail out if 1. only the rich pay for it and 2. The company has to account for every penny and must answer to both the workers and the government.


Those jobless workers would then look for change.

I hope to god no auto workers read that. Thats not revolution.

What nader said is not really true, when the government bails out Capitalism its already failed, your just pumping air into a floatee with a hole in it.


What I find amusing is the assertion that once capitalism "fails", then people will automatically turn to socialism as a response. If history tells us anything, it is that people are just as likely to swing to the far right in revolutionary conditions.

Thats not always the case, it goes both ways, generally it will go to the right ONLY if there are some strong leaders to pull it that way.

[synthesis]

Thats not always the case, it goes both ways, generally it will go to the right ONLY if there are some strong leaders to pull it that way.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

In reality, charismatic personalities are not hard to find. They can't do all that much without revolutionary conditions.

[Jazzratt]

Those jobless workers would then look for change.

Yeah, generally on the floor where people might have dropped it. Campaigning and agitating for change is diffucult when your belly's a-rumblin'

[pusher robot]

And all those billions that are going to corporations ARE NOT then going to go to health care or welfare or any social programs.


Not true in this case. GM really ought to go bankrupt - it would emerge a far more flexible and very profitable company. The only real reason for the government to even consider a bailout is to prop up the UAW retiree's generous pensions and healthcare benefits, which would almost certainly go away in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Or, they could give that 2 trillion dollars of corporate welfare to the U.S. people instead. 2,000,000,000,000/300,000,000=6666.67

or the lowest 90% of U.S. citizens:7407.40

or the tax-paying population(138,894,000): 14399.47
Sauce:http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07databk.pdf

Let's see. It seems to me that if we spread that among each taxpayer - this includes the richest of the rich - we would be doing a lot better.

Edit: it is actually goign to be about 1.8 Trillion. I'm sure this will go above and beyond 2 Trillion, but for the sake of accuracy:
1.8 Trillion Given to:
U.S. Pop:6000
Poorest 90%of U.S.: 6666.67
Tax-Payers:12959.52

Source:
http://www.gopolitico.com/2008/09/bailout-costs-could-have-rebuilt.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26808715
That's really fuck all, and people would find it a rather poor consolation prize if they lost their jobs because the government refused to interfere with the sanctity of the free market (as leftists apparently advocate).

[Dean]

That's really fuck all, and people would find it a rather poor consolation prize if they lost their jobs because the government refused to interfere with the sanctity of the free market (as leftists apparently advocate).

Wait, are you pretending for a second that 1$ of that bailout will "trickle down" to the working class? You and I both know how flawed that theory is.

I find it amazing that, whenever leftists "see the light" on the centrist plateau, they act as if their rejection of leftist attitudes is "realist."

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Wait, are you pretending for a second that 1$ of that bailout will "trickle down" to the working class? You and I both know how flawed that theory is.

I find it amazing that, whenever leftists "see the light" on the centrist plateau, they act as if their rejection of leftist attitudes is "realist."
Workers get paid.

[RGacky3]

Workers get paid.

Not any more, than the Capitalist can get away with paying them, which is generally very low because they own everything, giving them more money will just give them a bigger profit margin.

[Bud Struggle]

Not true in this case. GM really ought to go bankrupt - it would emerge a far more flexible and very profitable company. The only real reason for the government to even consider a bailout is to prop up the UAW retiree's generous pensions and healthcare benefits, which would almost certainly go away in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Deffinooootley agree. The entire "bailout" is all about proping up the Unions. The company the arises from GM's ashes--or if GM fails altogether, the car companies that will come up after will be much more competitive and consumer aware.

GM, Ford, Crystler should all die.

Yesterday's Capitalism. :(

[Dean]

Deffinooootley agree. The entire "bailout" is all about proping up the Unions. The company the arises from GM's ashes--or if GM fails altogether, the car companies that will come up after will be much more competitive and consumer aware.

GM, Ford, Crystler should all die.

Yesterday's Capitalism. :(

Bullshit. The government can easily pay the unpaid benefits off. Workers will be fired, anyways.

1.8Trillion is NOT going to the workers, because most of the companies affected don't deal with the sale of their workers labor, but with the sale of credit.

But any way to blame capitalism's failing on the working class, huh?

[ships-cat]

I can't remember the last time I saw a Chrysler or GM car in the UK. (although we have LOTS of Fords). Apart from Opel in Germany, they just don't seem to exist. Perhaps this is because they are too poor to compete outside of a protected US marketplace ?

I get the impression - rightly or wrongly - that most USA car manufacturers havn't done any core R+D since the 1970's, and are very much trading on past glories, gimmicks, and superficial gadgets and stylistic changes. There's not much point having a car that has 17 cupholders (in a two-seater sports :tt2: ) if it only does 3MPG and falls to pieces before you have chance to fill the tank.

So yes, let the companies go to the wall. The pension funds etc are presumably protected, as these are in trust funds, and the money is not directly accessible by the creditors ? (thats how it works in the UK, anyway). Bailing them out with taxpayers money is just propping up inefficient and complacent companies, and arbitrarily enriching the management. Don't prolong the agony.

Meow Purr :)

[Robert]

I get the impression - rightly or wrongly - that most USA car manufacturers havn't done any core R+D since the 1970's

You're wildly off base, but it doesn't matter; your impression is erroneously shared by millions of millenials (born between '80 and 2000), and it's probably too late for GM to do anything about it. Too bad, as they are coming out with the possibly revolutionary Volt in 2010.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Not any more, than the Capitalist can get away with paying them, which is generally very low because they own everything, giving them more money will just give them a bigger profit margin.
It's generally very low... tell me, is it $0 or less? Because that's what the workers would get if their employers went bust.

[Robert]

The pension funds etc are presumably protected, as these are in trust funds, and the money is not directly accessible by the creditors ?

Same in the USA. Of course, the funds are not unlimited. Once the amounts existing at time of bankruptcy are paid out, they're gone.

[RGacky3]

It's generally very low... tell me, is it $0 or less? Because that's what the workers would get if their employers went bust.


Yeah your right, but imagen if instead of bailing out the employers the workers took over the company and shared profits fairly, it would be a hell of a lot more than what they are making now.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Interesting times.