@Draunar:

"That would force the executives to show their money rather than hide it. they would have to choose between keeping more or having more political clout." - yes that is the silver lining, but that's a cloud id' rather not see in my lifetime.

"The $9 an hour McDonalds order taker has less to lose boht as a percentage and in total value than the multi-millionaire. "

Fundamentally, no I believe that each only has at risk their own life and happiness. And thus the $9 dollar an hour employee should (and rightly is) valued as much as the multi-millionare. Further the rich who have earned their way do have more influence by dictating their company policy, choosing where to invest, they can have massive influence over many people's lives. This is unfortunately a privelidge which they are not elected to hold.

They have managed to accumulate large amount of money, and thus are able to hurt or help many people, the fact that company owners/investors become so disconeted from these people is why indivuals like Sicarius come to the opinion that these 'face-less multinational corporations' do not deserve to have their property rights respected. (though i would definitely disagree with Sic's solutions, i see how (emotionally) he could have come to feel such apathy/disgust for them (and the system which supports them).

Subsidizing the auto industry. Hmmmm......... is this not socialism?

I actually agree with Sicarius in the sense that I would prefer anarchism to anything Washington is churning out these days.

SteevoKun: "Marx saw a period of totalitarian control by some sort of centralized authority as a necessary stepping stone (of unmentioned duration) in the development of his ideal post-revolutionary society."

and Marx was very wrong - also his ideas as implemented by Russians left totalitarian control in a country which was used to totalitarian control (Communist Russia replacing Tzarist Russia) This did server to replace (and execute) the bourgeoisie and prevented them from returning to power - not that the average peasant noticed the change in who contorlled his/her destiny. It also resulted in the creation of a new class of politicians/buerocrats - the party membership who had more influence and power than the peasentry. The prevailing ideas of how to run the Russian economy may have changed (with considerable bloodshed) in 1917-18 but the country did not.

What Marx was talking about may have been entirely unrealistic: when a totalitarian system replaced the old system it didn't result in a new system which happened to be perfect with all peoples equal and happy, it resulted in the same system with different names.

On the other hand what happen in Marx's home country did not result in any totalitarian regimes (for very long) and did result in a mix of social services and independant corporate entities operating in a capitalistic economy.

The social services benifitted the poor and wealthy alike - the capitalist bussinesses allowed the risk-takers to make (and lose) money, become rich - invest - and many other stated and well understood priviledges of a pure capitalist economy (but with taxation based on income the richest pay more for the social services)

This has resulted in several European countries neither pure Capitalism nor pure Communism/Socialism - neither as Marxs predicted nor as Adam Smith imagined - a system which takes care of the poor (offering free education, health care, and minimal social welfare to cover food/rent/heating costs) So that every citizen has the same opportunity (they are men created equal - but only by society paying for their opportunity) to become rich, work hard and expierence all the joys and pains of a Capitalistic economy - or they can take up a secure but low paying job in the social services, paid for by the government and guarenteed to be there for them until they retire...

This sort of compromise is what you can see in many European countries (not to mention Japan, east asia, Canada, some middle eastern and south american countries) It is not Communist or Socialist and You MasterWarrior are Stupid and Ignorant for suggesting so.

@TMW: Subsidising the Autoindustry is an obvious TACTIC to keep something USEFUL (like big companies which cost a lot to setup) around and EMPLOYING people.

Pure Capitalism without any government interference would allow them to fail, it would allow Americans to lose their jobs and become unemployed, and within two year all cars sold in the US would be built in Europe and Asia - until the trade deficit crippled the US to the point where no-one could afford foreign products, and America became a third world country - asl any economist whether they think i'm being overly dramatic.

TMW/Diplofool - you do realize this isn't the first time Chrysler has been bailed out, right? Look back to 1979 and the early 80s. Carter started their bail out and Reagan continued it.

- oh and sorry to continue my thought: this TACTIC the US government is using is good (for US citizens at least in the short-medium term)

It also requires "Big Government" - or the Authoritarianism which many Americans oppose/fear - but Authority is NOT the same as Commune.

I'm with orathaic when it comes to the auto industry. The auto industry employees a huge gorup of people who can't afford to find other work if their employer goes under as they are specially trained, despite being "blue collar" employees.

The banking industry, however, should have been allowed to fail. Their employment numbers are significantly lower, and their typical non-executive employee has skills that can also be used in numerous other industries.

As an aside, the banking insudtry as a whole would not have failed. And most of the failing banks would have been bought out of bankruptcy by the more successful and less stupid ones.

banking as an industry can be run as a co-operative (credit unions which are owned locally and which pay their dividends out as interest to those people who save/invest in them) And thus finance loans to small/medium bussinesses - plus if the banking system failed all the people out of their jobs would have been needed to run/administer these local co-ops, but it would definitely have hurt many bussinesses and in the short term the US economy, to heighten the recession, and maybe even cause a depression... (i'm not saving a corupt failing system SHOULD be saved for short-term gains, let them fail and rebuild a newer better more sensible system which is easier to understand - it is much easier to understand how a machine works when you have a part in it's construction rather than when you are just a cog in it's operation...)

Whilst Reagen was the best president of the 20th Century, hands down, he wasn't anywhere near conservative perfection. I'm a constitutionalist. No bailouts for anyone. Period. No government interference unless the Constitution authorizes said interference.

I can spend my money better than (God forbid) Nancy Pelosi can spend my money. That's the really great thing about conservatism. Tax breaks! For everyone! Regardless of your income! You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money. This, my friends, is a description of an American utopia.

