Do you support the bailout or not

[spice756]

Do you support the bailout or not? And if not why.

Dam I was going do a poll on this before.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Congress' plans for an automaker bailout are so unpopular with voters that even a majority of union members oppose taxpayer-funded handouts for Detroit's Big Three, a poll released Monday showed.

About 57.5 percent of self-declared union members said Congress should deny the bailout loan begged for by Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, according to a poll by ATI-News/Zogby International.

Just 29 percent of union members approved of a bailout while 13 percent were not sure. Democrats split on the issue, 43 percent approving of a bailout and 41 percent disapproving, the poll showed.
The Democrat-led Congress is working feverishly on a deal for at least $15 billion in loans to keep the car companies solvent until President-elect Barack Obama takes offices.

It is less than the $35 billion the Big Three requested but still a hard sell for lawmakers to skeptical voters back home.
Overall, 61.7 percent of American voters opposed a bailout for automakers, 25.7 percent approved and 12.5 percent were undecided, the poll showed.

The poll, which was conducted Nov. 25 through Dec. 1, had a margin of error of plus-or-minus two percentage points.


http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/08/majority-union-members-oppose-bailout/ (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/08/majority-union-members-oppose-bailout/)

[Comrade B]

I support socialism, not welfare capitalism. I recognize that if these businesses go down, all their employees go unemployed as well, but supporting the bailout is supporting a preferred citizenship (keep the rich and fuck everyone else in trouble below them). Also, if these companies are given the bail out, they will continue to be just as shitty as always, and eventually drive the United States into another hole. The argument I have gotten a lot of cappies to consider recently is this.

If we give the bailout, you prove that your country has given up on its principles of human equality, and now the leadership will openly be showing that they give more care to rich business leaders than small ones.

If we bail out everyone with money the United States does not actually have, the US debt will become even more massive than previously -[not that it matters to the US]- and businesses will continue making products that no one gives a shit about and eventually fuck up all over again.

If we don't bail out anyone and stick true to pure capitalism, we will go into a depression in which a large number of people will lose their jobs, and the needs and wants of the Americans will not be met.

There is another solution though, which is not being looked at. The United States should buy the companies, and replace the company heads with government employees. Because the government owns the companies now, there would be no reason for the company to be trying to churn out a huge profit, their duty would be to supply the people of the country with cheap and efficient products, employ people, and create just enough money to cover the expenses of the production.

[JimmyJazz]

It's corporatism, the traditional economic system of fascist states. Need I say more.

[Raúl Duke]

Why don't they bail me out and give me a few millions...

Of course I don't support them (specifically the financial one...why don't they instead pay off people's mortgages, etc with that bail-out, etc)...

[Pawn Power]

No working person should support the bail out. It's the largest heist in history, carried out right in front of our eyes.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

That's kind of an overstatement since public money is seldom spent on us anyway. But we should certainly oppose such policies.

[chegitz guevara]

The government could buy all three companies for less and turn them over to the workers, not that they'd ever do that. No, I don't support bailing out the capitalists.

[Psy]

The auto bailout is being used as a stick against workers, to force workers to make concessions, so no I don't support the bailout as the workers won't benefit from it.

[Comrade B]

I think the issue is more of do you support the bail out, or the government's other alternative of no thing... which I am unsure of, being that they are both totally ridiculous. If GM goes out of business, their CEOs will still be rich, but their workers will lose their jobs, if GM gets the money, it is just another slap in the face of the workers, saying that you are worth less than the bosses at GM

[Q]

Bailing out capitalism by making new debts is not a solution to the crisis, it is only worsening it. And mind that the billions the bosses get are not being spend in saving jobs, but into making companies more "efficient" and "profitable", i.e. on attacks on workers rights, wage and jobs.

The only real solution is to end the capitalist casino, nationalise the big companies under workers control and management and bring down the capitalist state that will do anything to protect its system.

[Post-Something]

I'm not really sure you could be on the far left and support the bailout.

[spice756]

I think the issue is more of do you support the bail out, or the government's other alternative of no thing... which I am unsure of, being that they are both totally ridiculous. If GM goes out of business, their CEOs will still be rich, but their workers will lose their jobs, if GM gets the money, it is just another slap in the face of the workers, saying that you are worth less than the bosses at GM

That is exactly what will happen.They will no nothing or support the bail out.You support the bail out and save jobs or do nothing.

And if you do nothing more jobs will go under not just the 3 car makers.



The only real solution is to end the capitalist casino, nationalise the big companies under workers control and management and bring down the capitalist state that will do anything to protect its system.


Not going to happen in the US .But if it was the UK all 3 car makers would be under state control.

[Revy]

Does this even need to be asked? I'd hope that everyone here would oppose it.

[spice756]

Does this even need to be asked? I'd hope that everyone here would oppose it.

So you don't care if more people have no jobs?

[butterfly]

So you don't care if more people have no jobs?
And you don't care that the greedy capitalist bastards continue to demand trillions of dollars whilst childeren eat dirt in an attempt to gain nutrucian?
It makes me sick.
Sorry if that's considered flaming but I don't think a couple of jobs lost is a matter for concern, that's the nature of capitalism.

[Revy]

So you don't care if more people have no jobs?

this money is going to the capitalists. They will drop people anyway. Don't be naive. Layoffs are a beloved thing to do for the bourgeoisie. Bailout or no bailout, they'll fire loads of workers. My mother was laid off nine years ago and that just turned everything around for the worse. Don't put your faith in the bourgeois. They'll ruin you....you have no choices really in this system. I put my loyalty to socialism forever I will stand. Our current system's "jobs" are exploitative and put people at the will of our corporate masters. No thanks.:sneaky:

[JohnnyC]

Since I'm completely against capitalist economics I obviously don't support bailing it out.The only solution that I would support is to change the whole economics system.Which, unfortunately, is not going to happen.

[Martin Blank]

Neither bailout nor bankruptcy, but common ownership and workers' control.

[Comrade B]

Before you go attacking the post, read the above. The meant issue was whether or not you supported the bailout over allowing all these businesses to crash.

Of course we don't support the bailout, its stupid, but we also worry for those that lose their jobs with the loss of the company. GM employs cities.

The United States will not be doing anything progressive soon. Obama wouldn't dare touch companies and try to nationalize them because he has already had plenty of attacks calling him a socialist or some other garbage.

