Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ford did not need the intervention and ironically turned a profit this quarter, while GM did not.
I wonder why not.
what's ironic about F turning a profit this quarter? They had no competition.
jcarlislescu, here's another example of different interpretations. I dont consider this temporary government takeover a socialist move. To us in the US the word "socialist" is freighted -- connotes totalitarian jackbooted thugs, etc. It also implies a permanent state. The gov's maj ownership of GM and Chrysler is not permanent.
You label the rescue and turnaround of GM and Chrysler "socialist" and therefore condemn it, but based on what? Based on your own interpretation of the word. Since the intent, the turnaround process and the outcome of this event are as capitalist as they can be, I contend that in the real world -- outside of your own head -- this was not a socialist move.
As for the last of the GM bondholders, who kept not selling -- they received a large percent ownership of the new company; when it goes public they can hold or sell.
GM != the means of production, so it's not even "partial" socialism.
Furthermore, GM borrowed the money. It's a loan, not a government takeover.
Ahh.. so in your eyes, you have to take over the entire industry for it to be considered "socialism". I have never read that concept anywhere.
Secondly, you are picking and choosing which portions of my arguement you want to debate. It wasn't about the money, it was about the requested resignation of the CEO AND the subsequent reconstruction plans that constitutes the "controlling production".
what's ironic about F turning a profit this quarter? They had no competition.
jcarlislescu, here's another example of different interpretations. I dont consider this temporary government takeover a socialist move. To us in the US the word "socialist" is freighted -- connotes totalitarian jackbooted thugs, etc. It also implies a permanent state. The gov's maj ownership of GM and Chrysler is not permanent. The last GM bondholders received a large percent ownership of the new company - when it goes public they can hold or sell.
You label the rescue and turnaround of GM and Chrysler "socialist" and therefore condemn it, but based on what? Based on your own interpretation of the word. Since the intent, the turnaround process and the outcome of this event are as capitalist as they can be, I contend that in the real world -- outside of your own head -- this was not a socialist move.
Don't get pissed at me that the textbook definition of socialism fits the GM situation to a T. I didn't write the dictionary or the theory of socialism. It is what it is, regardless if that word holds a level of condemnation among the people of this country. That isn't the issue.
Secondly, and for the 3rd or 4th time in this thread, it isn't about the money, its about the control. The Obama Administration TOOK OVER PRODUCTION of the company, the money was just the methods they used to get their hands on it.
Just as amazing as the OP is the fact that people who support socialist concepts are completely unable to call them for what they are.
People don't like socialism. Don't try to change the meaning of the word to drum up support. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, no matter how many times you tell me its a "chick".
Ahh.. so in your eyes, you have to take over the entire industry for it to be considered "socialism". I have never read that concept anywhere.
Try reading Marx. It's his theory, after all.
Your own definition states "means of production," not "industry," not "company." Read Marx.
Quote:
Secondly, you are picking and choosing which portions of my arguement you want to debate. It wasn't about the money, it was about the requested resignation of the CEO AND the subsequent reconstruction plans that constitutes the "controlling production".
Loan requirements != socialism. Whether it's a bank or the government providing the loan, requirements for that loan is not socialism. Read Marx.
Don't get pissed at me that the textbook definition of socialism fits the GM situation to a T. I didn't write the dictionary or the theory of socialism. It is what it is, regardless if that word holds a level of condemnation among the people of this country. That isn't the issue.
Secondly, and for the 3rd or 4th time in this thread, it isn't about the money, its about the control. The Obama Administration TOOK OVER PRODUCTION of the company, the money was just the methods they used to get their hands on it.
Just as amazing as the OP is the fact that people who support socialist concepts are completely unable to call them for what they are.
People don't like socialism. Don't try to change the meaning of the word to drum up support. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, no matter how many times you tell me its a "chick".
I really think you have a reading comprehension problem.
You obviously don't understand the concept of the Constitution of the United States. Additionally, WE DON'T WANT TO BE EUROPE.
You can't convince us. Not interested. Our GNP speaks volumes about maintaining our economic theories.
Please stop trying to convince Americans that Europes ways are "right". We don't try to convience you.
Trust me, to almost all Europeans America is a nation of lunacy. They don't want to be america at all either, but too often this government shoves in their face demands and pressures.
They have NO interest to meddle into american dealings or what you do in your own country. No one is convincing anyone. What I am opposing is yours and your comrades contorted ignorance about socialism; you are insulting these countries with your twisted propaganda. In fact, the word ignorant is mildly put... I am clarifying to people who may believe in your hallucinations, that socialism is nothing what you claim it to be!
Your own definition states "means of production," not "industry," not "company." Read Marx.
Loan requirements != socialism. Whether it's a bank or the government providing the loan, requirements for that loan is not socialism. Read Marx.
I think somebody needs to understand the difference between socialism and communism. It is also important to note that capitalism can come in small packets, just as socialism. It isn't a black and white world. You can have socialism in an economy without having the entire economy socialist.
Secondly, the concepts of socialism were around LONG before Marx wrote about them and expounded on the theories. Marx came up with the term "Means of Production", which is defined as:
means of production The means that are used to produce goods and services, including the social relations between workers, technology, and other resources used. The term is prominent in Marxist theory, since Marx's characterizationof capitalismhinges on the distinction between those who own the means of production (capitalists), and those who have nothing to sell but their own labour-power (proletarians).
So tell me. When the Obama took over GM, did they take over the capitalist nature of the business and control the workers, technology, and resources for production?
Do you feel the GOP abuses this word, picking a choosing what they deem "Socialist" as it fits their needs?
Their hero Bush oversaw the largest expansion of Medicare/Medicaid in history. Did they call him a "Socialist"? Of course not. Rather they applauded him.
Did they march in the street and call Bush a "Socialist" when he bailed Wall Street out to the tune of BILLIONS? Of course not. Rather they applauded him.
All of them will be using the Medicare when they reach the appropriate age. Why aren't they marching in the street and complaining about that? Do they write up signs and cry "Socialism" in the street over Medicare? Of course not. In fact the GOP is doing their best to strengthen that program.
Do they march in front of their local VA and scream "Socialists" as those who served our country walk (or wheel) in for medical care? Of course they don't.
Do they go to public schools all across this country and scream at their children's teachers for "indoctrinating their children" with "Socialism"? Of course they don't.
Do they march in front of libraries and scream "Socialists" to those who can check a free book or movie out? Of course they don't.
Do they scream "Socialist" while Fireman, Policemen, and other emergency personnel make their way into work each day? Of course they don't.
Do they write letters of protest about national parks they will never visit or roads they will never get to drive on? Of course they don't.
Do they scream at their parents, grandparents, great aunts and uncles when they go to pick up their social security check each month? Do they cut these people out of their life because they are free loading "Socialists"? Of course they don't.
Did they march in the streets after no bid contracts were awarded to Halliburton AFTER they were found guilty of fleecing the American tax payer? Of course not.
Are they willfully ignorant in regards to this word, embarrassingly so, assigning it to those they do not like? Of course they are.
And it is why they lost the last few elections.
The good thing about the current president and democratic majority, is that the line is finally being drawn in the sand for many Americans, the same line that the Republican Party has been straddling the past 9 or so years. Funny thing is, many of them are harrumphing 0bama while still straddling that line. LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