Reagan. I apologize for my unforgivable type-o.

you mean FDR right?

"As someone who is from a country whose constitution describes itself as socialist, I have to say that anyone who thinks the current US administration is socialist is either blind, delusional or an imbecile." - Gunmaster G-9
HA!!!! ROTFLMFAO

The reason the American auto companies failed is because they were badly run and the union workers were heinously overpaid. As a result, their vehicles sucked and were way too expensive (in the last decade, I've owned one Chevy and one Ford, and have had nothing but problems with both). Did you know there were thousands of UAW workers who under a union agreement with GM were literally sitting around playing dominoes all day and pulling $50-60K a year? This (and other atrocities) was all part of a union agreement where people whose job functions had been taken over by robots weren't allowed to be laid off. If you support the bailout, these professional domino players are very grateful to you. The auto industry absolutely should've been allowed to fail; by saving them, you're simply allowing their bad practices to continue, and the economy and consumers as a whole wind up taking the hit (in addition to all the taxes we have to pay for the bailout!). It's rather like feeding a cancerous tumor instead of surgically removing it.

If they had all been allowed to fail (as they should have been), that would not have been the end of automobile production in the United States; all the 'foreign' car companies (many of which I'll bet have lots of American stockholders) produce most of their vehicles here in the United States (almost entirely in the southern states, where taxes and regulations are lower and unions are unwelcome). The factories and trained workers of the zombie companies wouldn't've gone away; the remaining car companies would've needed to ramp up production in order to fill the new supply vacuum. You can be sure these workers would've been offered new jobs at new factories with equipment trucked down from Detroit to make new 'foreign' cars that actually work.

The reason some companies and industries get bailouts and others don't has nothing to do with how economically vital the industry is or how many jobs are lost. It's all about the 'campaign contributions' (AKA Legalized Bribes). I challenge all of you bailout supporters to show me a company or industry that's getting bailout money without paying their 'dues'.

@The_Master_Warrior "Whilst Reagen was the best president of the 20th Century, hands down"

Reagan? I think Nixon outshone Reagan by far. :)

@ TMW: Firstly, bailing out the General Motors does not represent socialism. Only if the government had nationalised the entire motor industry would this represent socialism. What they have done is make a limited (albeit costy) intervention, in line with the principles of a mixed economy.

Secondly, I challenged you to list all the government policies you considered 'Socialist', and you can only name one? You think you live in a Socialist country which is moving towards Communism, yet you can only give one example based on actual government policy?

This makes your position appear pretty weak.

JFK was the best 20th Century President. Active on civil rights, peace corps, lowering taxes, committed to returning the US currency to a sound standard.

Reagan was horrible in that he RAISED taxes on the poor, quadrupled the national debt (not the deficit, the entire debt!), started this foreign policy that has caused almost every other nation to hate us, and he has successfully created a large group of people who are homophobic.

JFK? Let's not forget the Bay of Pigs "invasion".

FDR? Let's not forget the reason why we have a massive debt. He set a precedent for out-of-control spending.

@ The_Master_Warrior: "Let's not forget the Bay of Pigs "invasion"."

Right on. America had no business meddling in Cuba's affairs.


Aside from arguing about who was the best US President, are you going to answer my challenge to list all the government's socialist policies, or are you just ignoring that because you don't want to admit that you were wrong on that point?

Can you explain why America has a trade embargo with Cuba? I mean seriously, is it really a policy which is still valid?

Because Florida is a swing state, and the Cuban expat community there (who are fiercely devoted to the embargo) is disproportionately influential.

No. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have invaded Cuba. But U.S. Marines should have done it, not a bunch of poorly trained Cuban dissidents. That would have taken out Castro really quick.

That bill that is going to get knocked down in the Senate? That's socialism. Welfare. That's socialism. Medicaid/Medicare. That's socialism. Housing projects. That's socialism. Do you want me to keep going? Because I could. Or do you get the point?

I think a poor, unemployed homeless person in need of medical assistance might have a different opinion. There's a little something called human rights, or even basic humanity.

just because you're a human does not mean you get everything you need. Money gets you what you need. We as humans have no right to medical aid. We have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But that doesn't mean healthcare should come free.

If you don't mind me employing a little bit of Darwinistic ideas here, I would say this.

"why should we even let the poor live? They contribute the least to society, and yet with this healthcare bill we would be devoting an incredible amount of money to them. Give money to the middle class. They are the ones that are really useful to society and they are also the ones that could use the extra cash. The high classes don't need it, and it is wasted by giving it to the low."

@Master_Warrior: "That bill that is going to get knocked down in the Senate? That's socialism. Welfare. That's socialism. Medicaid/Medicare. That's socialism. Housing projects. That's socialism. Do you want me to keep going? Because I could. Or do you get the point?"

Yes. You don't know what the word 'socialism' means.

@jman777
"...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" it's difficult or impossible to have any of these things if you're not healthy. Most economists agree that health care spending, especially for children, gives the biggest return for the money spent than in any other area. Your "Darwinistic" ideas were tried during the industrial revolution and the result was rampant crime and disease.

No idealistic philosophy ever works or ever has worked- pure capitalism is equally as flawed as pure socialism or (shudders) pure libertarianism. You need checks and balances to maintain a society that works.

@jman777- by what means do you come to the conclusion that the middle-class are the most useful to society? How does one judge such a thing?

@Master_Warrior, do you also feel that Veterans health insurance is socialism? how about elementary schools, roads,garbage collection,public libraries...and so on ?