[Sam_b]

You support the bail out and save jobs or do nothing

Well that blatantly isn't true. The number of people unemployed in Britain for example is now higher than the 'winter of discontent' that saw the Conservatives seep to power on the back of, yes, large amounts of unemployment.

Woolworths is closing, thats another 30,000 jobs going in this economic crisis.

We should be bailing out the people, not the bankers.

[spice756]

You may want to read this and tell me if you support the bailout or not.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Can anyone rescue the U.S. automakers?
General Motors (GM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=GM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/175.html?source=story_f500_link)), Ford Motor (F (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=F&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/160.html?source=story_f500_link)) and Chrysler LLC each unveiled plans Tuesday that detailed how they would return to profitability if they get federal loans.

Still, even with President-elect Obama and the outgoing Bush administration saying they support providing assistance to the automakers, it's not clear that they will get the help they need.
The CEOs of the three firms are due to appear in front of Congress Thursday and Friday to make their case for what's now a $34 billion loan package. They had originally been requesting $25 billion.

GM is asking for up to $18 billion and says it needs $4 billion of that almost immediately to avoid running out of cash before the end of the year.
Chrysler is seeking $7 billion and has warned that it too could run out of cash.
The situation is a bit better at Ford but it said it wants to be able to access up to $9 billion as a backstop.

The Big Three's last visit to Capitol Hill was nothing less than a public relations disaster, as many members of the House and Senate denounced the CEOs for their bad decisions and worse symbolism. Each CEO flew to Washington to ask for help aboard their own corporate jets.

This time, GM CEO Rick Wagoner, Ford CEO Alan Mulally and Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli all drove to Washington in fuel-efficient hybrids. And they all have agreed to cut their salaries to $1 a year if they get federal loans.
Will that be enough to convince a skeptical Congress to grant Detroit the help it needs? Here's a look at how various rescue situations for the Big Three could play out, even if Congress says no (or simply doesn't vote on) a bailout.

Congress gives in
Even critics in the House and Senate may be reluctant to reject the automakers' request for help.
There are few members of Congress who haven't heard from the auto dealers in their district, as the U.S. automakers mobilized dealers to turn up the pressure on Washington.

And since the Big Three's 14,000 dealers employ about 740,000 people nationwide, legislators have to worry about rising job losses if a Big Three automaker were to fail -- even if their district is no where near the Midwest auto belt.

But one of the problems facing the automakers is that they are asking for money from the current session of Congress, which includes more Republicans than the new Congress that will take office on Jan. 6.
Democratic leaders of both houses, who support the automakers' request for help, still won't commit to a vote by the current Congress. But once the new session starts, there could be a vote early in the year...even before President-elect Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20.

While GM officials stress they need help before then, others believe they might be able to survive long enough for the new Congress to keep them out of bankruptcy.

"If the GM board decided there was help on the way in early January, I'm sure they'd make an effort to preserve cash and get to that point," said Bob Schulz, Standard & Poor's senior auto credit analyst.
The Treasury or Fed decide to help
If Congress doesn't act before the end of this year, it's still possible that other parts of the government step in.

Some Democrats, including House Speaker Pelosi, insist that the Treasury Department could use some of the $700 billion set aside in October to help banks and Wall Street firms.

But Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration strongly oppose that idea. What's more, the Treasury has already committed all but $20 billion of the first $350 billion it is allowed to hand out without approval from Congress.

That leaves the Federal Reserve as another option. The Fed agreed to loan $85 billion to insurer American International Group (AIG (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=AIG&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/2469.html?source=story_f500_link)) in September and has been loaning hundreds of billions of dollars more to major companies, many outside the financial sector. It also recently agreed to guarantee up to $306 billion in assets of struggling bank Citigroup (C (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=C&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/2927.html?source=story_f500_link)).

A spokesman for the Fed did not return calls seeking comment. But The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the Fed is likely to turn away any requests to help the Big Three.

The Fed could probably justify intervention as necessary given the tens of billions of unsecured debt that could go into default if there was a bankruptcy of one of the Big Three. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pledged in a speech earlier this week that the central bank wasn't done doing what is necessary to avoid damage to the financial system and the economy.
Still, some Fed watchers think the agency would be unlikely to go where Congress has refused to go.

"The Fed is already so activist that I feel Bernanke ... would see assistance to Detroit as unnecessarily complicating an already very complicated relationship with Congress," said Tom Schlesinger, executive director of Financial Markets Center, a research firm that closely follow the Fed.

But he also said the Fed might be more open to such a move if Democratic leaders in Congress signal they would welcome such stop-gap support.
"There may be winking and nodding going on as we speak," he said.
Union concessions provide a spark
The United Auto Workers union announced Wednesday that members will be willing to make modifications in the contracts they reached with the three U.S. automakers just last fall.

Those contracts granted the companies many cost-savings concessions, including a two-tier wage and benefit structure for new hires and a shift of $100 billion in future retiree health care costs to trust funds controlled by the unions.

The 2007 contract closes much of the labor cost gap between the automakers and the non-union plants operated in the United States by Asian automakers.

Ford estimates that its hourly labor costs will go down from an average of $71 under its previous contract of $71 for pay, benefits and all retirement costs down to $53 an hour by 2010 under the new contract. The comparable numbers for the Asian auto plants is $49 an hour, according to Ford.

But none of the savings that the UAW can offer, while important to their long-term competitiveness, will provide the automakers with the billions they need to get through the current auto sales slump.
"To be honest with you, right now if the UAW members went in these facilities and worked for nothing...it would not help the companies that much," said UAW President Ron Gettelfinger.
Fresh start after bankruptcy

Many critics of the auto industry argue that bankruptcy is the best choice for the Big Three. A bankruptcy judge has broad powers to let the automakers shed their debts and other obligations, as well as get out of labor contracts that they can no longer afford.
Other industries, including steel and airlines, have used bankruptcies to emerge financially healthy.

But the automakers say that consumers' concerns about warranties and the resale value of vehicles would stop them from buying from a bankrupt automaker. The resulting drop in sales would make already bleak conditions worse.

