"American capitalism gone with a whimper"

[mrmako777]

http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

"It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

thoughts?

[magley64]

the guy is a tad bit zealous...

[Kosmo]

some yankee banged his wife .......

[Disclaimer]

Oh noes!! Capitalism isn't any more!! :rolleyes:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_like.php

What Socialism Looks Like

Have you heard that the United States is headed toward socialism? Jonah Goldberg says it is. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby says it is. Phyllis Schlafly says it is. Richard Viguerie says it is. The Republican National Committee says it is. We must be getting pretty close.

How close? This is what socialism looks like:

The hot-pink portion of this pie chart is the percentage of listed

American business assets that have recently been nationalized by the American

government (ie, General Motors). Obama's version of

socialism is so sneaky you can hardly see it!

(And there is some reason to think this actually overstates the portion of

the corporate landscape that's been nationalized, but more on that at

the end of the post.*)

There is a serious discussion to be had here, and I think Jon Henke is having it:

Socialism, like farenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that

nationalizes GM is "more socialist" than one that does not, even if it

doesn't mean we're living "under socialism." But differences of degree

shouldn't obscure differences of kind, and as Tim Fernholz says,

"it's clear that putting the government in charge of private production

is not the Obama administration's guiding philosophy."

If it were, 99.79% of the American corporate assets that existed at the start

of the Obama administration would not remain in private hands. The

differences of degree are so small that they aren't worth mentioning.

And yet, somehow, they keep getting mentioned.

Update: A couple of commenters have asked for a different chart, so I've posted another item on this here.

---

*(I'm using asset information from the US flow of funds account. This chart is basically an updated and modified version of one

I did for the business site, using slightly different data and a

slightly different metric. There were some very thoughtful criticisms

of that chart, so I decided to make a new one using asset information.

That said, this measure isn't perfect. I'm excluding a lot of assets -- households, farms, the financial sector -- in part because there's no precise data (see here

for more) and in part because I want to avoid the same assets being

counted twice. And I don't include liabilities. Please let me know of other methodological suggestions in the comments section.)

[V4junkie]

That pie chart is great. +rep to JRMii

[Earache]

Incorrect word usage; it's "than" not "then".

One thing to misuse a word continually, another to put it in print. Stupid fuck.

[jbot]

i for one am not concerned at all that the government has taken the first small midget step towards socialist-ish-ism.

i mean, what is one small act of buying massive portions of independent banks to prop them up and taking control over a small company like General Motors?

not at all concerned that these are unprecedented and completely unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government with tax payer funds and funds from the magic money making machine. Shit, son, it only cost 5.7 cents per bill to print money in any denomination anyway, so why not?!

[dmagicglock]

even .0001% is too much. No business should be "too big to fail". This completely goes against free market capitalism principles. If you allowed GM to fail, I think you would see other car companies increase their market share in the auto industry, thus increasing their production, sales and hiring of employees (likely former GM employees). Instead we gave 17 billion to them last year, delayed the inevitable and the company still went bankrupt. Granted you could make a pie chart that shows a small ownership of corporation by the government but socialism embodies more than just government taking over private entities. There is also a huge push for nationalizing healthcare, increasing corporate taxes in 2010, and limiting the pay of executives in the financial industry, especially to institutions who received TARP funds. Do I think we're going to turn into China or Cuba in the next year or two? No... but a lot of these actions are steps away from capitalism towards a less successful economic model. Just my two cents.

[smashweights]

i for one am not concerned at all that the government has taken the first small midget step towards socialist-ish-ism.

i mean, what is one small act of buying massive portions of independent banks to prop them up and taking control over a small company like General Motors?

not at all concerned that these are unprecedented and completely unconstitutional actions taken by the federal government with tax payer funds and funds from the magic money making machine. Shit, son, it only cost 5.7 cents per bill to print money in any denomination anyway, so why not?!