There are also questions about whether the automakers could get the financing they need to operate under bankruptcy court. Many lenders that have loaned to bankrupt companies in the past have exited the field in the wake of the credit crunch. And experts question whether the crucial source of funds needed to emerge from bankruptcy would be available to the automakers.

"The size of the companies, the state of the capital markets [and] the uncertainty about how bankruptcy would play out...means the ability to get [financing] is a big question mark," said S&P's Schulz.
Car buyers come back
The Big Three's problem is mainly that demand for their products has fallen off a cliff. And unfortunately, consumers are the least likely saviors of the industry.

Sales have been in a downward spiral all year and the nation's major automakers, including Toyota and Honda, each reported sales drops of at least 30% in November on Tuesday, resulting in the worst month for industrywide U.S. auto sales since 1982.

The fact that overseas automakers also saw huge drops in sales is a sign that the problems in the auto industry are not due only to bad decisions by Detroit.

Toyota (TM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TM&source=story_quote_link)) also cut its production Wednesday due to weak sales. It now has more laid off U.S. workers collecting nearly full pay than the Big Three, according to the UAW.

With the economy getting weaker, job losses mounting and credit remaining tight, a needed rebound in demand appears unlikely in the near-term. The seasonally adjusted annual sales rate was just over 10 million vehicles in November, far below the 16.1 million vehicles sold in 2007
Chrysler is forecasting that industrywide sales will stay below 14 million through 2012. GM expects somewhat stronger sales but is still designing a business plan to be profitable even if annual sales are in the 13 million range.

But if the economy does turn around next year and credit conditions improve, some experts say that there could be pent up demand for cars. And that could deliver the revenue and cash flow the automakers sorely need.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/04/news/companies/saving_detroit/?postversion=2008120404

[HoChiMilo]

There is another solution though, which is not being looked at. The United States should buy the companies, and replace the company heads with government employees. Because the government owns the companies now, there would be no reason for the company to be trying to churn out a huge profit, their duty would be to supply the people of the country with cheap and efficient products, employ people, and create just enough money to cover the expenses of the production.

Call me old-fashioned, but even if that did happen, wouldn't it be trading one set of bourgeois thugs for another?

In my mind, the most realistic way to do it would be to have the UAW take over and essentially own the means of production collectively. You could say the UAW would cease to exist, but i think it would still be necessary as it would be there to protect workers from greed and embezzlement and exploitation.

[Bilan]

I don't support the bailout, and I don't support market self correction.
I suppose seizing the means of production, because this is class war.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I support the Auto; don't wanna touch the financial bailout. But it's a lose-lose either way you put it.


... why don't they instead pay off pay off people's mortgages ...

As neat as that would have been, I am uncertain whether or not that would have been politically or economically feasible. No one wants to hear that their hard earned money is going to go to those who lived out of their means using excessive amounts of credit in order to get a home they could not afford by getting loans that were too good to be true.

I mean, what did these people think would happen by dangerously overextending themselves? We, as Americans, do a shit job of educating people (especially the youth) about making sound personal financial decisions - most of the high schoolers I've talked to believe that when they graduate from High School they'll be making $100,000 a year ... and when they find out they won't, they are perplexed about how people can live with $25,000 a year. But alas, that is a failure of education and parenting and not the issue of this discussion, but you can see where a good proportion of this problem lies.

---

The loss of so many jobs if the Big 3 go under is just reprehensible. "A few jobs" is a gross understatement. We're talking millions, not just autoworkers but those who are supported by them (restaurants, etc); not to mention the families that will be affected.

I feel we should support a bailout to industries that employ people and allow them to pay off their mortgages and debts than to give the money to financial industries and to individuals who squandered their money from before.


The auto bailout is being used as a stick against workers, to force workers to make concessions, so no I don't support the bailout as the workers won't benefit from it.

While the bailout cash may be used to weaken the UAW, a weaker Union is better than one that doesn't have an industry to work in. Be serious.


I don't support the bailout, and I don't support market self correction.

I suppose seizing the means of production, because this is class war.


Umm, methinks that will probably not happen. Call it a hunch.

We can rant and rave all we want, but the simple fact of the matter is we need to prove that we have realistic solutions, and not empty rhetoric and impotent threats.

--

We've (Americans) already spent billions in Iraq; let's spend a few billion at home. We're already owe $10,653,228,410,860 (that's $34,899.03 per person), so what's a few billion more?? A raindrop in the ocean!

TGOW

[S.O.I]

i dont support anything the US government does. even when they do something good, cuz its usually some sort of plot behind it...

[More Fire for the People]

Not bailing out Detroit would be one of the biggest setbacks for the American working class since the Great Depression. That said however, financial capitalist scum should rot and die (as long as we secure the funds and economic prospects of working people).

[Comrade B]

wouldn't it be trading one set of bourgeois thugs for another?
A good government owned company should be focused upon providing the people, I am looking at it from a more ideological perspective, I know that this won't function properly under US leadership.

[spice756]

I support the Auto; don't wanna touch the financial bailout. But it's a lose-lose either way you put it.



As neat as that would have been, I am uncertain whether or not that would have been politically or economically feasible. No one wants to hear that their hard earned money is going to go to those who lived out of their means using excessive amounts of credit in order to get a home they could not afford by getting loans that were too good to be true.

I mean, what did these people think would happen by dangerously overextending themselves? We, as Americans, do a shit job of educating people (especially the youth) about making sound personal financial decisions - most of the high schoolers I've talked to believe that when they graduate from High School they'll be making $100,000 a year ... and when they find out they won't, they are perplexed about how people can live with $25,000 a year. But alas, that is a failure of education and parenting and not the issue of this discussion, but you can see where a good proportion of this problem lies.

---

The loss of so many jobs if the Big 3 go under is just reprehensible. "A few jobs" is a gross understatement. We're talking millions, not just autoworkers but those who are supported by them (restaurants, etc); not to mention the families that will be affected.

I feel we should support a bailout to industries that employ people and allow them to pay off their mortgages and debts than to give the money to financial industries and to individuals who squandered their money from before.



While the bailout cash may be used to weaken the UAW, a weaker Union is better than one that doesn't have an industry to work in. Be serious.



Umm, methinks that will probably not happen. Call it a hunch.

We can rant and rave all we want, but the simple fact of the matter is we need to prove that we have realistic solutions, and not empty rhetoric and impotent threats.

--

We've (Americans) already spent billions in Iraq; let's spend a few billion at home. We're already owe $10,653,228,410,860 (that's $34,899.03 per person), so what's a few billion more?? A raindrop in the ocean!

TGOW

Mr. Awesome your font is hard to read.


Things are getting much worse.


__________________________________________________ ________

Chrysler shuts down all production


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chrysler LLC announced late Wednesday that it is stopping all vehicle production in the United States for at least a month.
All 30 of the carmaker's plants will close after the last shift on Friday, and employees will not be asked to return to work before Jan. 19.
Chrysler blamed the "continued lack of consumer credit for the American car buyer" for the slow-down in sales that forced the move.
The company ordinarily shuts down operations between Dec. 24 and Jan. 5. This closure would add roughly two weeks to that shutdown.

Chrysler is the third of the Big Three automakers to suspend operations for January. Last week, General Motors announced it was idling 30% of its North American manufacturing capacity during the first quarter of 2009 in response to deteriorating market conditions. That move will take 250,000 vehicles out of production. On Wednesday, a Ford spokeswoman confirmed for CNN that the automaker is adding a week to its normal two-week seasonal shutdown at a number of its plants.

Chrysler would not say how many fewer vehicles would be produced because of this shutdown. A total of 46,000 employees will be affected. They will be paid during the time off through a combination of state unemployment benefits and Chrysler contributions, but they will not receive the full amount of their working pay, a Chrysler spokesman said.
"Chrysler dealers confirmed to the company at a recent meeting at its headquarters, that they have many willing buyers for Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles but are unable to close the deals, due to lack of financing," the carmaker said in an announcement. "The dealers have stated that they have lost an estimated 20% to 25% of their volume because of this credit situation."

Auto sales have been hit hard by tight credit and the struggling economy. Overall auto sales in the United States were down 37% last month compared with November 2007. Chrysler's situation was especially bad. Its sales dropped 47%.
Chrysler's financing arm, Chrysler Financial, has tightened lending terms for buyers and earlier this year, it announced it would no longer offer leases.
Industry seeking help from Washington

Chrysler, Ford Motor Co. (F (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=F&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/160.html?source=story_f500_link)) and General Motors (GM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=GM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/175.html?source=story_f500_link)) have approached Congress for aid to help them get through the current financial crisis. A congressional effort to establish a stopgap, $14 billion loan program to help Chrysler and General Motors at least until next month collapsed in Congress last week.

The Bush administration has said it is working on a possible plan to throw the companies a lifeline using money from the $700 billion bailout approved by Congress in October, the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP.
"It's clear that the automakers are in a very fragile financial condition and they're taking steps to deal with it," White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said Wednesday. "We're aware of their financial situation and are considering possible policy options to provide assistance in an appropriate way. As we've said, a disorderly collapse of the auto industry should be avoided."

"The speed and severity of the U.S. auto market's decline has been unprecedented in recent weeks as consumers reel from the collapse of the financial markets and the resulting lack of credit for vehicle financing," GM said in a Dec. 12 announcement, citing a 41% drop in November sales.
Both GMAC and Chrysler Financial are trying to receive federal assistance under the TARP program. GMAC is affiliated with General Motors, which owns 49% of the finance company. The other 51% of GMAC is owned by a consortium of investors led by Cerberus, which owns Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/17/autos/chrysler_shutdown/index.htm

[Psy]

The loss of so many jobs if the Big 3 go under is just reprehensible. "A few jobs" is a gross understatement. We're talking millions, not just autoworkers but those who are supported by them (restaurants, etc); not to mention the families that will be affected.

I feel we should support a bailout to industries that employ people and allow them to pay off their mortgages and debts than to give the money to financial industries and to individuals who squandered their money from before.

While the bailout cash may be used to weaken the UAW, a weaker Union is better than one that doesn't have an industry to work in. Be serious.

Autoworkers can't afford to own a house and car now, cheap credit is gone, demand for cars is collapsing and with capitalists driving back wages it will just accelerate the collapse.



Umm, methinks that will probably not happen. Call it a hunch.

We can rant and rave all we want, but the simple fact of the matter is we need to prove that we have realistic solutions, and not empty rhetoric and impotent threats.

We've (Americans) already spent billions in Iraq; let's spend a few billion at home. We're already owe $10,653,228,410,860 (that's $34,899.03 per person), so what's a few billion more?? A raindrop in the ocean!

TGOW
That was before the rate of profit collapsed, it doesn't work that way anymore.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

its just prolonging the eventual demise of capitalism. no, I do not support it.

[FreeFocus]

Pat Buchanan said a few weeks ago that losing them would be the demise of American manufacturing power.

In that case, adiós. A significant blow to American imperialism.

[redarmyfaction38]

That is exactly what will happen.They will no nothing or support the bail out.You support the bail out and save jobs or do nothing.

And if you do nothing more jobs will go under not just the 3 car makers.



Not going to happen in the US .But if it was the UK all 3 car makers would be under state control.
maybe.
but, the recently bought out car companies in britain are seeking govt. support to help them through the "recession".
can't see the point myself, let 'em go bust, just like they should have let the banks go bust, nationalisation in the interest of capitalist companies doesn't serve the the interests of the working class nor, in the long term does it serve the interests of capital.
capitalism is supposed to be about risk and hard work not state bailouts for stupidity.
there is an argument on the left, that capitalist nationalisation will, somehow, raise the consciousness of the working class and lead them in the direction of state nationalisation in their interest, can't see it myself.
it's a reinforcement of "salvation from above"? rather than taking control from below.
not very well put by myself, but i hope you get the gist.

[Psy]

maybe.
but, the recently bought out car companies in britain are seeking govt. support to help them through the "recession".
can't see the point myself, let 'em go bust, just like they should have let the banks go bust, nationalisation in the interest of capitalist companies doesn't serve the the interests of the working class nor, in the long term does it serve the interests of capital.
capitalism is supposed to be about risk and hard work not state bailouts for stupidity.

It is in the interest of the capitalists, the M-C-^M cycle has stopped, capitalists are stuck with commodities where they would be lucky to sell it for the money they started with. Capitalism has effectively stalled yet the ruling class is not going to go out without a fight, the bailouts is basically the bourgeois state getting out of the crisis on the backs of workers, the strings attached to the bailout is for autoworkers to accept massive layoff, wage and benefit cuts.

The bailout is not just in the interest of the ruling class, it is being used as a weapon to increase exploitation of workers. It is basically a huge escalation of the class war.

[BIG BROTHER]

When the bourgeoisie politicians present the options to you, as either bailing out a company or doing nothing about it, I can see why some would be compelled to support a bailout.

But the truth is that that's just giving money to the ones who created the mess to begun with. Like a comrade said the people should be the ones getting bailed out.

Although as we know capitalism offers no real solution, ultimately the major industries should be nationalized, put under workers control, and a planned economy should take over the obsolete market.

[butterfly]

^^This is very true

[DesertShark]

The government should never have bailed out the financial industry, it should have given the $700billion back to the tax payers so they could pay off their houses and what not.

If the credit crisis hadn't happened, the auto industry wouldn't be in the situation it is right now. If the Big 3 go under, the devastation that will happen in Detroit would be incredible. The CEOs of the Big 3 don't need any money, the workers should be in control.

What I don't understand is why so many people are against the UAW. I've heard so many people say, "those factory workers make too much money." Just because people have a wage that they can actually support their family with and provide them with excellent health care (which should at least be the standard everywhere), that's suddenly a problem. Anyone working on the line has to stand there for 1-2 hours straight getting only getting a 5min break every hour or two and they cannot leave the line without risking losing their job, while the white collar workers every where get to sit around all day and can get up from their desk whenever they want. Those blue collar workers deserve the wages and benefits they're getting and its bullshit that there's stipulations on the UAW to reduce wages and benefits.

On a slightly lighter note, but still relevant...Jon Stewart said it best a few weeks ago: "Wallstreet lost 3 trillion dollars and they don't make anything! At least when Detroit loses money, we get cars!" He also made some good points about how congress probably has no idea what the financial industry does and they didn't want to look stupid. It's a good clip, with a funny name: Autoerotic Explanation (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212877&title=Autoerotic-Explanation) (also the Clusterfuck to the Poorhouse Bean on a Plate Edition (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212876&title=clusterf#@k-to-the-poor-house) is good to because it talks about how they gave out the money so fast that they lost track of it).

I fucking hate my government, they're all a bunch of idiots and shouldn't be in charge of anything :blackA:

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Autoworkers can't afford to own a house and car now, cheap credit is gone, demand for cars is collapsing and with capitalists driving back wages it will just accelerate the collapse.

Are you high?

Wikipedia: "Current unionized employees of Detroit auto firms have a total compensation package of approximately $80 per hour, of which $55 comes from simple cash payments (wages, overtime, and vacation pay), and about $25 of which comes from fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. $80 per hour amounts to four times as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included."
(Bold and Italics added)

At $55 per hour in mere salary at 40 hours a week for 52 weeks equates to $114,400 cash per year before taxes. I don't make anywhere near that much, not even fucking close!

Heard it and saw it on several news sites as well. Even if this is exaggerated, say by $25, than they still take home $66,000 cash a year before taxes for one worker ... I don't make anywhere near that much, note even fucking close (again)!

Pretty sure they can get a loan and/or a mortgage for a house at that much. They won't however if have no job. Bail 'em out, it's peanuts compared to the financial bailout a month ago, and these guys actually make something.


In that case, adiós. A significant blow to American imperialism.

Is this petty anti-Americanism or is this socialism?

So let me get this straight, you want to destroy American manufacturing capability? Why? What good would that possibly do?

Isn't the point of socialism to unionize these workplaces, collectivize ownership of the means of production and distribution in the hands of the workers? Allowing what is left (not much) of American manufacturing to disappear seens counterproductive.


Capitalism has effectively stalled yet the ruling class is not going to go out without a fight, the bailouts is basically the bourgeois state getting out of the crisis on the backs of workers, the strings attached to the bailout is for autoworkers to accept massive layoff, wage and benefit cuts.

The CEOs, while you and I will ardinately agree are "not really much", are also "cutting" benefits and wages for themselves and higher management. Or, at least they are going through the motions.

It is either a benefit cut for the UAW or the complete loss of their well-paying and union jobs forever. If Detroit goes, it ain't comin' back.

We also must take note, that right now, we live in a "capitalist" society; so these are our options. We don't live in a socialist one, so the little clever comments and whatnot on here don't mean jack.

Something has to be done; this is the closest the United States has ever come to nationalizing a major industry, just go with it!


The bailout is not just in the interest of the ruling class, it is being used as a weapon to increase exploitation of workers.

You're right, it is. But it is up the UAW to fight the areas that it needs to fight when that happens. The bailout means the continuation of Detroit and the continuation of the UAW.


Although as we know capitalism offers no real solution, ultimately the major industries should be nationalized, put under workers control, and a planned economy should take over the obsolete market.

Agreed. But they need to exist before they can be nationalized. Let Detroit have the bailout, and see if they default. If they do, nationalization is the next logical step ... now whether that will happen in America I'm not sure. All the Southern politicians will never support such a move given the prevalence of foreign car manufacturers in their states.


The government should never have bailed out the financial industry, it should have given the $700billion back to the tax payers so they could pay off their houses and what not.

This is what everyone keeps saying, but I don't see it as plausible. Are their criteria for getting this money? I'm not in financial distress. So, why should the government give my money to someone who obviously and idiotically overextended themselves through their acceptance of fucking stupid loans?

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no objections with giving aid to someone who has experienced hard times through no fault of their own, to the little old lady who's lived in her house for years and is trying to pay it off on a fixed income, to the family that got a pink slip and need money and can no longer afford to pay off their home because of it; but when people chose to get a house they obviously couldn't possibly afford (while there were and are so many readily available and affordable homes) with loans that were obviously shit I have my reservations.

There is no real difference between that and giving money to the financial industries who overextended themselves, made shit financial decisions, and squandered their cash ... only here it was dipshit CEOs instead of dipshit consumers. This idea rewards financial idiocy on both accounts.

Please don't propose using the hours of my life I gave to reward some insurance salesman douchebag who could only really afford a $100,000 home and instead chose to get an enormous mortgage so he could get a $500,000 house!

TGOW

[FreeFocus]

Is this petty anti-Americanism or is this socialism?