Exactly. a HUGE financial institution in AIG and a HUGE industrial power in GM. If no one is complaining about the HUGE buyouts, how much less will they complain when smaller business get bought up.

even .0001% is too much. No business should be "too big to fail". This completely goes against free market capitalism principles. If you allowed GM to fail, I think you would see other car companies increase their market share in the auto industry, thus increasing their production, sales and hiring of employees (likely former GM employees). Instead we gave 17 billion to them last year, delayed the inevitable and the company still went bankrupt. Granted you could make a pie chart that shows a small ownership of corporation by the government but socialism embodies more than just government taking over private entities. There is also a huge push for nationalizing healthcare, increasing corporate taxes in 2010, and limiting the pay of executives in the financial industry, especially to institutions who received TARP funds. Do I think we're going to turn into China or Cuba in the next year or two? No... but a lot of these actions are steps away from capitalism towards a less successful economic model. Just my two cents.

EXACTLY. If GM had been allowed to fail, there's still just as many ppl that need/would buy cars. Ford etc. would increase their sales just because of that and would eventually need to expand and hire all up ppl with experience, ie. GM workers. What is wholly unfair is to use tax money that was taken from OTHER automakers and give it to their competitors when they can't make a product that competes with them.

For what it's worth, buying a GM or Chrysler vehicle is now the most UNAmerican automobile purchase you can make.

[Disclaimer]

You guys miss the big picture.

The town I grew up in will now be a ghost town because GM went bankrupt. This wasn't about saving the company so much as it was trying to save the workers IN the company and the communities that based their entire economy around GM workers and their discretionary income.

Guess what happens to those workers? Unemployment - so what's more economical, trying to keep these people employed and producing products with government money, OR

using government money to pay for unemployment, where people AREN'T being productive? Oh, and not only are the workers unemployed, but so are all the restaurants and businesses that these workers used to spend money in.

Tell me what's more economical?

[dmagicglock]

It might not be more economical for your particular town, but on a large scale... It would be more economical for the US to allow it to fail. If you let it fail those facilities could be repurposed for another manufacturer to employ the residents of your town. Our constitution doesn't guarantee job placement or availability. Being laid off is a terrible situation and I realize it has ripple effects for the surrounding community, I know I live in the Dayton area. Part of one's own responsibility is to continually make one's self a valuable asset to any company. That might require that you seek further education, retrain, or specialize in a field that is a growing area. It might also require someone to move to an area with less unemployment and job availability. People have to be proactive in their own success. That being said capitalism has a sort of "natural selection" process built in to it. A sort of "survival of the fittest". Just as species in ecosystems who fail to adapt to environmental restraints become extinct, so do businesses in a free market society. I'm sure GM would be more successful if it had followed the honda or toyota manufacturing process. These companies make similar vehicles with better fuel standards, better re sale values, less recalls AND have factories in the United States and WITHOUT union labor and greatly decrease their overhead costs allowing them to be a much more profitable venture. They pay employees less than half on average to do the same job as Union Members at GM. I really do feel sorry for anyone who has lost their job, especially people who have dedicated their lives to a company. However, concerning GM, I find it hard to have empathy for someone who made $50.00 an hour operating on a assembly line, when in all due reality, the degree of specialization for their job should pay them well under $15 an hour. You can keep pouring money down the funnel known as GM, but if you don't greatly restructure the company, i.e. Union Labor, Overhead production costs, vehicle quality, etc etc you're only delaying the inevitable and the business will fail again. The only difference this time is that we'll be out 80 billion as opposed to the 17 billion we've lost since this last fall.

[Disclaimer]

I follow all your points, but you're sadly misinformed on a lot of them.

The $50/hr wage... that's myth. I've posted links in other threads on this board that's to the contrary, and having a member of my family being on of the highest paid union employees of GM - he makes no where near $50/hr. Wages at GM are comparable to other auto industry standards. The legacy costs are what kills GM, and they've unloaded most of that onto the union now... so that's no longer an issue.

And I don't know how you can take the legacy costs out on the current employees, those were negotiated LONG before this. When the foreign automakers started building plants and whatnot, the jobs that were offered didn't give the benefits that GM had. That's like me faulting you for taking a job in your field that would better provide for you and your family. The majority of people that bitch about automakers wages are ill-informed white collar workers, or other blue-collar workers that usually, in all honesty, are jealous they're not GM/Ford/Chrysler employees. Not to mention that Japan has national healthcare and doesn't burden their Toyota or Honda with those costs. You're not comparing apples to apples - as Honda and Toyota are also under gov't oversight in Japan. So it's funny to me how people cry out "GM should've been more like Toyota and Honda" - well, they are now, the US gov't has a stake in their success, you've got your wish. You can't have it both ways.

You also mention retraining and relocating - easy if you're in your mid-30s, but what about a guy 3 or 4 years from retirement? All his plans are shot to hell. Now he's gotta move from the homestead he planned on retiring to, potentially go work for an additional 10 years. You can't PLAN for a future if shit keeps changing. Relocating and retraining are is the answer in many cases, but not all.

Edited June 7, 2009 by JRMMiii

[dmagicglock]

I'm not sure how I'm sadly misinformed... here's some info from google finance.

Competitive Labor Cost Comparison (UAW/Chrysler #'s)

2006 Average Labor Costs - UAW represented (per hour worked)

DaimlerChrysler $75.86

Ford $70.51

General Motors $73.26

U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison

2005 Average Labor Costs

Honda $42.95

Nissan $41.97

I don't disagree with you when it comes to taking a job that has higher pay/benefits... You'd be an idiot not to, however I know that if I got laid off from a company, I would be applying for a similar job at a competitor company. You mention people that are 3 or 4 years away from retiring.. that sucks but life happens. I'd also like to see a statistic of how many people actually fall in that demographic.

You talk about national healthcare in Japan with the other auto manufacturers but I'm referencing their plants in the U.S. They give good benefits to workers here through private U.S. health insurance, so that is still an overhead cost for them.

Current employees may not recieve the benefits of the legacy costs being paid out to the older retired employees but they still pay Union dues and vote for their Union Representatives who negotiate(d) their contracts. So indirectly or collectively the members are responsible for thier own fate.

I guess the moral of the story is, I respect your opinion, and I think we can agree to disagree. I genuinely feel bad for people that get laid off or are too far in their life to retrain. However on a personal note I'll never buy another GM vehicle or Chrysler for that matter. I drive a Grand Prix and my wife has a Pacfica and my next car will probably be a Subaru or a Honda.

Here's a good article from business week back in 2005 that predicts GM going bankrupt due to many of the reasons I mentioned previously.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_19/b3932001_mz001.htm

[Disclaimer]

Those figures include benefits and legacy for retired employees - the line workers don't see anything beyond $28/hr for normal wages and that's the highest wages they'll ever attain. And, that's 2006 facts, they've shed more costs since then to bring them in line with the Japanese manufacturers, within $10/hr, though that won't take effect until 2010.

http://www.sodahead.com/question/247583/the-truth-about-uaw-workers-compared-to-japanese-companies/

http://archives.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081120/news_1b20facts.html

I don't have a statistic for the 3-4 year demographic, that's more of a personal relation. I'm sure its not a large group, but why should any group get shafted?

And while we can continue to agree to disagree, it's easy to say these people "are responsible for their own fates" when you're not living in that position. And I don't understand why people blame the unions - the bargaining was collective. Management opened their books and said "Here's our cost structure, here's our profit, we can negotiate a little as to what benefits you want", management can't/won't agree to anything they couldn't afford labor-wise. Labor is 15% of the cost of a vehicle anyway, the big piece of the pie is in material. Why put the onus on the blue collar worker? The whole point of paying these 'exorbitant' wages for unskilled labor is so the people building the cars can afford the cars as well as support the community at large. Do you know how many GM employees donate to charity? There are charities that are going to basically go belly-up because the money is now gone. It's easy to tell everyone in the community, "Hey, stiff upper lip, you're just one of the unlucky ones" when it's not your community. So many other jobs are dependent on the tax revenue these plants bring in... schools, the police force, local business. I guess unless you've living in one of those communities you wouldn't understand.