So let me get this straight, you want to destroy American manufacturing capability? Why? What good would that possibly do?

Isn't the point of socialism to unionize these workplaces, collectivize ownership of the means of production and distribution in the hands of the workers? Allowing what is left (not much) of American manufacturing to disappear seens counterproductive.

I'm beginning to agree more and more with Third Worldism than anything else, and am quick to question the "potential" of the "working class" in imperialist states to do anything. Really, why would they? They get a cut in the goods stolen from abroad and can benefit from oppression of the Third World. Granted, they don't benefit as much as the bourgeoisie, but most so-called "workers" get some tangible benefits that they'd probably rather not do without. Rights and power for workers in imperialist states doesn't guarantee or even imply an end to imperialism.

Your socialism may not be mine.

[Psy]

Are you high?

Wikipedia: "Current unionized employees of Detroit auto firms have a total compensation package of approximately $80 per hour, of which $55 comes from simple cash payments (wages, overtime, and vacation pay), and about $25 of which comes from fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. $80 per hour amounts to four times as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included."
(Bold and Italics added)

At $55 per hour in mere salary at 40 hours a week for 52 weeks equates to $114,400 cash per year before taxes. I don't make anywhere near that much, not even fucking close!

Heard it and saw it on several news sites as well. Even if this is exaggerated, say by $25, than they still take home $66,000 cash a year before taxes for one worker ... I don't make anywhere near that much, note even fucking close (again)!

Pretty sure they can get a loan and/or a mortgage for a house at that much. They won't however if have no job. Bail 'em out, it's peanuts compared to the financial bailout a month ago, and these guys actually make something.

That is for the older workers, the new workers earn around $15/hr. The Autoworkers have already lost a huge chunk of their living standard. Also most of those benefits are 401(k)'s that are quickly evaporating.

[BIG BROTHER]

Like I said of course no one in their right mind wants this industries to fall. The working class during times of crisis has to ensure its existence. Otherwise it will become into a huge army of lumpens. It shouldn't be too hard especially now that they already sort of nationalized Fannie and Freddy, to just nationalize the car industries. They could even say its temporary, and then it would be up to the workers to make privatization wouldn't take place later on.

[DesertShark]

Wikipedia: "Current unionized employees of Detroit auto firms have a total compensation package of approximately $80 per hour, of which $55 comes from simple cash payments (wages, overtime, and vacation pay), and about $25 of which comes from fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions. $80 per hour amounts to four times as much as the typical American worker makes, benefits included."
(Bold and Italics added)

At $55 per hour in mere salary at 40 hours a week for 52 weeks equates to $114,400 cash per year before taxes. I don't make anywhere near that much, not even fucking close!

This is what everyone keeps saying, but I don't see it as plausible. Are their criteria for getting this money? I'm not in financial distress. So, why should the government give my money to someone who obviously and idiotically overextended themselves through their acceptance of fucking stupid loans?
Someone already said it but new workers make $15/hr and people who have been there for over 30yrs and work on the floor (ie blue collar) make $34/hr. Wikipedia is not a completely accurate source of information, which is obvious here. Do you know how they get the numbers that keep getting thrown around like $73/hr or $80/hr in this case? They take the total amount the company is paying out to anyone who works or has ever worked there (plus spouses) and divide it by the number of people employed, so its a bunch of shit and not an accurate measure at all. If companies didn't have to provide their employees with health insurance, it would be no where near as high.

Too bad the government already gave it to people who overextended themselves through providing stupid loans...the banks. I'd rather the people's money go to the people, not to companies so they can give out bonuses or "retention pay" (because they can't give out bonuses) of 1.4 million a piece to high up people in the company. Why would you want to pay to keep someone who fucked up and lost you a bunch of money?

[Guerrilla22]

Right now I support the auto bailout. Yes I realize who the money will go to, but the industry needs to stay afloat. I live in Michigan and we currently have the highest unemployment rate in the country. It wouldn't just be the auto workers in Detroit that would be affected by a bankruptcy, but all the small factories and shops spread all over the state making parts and other items for the auto manufacturers as well. Literally hundreds of thousands could lose their jobs.

[Bilan]

I'm beginning to agree more and more with Third Worldism than anything else, and am quick to question the "potential" of the "working class" in imperialist states to do anything. Really, why would they? They get a cut in the goods stolen from abroad and can benefit from oppression of the Third World. Granted, they don't benefit as much as the bourgeoisie, but most so-called "workers" get some tangible benefits that they'd probably rather not do without. Rights and power for workers in imperialist states doesn't guarantee or even imply an end to imperialism.

Your socialism may not be mine.

Ignorant much?

[Guerrilla22]

Pat Buchanan said a few weeks ago that losing them would be the demise of American manufacturing power.

In that case, adiós. A significant blow to American imperialism.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of working class individuals losing their jobs is not going to be a blow to US imperialism It's going to be a blow to the working class, a huge blow. If there are no workers left there can't be a worker's revolution can there?

[butterfly]

Right now I support the auto bailout. Yes I realize who the money will go to, but the industry needs to stay afloat. I live in Michigan and we currently have the highest unemployment rate in the country. It wouldn't just be the auto workers in Detroit that would be affected by a bankruptcy, but all the small factories and shops spread all over the state making parts and other items for the auto manufacturers as well. Literally hundreds of thousands could lose their jobs.


Then why not nationalise these industries, instead of bailing them out?

[Guerrilla22]

Then why not nationalise these industries, instead of bailing them out?

Nationalized compamies in a capitalist country would simply mean that the workers would still work under owners, just not the Fords or the stock holders or what have you. I'm saying bail these companies out so that they do not go under, which is a very real possibility. Also as I pointed out, literally thousands of other companies related to the auto industry would go under if a bankruptcy happens.

[butterfly]

From what I understand the demise of the US economy has been a long time coming, nationalisation would be the better alternative to secure jobs for the working class.

[Guerrilla22]

Perhaps, however either way a whole lot of money is going to have to be pumped into the auto industry to keep it going, whether the US government hands it to the auto executives or takes control itself.

[butterfly]

And the deficite gets bigger yet...

[cleef]

Woolworths is closing, thats another 30,000 jobs going in this economic crisis.

We should be bailing out the people, not the bankers.

i agree with this.

[FreeFocus]

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of working class individuals losing their jobs is not going to be a blow to US imperialism It's going to be a blow to the working class, a huge blow. If there are no workers left there can't be a worker's revolution can there?

Yeah, my point is that the likelihood of this "worker's revolution" is disgustingly low. Furthermore, it's a domino effect. Major companies such as GM help other companies stay afloat in related industries, especially those related to the military-industrial complex.

[Psy]

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of working class individuals losing their jobs is not going to be a blow to US imperialism It's going to be a blow to the working class, a huge blow. If there are no workers left there can't be a worker's revolution can there?

There is a major error in your logic, the logic that unemployed workers are not longer proletariat, on the contrary they are still part of the proletariat.

[8bit]

Let's see....

I support the bailouts, but I support a different kind of bailout.

Why not just buy them out? The car companies are worth far less then what their asking for, and then the tax payer can reap the profits. I mean, we should have done this with the banks, but even more with the car producers. That way they could be forced to build better, more efficient cars, rather than building using the same old outdated model.

Seriously, why hasn't anyone else thought of this yet?

[Invincible Summer]

Let's see....

I support the bailouts, but I support a different kind of bailout.

Why not just buy them out? The car companies are worth far less then what their asking for, and then the tax payer can reap the profits. I mean, we should have done this with the banks, but even more with the car producers. That way they could be forced to build better, more efficient cars, rather than building using the same old outdated model.

Seriously, why hasn't anyone else thought of this yet?


While I do see your point and somewhat agree, I am also conflicted because, as we all know, nationalizing an industry just changes the faces of the capitalist owners. Furthermore, nationalizing an industry does not guarantee a strong step towards a socialist society, but rather towards a state capitalist one.

[KC]

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of working class individuals losing their jobs is not going to be a blow to US imperialism It's going to be a blow to the working class, a huge blow. If there are no workers left there can't be a worker's revolution can there?

Supporting the perpetuation of capitalism in a time of crisis is a reactionary position, not a progressive one. What you are basically doing here is supporting the subjugation of the workers to the capitalists. You should be supporting the occupation of these factories and not the perpetuation of bourgeois rule.


From what I understand the demise of the US economy has been a long time coming, nationalisation would be the better alternative to secure jobs for the working class.

Adding on to what G22 has already stated, nationalizations do happen at times when bailouts aren't effective. These have occurred recently, with the nationalization of Northern Rock being one example.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I support(that's a hard word to use in this situation) the auto maker bailouts. If they go under many people will lose their jobs. I support workers being able to provide for their family. I don't understand how not bailing them out could be beneficial to us or auto workers.

[Guerrilla22]

Supporting the perpetuation of capitalism in a time of crisis is a reactionary position, not a progressive one. What you are basically doing here is supporting the subjugation of the workers to the capitalists. You should be supporting the occupation of these factories and not the perpetuation of bourgeois rule

No it isn't a progressive position, however there can't be any factory takeovers if they all close, well I guess there could be, but it would be rather pointless.


There is a major error in your logic, the logic that unemployed workers are not longer proletariat, on the contrary they are still part of the proletariat.
Maybe, but an unemployed worker is going to be more concerned with simply putting food on the table than anything else and is not going to be too concerned with spreading revolution.

[fabiansocialist]

That is for the older workers, the new workers earn around $15/hr. The Autoworkers have already lost a huge chunk of their living standard. Also most of those benefits are 401(k)'s that are quickly evaporating.

You are right. This is from the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1cee32ac-ca17-11dd-93e5-000077b07658.html):


GM and Toyota workers earn similar wages of about $29 an hour.

The big difference is in fringe benefits, such as healthcare insurance and pensions.

The union agreed to a two-tier wage structure under which new assembly-line workers would be paid about $14.20 an hour, compared with $29 for existing workers.

GM has so far hired about 3,000 people at the lower wage, but all are likely to lose their jobs as it closes plants and cuts shifts in line with the fall in vehicle sales.

[fabiansocialist]

Right now I support the auto bailout. Yes I realize who the money will go to, but the industry needs to stay afloat. I live in Michigan and we currently have the highest unemployment rate in the country. It wouldn't just be the auto workers in Detroit that would be affected by a bankruptcy, but all the small factories and shops spread all over the state making parts and other items for the auto manufacturers as well. Literally hundreds of thousands could lose their jobs.

The American capitalist model is garbage. The Big Three have made poor managerial and engineering decisions for decades. The present economic crisis is just the catalyst that brings into bold relief their incompetence. You aren't going to change the system by trying to perpetuate it. If we take your argument further, we should keep the military-industrial complex alive because millions of jobs depend on it. This refrain of "jobs" comes from shitbag politicians defending a patently irrational system of production and distribution.

[fabiansocialist]

I'm beginning to agree more and more with Third Worldism than anything else, and am quick to question the "potential" of the "working class" in imperialist states to do anything. Really, why would they? They get a cut in the goods stolen from abroad and can benefit from oppression of the Third World. Granted, they don't benefit as much as the bourgeoisie, but most so-called "workers" get some tangible benefits that they'd probably rather not do without. Rights and power for workers in imperialist states doesn't guarantee or even imply an end to imperialism.

I agree. The American union movement, from Gompers onwards, has mostly been about getting a share of the spoils and privileged worker status for its members. So the talk of worker solidarity is a complete crock: it didn't exist even for workers in the USA, let alone on an international scale. The working class in imperialist states just wants a modest piece of the imperial cake. Hence no real objection to imperial actions -- just a tacit nod and wink. Its revolutionary potential is zilch.

[KC]

No it isn't a progressive position, however there can't be any factory takeovers if they all close, well I guess there could be, but it would be rather pointless.This is generally when factory occupations take place.


Maybe, but an unemployed worker is going to be more concerned with simply putting food on the table than anything else and is not going to be too concerned with spreading revolution.If that were the case then economic crises would be the least intense period of class struggle, not the most intense. The fact is that people are most revolutionary when their livelihood is threatened, which is what Marx was referring to when he talked about relative poverty.

Also, your method has absolutely no path to raising consciousness. If you agitate from the perspective that factory closures demand an explanation, then you can lead this to its logical conclusion, i.e. that there is no valid explanation for factory closures. This is what the Republic workers demanded when they occupied their factory, and it is unfortunate that there was no significant Marxist presence during the occupation, which could have led to them calling for other workers to do the same in their respective work places instead of agreeing with the deal provided and offering to run the factory as a cooperative.

[Guerrilla22]

If we take your argument further, we should keep the military-industrial complex alive because millions of jobs depend on it.

There is a world of difference between the auto industry and the arms industry. Also I'm not suggesting we perpetuate the same system, I'm saying that the auto industry needs to be kept going so that the workers have something to takeover.


This is generally when factory occupations take place.


If there is no industry left to make parts for there is no point in occupying a factory.


This is what the Republic workers demanded when they occupied their factory, and it is unfortunate that there was no significant Marxist presence during the occupation, which could have led to them calling for other workers to do the same in their respective work places instead of agreeing with the deal provided and offering to run the factory as a cooperative.

Yes, however by the time they decided to occupy the factory, most of the equipment had already been removed and operations had come to a hault. A much more effective plan would be to seize control of a factory when it is still producing goods and simply continue operations under worker control, numerous closed and disabled factories don't do anything for anyone.

[8bit]

While I do see your point and somewhat agree, I am also conflicted because, as we all know, nationalizing an industry just changes the faces of the capitalist owners. Furthermore, nationalizing an industry does not guarantee a strong step towards a socialist society, but rather towards a state capitalist one.

It at least gives the tax payer a chance to control the industry.

I really think it all matters where the industry goes after it is bought, and honestly, with Obama in office and the democrat majority in congress it seems like most effort would actually go to reforms which help the taxpayer rather than simply throwing tax payer money at an old system. (Since the democrats have been pushing reform in the automotive industry for quite a while, with little headway in the American market.)

[spice756]

If that were the case then economic crises would be the least intense period of class struggle, not the most intense. The fact is that people are most revolutionary when their livelihood is threatened, which is what Marx was referring to when he talked about relative poverty.

The relative poverty theory does not apply here.The 1800's was brutal exploitation of the working class in poverty and capitalist being very rich.There was child labor and no welfare or unemployment insurance.The government was 100 free market and did not believe in a welfare state at all.

The filthy slum conditions and living in a house with rats and no water and electricity.And no free education or homeless shelters.

After WW2 the capitalist made a middle class and class :(than the have and have nots.Has any class will fight to pertect their class.

Having the have and have nots was too much of a threat has the the unity was strong and people turning to labor unions and radical thinking.

My parents work place was thinking of joining a union they give all union benefits to stop us from joining a union .The capitalists are smart and will bribe or do any thing even lower their pay to stop unions or state run.



The problem we have now is not so much of a fight of the working class and capitalist but economic slow down ,unemployment ,deflation , foreclosures , factories making less ,people buying less and less investment and new projects.Every thing is slowing down.


This not class consciousness:(

[cyu]

The problem we have now is not so much of a fight of the working class and capitalist but economic slow down ,unemployment ,deflation , foreclosures , factories making less ,people buying less and less investment and new projects.Every thing is slowing down.


The thing is, all of those symptoms are caused by failures in the current economic system. In other words, the current economic system is suffering from a disease, and the name of the disease is usually called "capitalism" (although some hard-line capitalists would call it a "mixed-economy" instead).

The goal of the wealthy capitalist is to accumulate wealth and power. They do this by gathering "wealth" such as currency, "precious" metals, bonds, stock, deeds, etc - the end goal they are after is to live a life of luxury without having to lift a finger, while everyone else services them.

In order to accomplish their goal, they have to convince everyone else that the currency, "precious" metals, bonds, stocks, deeds, and derivatives that they hold is actually worth something... and they usually succeed in this, because they own the mass media.

However, none of these things are actually needed to produce things. And you can't actually use any of those things. You have to assume that others are willing to trade stuff for them - they have no intrinsic value in themselves.

So when it starts to unravel (which it always does from time to time in the capitalist boom-bust cycle often associated with investment bubbles), the unraveling sometimes spins out of control and you get much bigger meltdowns than at other times.

The goal of the capitalist is to try to save themselves by trying to reconvince the general working population that currency, "precious" metals, and other "investment instruments" are worth something.

If we want the employee population to get control of their economic lives, then we have to support employees that want to assume democratic control of the raw materials, machines, and buildings of the companies they work for (or used to work for). Those are the only things you really need to produce anything. So instead of just letting them sit around (which is what happens during a depression), you assume control of them and start using them to produce stuff for the economy again.

[Enragé]

no i dont support the bailout. What should be done is a full scale nationalisation of the banking system without (and i must stress this) any form of compensation for shareholders, thereafter immediately cutting wages of management to the average wage of a british worker.


If that were the case then economic crises would be the least intense period of class struggle, not the most intense.

Which is in fact often the case. Faced with lay-offs and job insecurity the working class can lose confidence (and also ability to some extent) to confront capital, since the reserve army of the unemployed swells enormously. This happened after the 1905 uprising in Russia (around 1908 there was a crisis i believe, i might be wrong about the exact year but something thereabout)

[Rangi]

I think some people may be ignorant of the fact that the collapse of the system as we know it would lead to you, I and almost all other people living in cities taking a huge drop in their standard of living and perhaps starving to death as well.

Here's how it would work: Banking system collapses. No money to buy petrol. Petrol stops turning up in major ports. No petrol for delivery of food to major cities. Food riots. Mass starvation.

I figure this would take about a week, maybe longer.

Don't get me wrong I'm not for capitalism but if you just pull the plug on the whole thing then don't expect it to be a smooth transition.

[cyu]

the collapse of the system as we know it would lead to you, I and almost all other people living in cities taking a huge drop in their standard of living and perhaps starving to death as well.



This also happens to be what capitalists want you to believe.

So that's why we plan, isn't it? You might get a start in this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-economic-crisis-t91844/index.html?p=1342440

[butterfly]

Here's how it would work: Banking system collapses. No money to buy petrol. Petrol stops turning up in major ports. No petrol for delivery of food to major cities. Food riots. Mass starvation.
Slippery Slope fallacy.

Sri Lanka under water? We better deal with the deficite first:rolleyes:

[Redheart]

The bailouts reward capitalist failure at the expense of the people.

I don't have words angry enough for what I think of this.