[smashweights]

failure and rebuilding are part of life. at worst, GM could have sold itself or each of it's brands off to other companies. there's plenty of options other than free government money. and yeah, towns can and do go bell-up. it happens, people move, people move on.

[Disclaimer]

Originally from Jalopnik:

Far Right Wing Hates America, Will Buy Toyotas Anyway

Some conservatives are hatching a plan to boycott GM because of government ownership, because nothing says sound fiscal policy like trying to torpedo the sales of a company you already own. Ohh, the commentary is priceless.

Right Wing threatens to launch boycott of “Government Motors.”

We live, it’s often pointed out, in a polarized society, and few things, of late, have been more divisive than the debate over the federal bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. When first proposed, late last year, surveys found a solid majority of Americans opposed to using billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up the two financially floundering manufacturers. And though that position is beginning to soften, there are still “certain parts of the country that do not like the concept,” concedes GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young.

In fact, among the hardcore right wing, that opposition appears to be increasing, for any number of reasons, not all of which is specifically due to the issues of saving the automakers. Nonetheless, the bailout is triggering a backlash that has some arch-conservatives calling for an all-out boycott of the makers, and especially of “Government Motors,” as critics call it, which will emerge from bankruptcy with the Treasury Department holding more than 60% of the “new” GM’s stock.

Among those who have given voice to the idea of a boycott is the conservative host Hugh Hewitt, who made the bailout a pet peeve on his nationally-syndicated talk radio show, as well as in the blog he posts on the website, Townhall.com. “In the two days since the nationalization of GM was announced, the callers and e-mailers to my program have been 10 to 1 against the Obamaization of the American car business,” contended a June 3rd posting, by Hewitt, who added that, “This is a decision that must be reversed. GM must be denationalized.”

How?

“Individual Americans have a role to play,” argued Hewitt, echoing on-air comments. “They have to say no to GM products and services until such time as the denationalization occurs,” he wrote, concluding that, “every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise.”

Hewitt is by no means alone. The boycott theme is quickly spreading across the conservative talk radio world, as well as on websites like the one operated by the rightist Washington Times, where comments like this one from “HanoverMan,” suggested there were at least some potential buyers ready to listen.

“Once the UAW becomes part of the ownership group, I will never buy another GM again - ever,” wrote HanoverMan, in response to a poll by the paper asking readers whether they think the ailing automaker “will ever regain its footing as a national icon?” The results, by the way, showed 84% of respondents answering “no.”

Will the critics make a boycott stick, potentially strangling the new GM right from its inception, thereby hurting U.S. taxpayers, or is is this tale, as William Shakespeare wrote, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?

When asked if he fears the call for a boycott will cut into sales, GM’S CFO Young said, “I don’t think so,” adding that, “I believe the vast majority of Americans want us to succeed. They want the hometown team to succeed.”

For his part, analyst Jim Hall, of 2953 Analytics, cautioned that, “You always worry when people are organized against you, but,” Hall stressed, “you’re talking about a small wing of a party that’s imploding.”

Indeed, there’ve been a number of efforts organized, over the years, against major corporations. Only a few have had a measurable impact. Others, such as the one built around claims that Proctor & Gamble’s logo signified devil worship, have made plenty of noise, but not much more than that. At first, Ford Motor Co. appeared to buckle under when Rev. James Dobson, the controversial founder of Focus on the Family threatened a boycott because the automaker was advertising in various homosexual publications. The company quickly reversed course and risked the wrath of ecumenicals when it renewed much of that advertising - but ultimately, the threat fizzled out.

And, added several observers, in today’s polarized environment, a call for a GM boycott by the right wing could actually win the automaker some sympathy in more liberal parts of the country - communities like San Francisco - which have typically had their own biases against domestic auto brands.

[Disclaimer]

Posting this just for teh funniez.

The 2012 Congressional Motors Pelosi GTxi SS/RT Sport Edition!

http://jalopnik.com/5284974/the-2012-congressional-motors-pelosi-gtxi-ssrt-sport-edition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY