OK, it’s pretty clear how this is going down . . . On June 1, GM will file for Chapter 11. The Presidential Task Force on Automobiles will help the company split into “good” GM and “bad” GM. The “good” GM will probably consist of Chevrolet and Cadillac, including the factories and management that produce some (all?) of the brands’ models. It will raise money from a public equity sale ($15 billion?) and investment banks ($10 billion?). It will use the money to buy the cherry-picked assets from the diseased company. The “good” GM will get up and running in a relatively short time; TTAC’s Ken Elias makes it 90 days or so. The owners of the “bad” GM—abandoned dealers, the United Auto Workers, suppliers, etc.—will squabble over their payouts into perpetuity. So, Ken and I have a bet. I say the PTFOA will direct that US taxpayers get a share of the new, good GM, as compensation for “our” $22.8 billion worth of worthless loans. Ken says Uncle Sam will write if off. Legally, Ken’s right: the feds can’t jump to the head of the creditors’ queue. But I say they will. What say you?
They wrote it off the second they gave it to them…
I say the PTFOA will direct that U.S. taxpayers get a share of the new, good GM, as compensation for “our” $22.8b worth of worthless loans.
I agree. The bondholders can object, but with the government engaging in some first-class saber-rattling, the bondholders are losing leverage by the day. Just a week or so ago, the talk was paying them something in the range of 15 cents, which pretty much translated into very few bondholders not be in a losing deal. Now, we’ve moved on to converting all of it to equity, which means that they get zero. As in nothing.
I suspect that Uncle Sam will figure out how to carry his loans into the new asset, but repayment will be slow and inadequate, if it happens at all. I’m guessing that it would be a condition for providing new money, which is needed for avoiding Chapter 7. I have my doubts about the Chapter 11 filing, but as time goes on, the odds of it go up. Obama’s task force seems less adverse to it than were Bush’s team, and the timing for filing it is getting better by the day.
There’s no way this ends anywhere near as clean as either of you think. “The 10 largest unions alone have given politicians about $280m since 1990, with about 95% going to Democrats” (Financial Times). The politicians won’t hand over control of so much money to a bankruptcy court. I say GM lives on the hand-outs for years and continues its slow decline.
I’m predicting the loans stay on the books of the New GM – for no other reason then political cover “See, they DO HAVE to pay us back…”
The devil in the details will be the payback terms and conditions. Even as a new corporation it will still be on financial life support – any debt they issue will be junk status – and priced accordingly.
So, instead of raising debt privately and having to pay a 15% yeild, they simply ‘borrow’ from the Gov’t at 4% – as if they were a Triple A rated firm.
Added up over tens of billions of dollars that is a huge subsidy.
Even so, the chances of a second trip to BK Court is 50/50 at best. Then it will get ugly. This whole exercise that we are witnessing is just Act 1.
Somehow, the money goes to the VEBA. I don’t know how they do this, but there will be some scheme to make the unions whole in order to payoff protect the patsies workers.
I trust people to do what is in their best interests. Therefore, I trust the Democrats to do whatever is necessary to protect the UAW, including taking the rest of us to the cleaners if that’s what it takes to ensure the UAW gets all the goodies they negotiated.
This is gonna be a sh*tstorm.
Personally, I don’t ever see a penny of this money ever being paid back. Chaguelyons says it best when he referes to the political contributions of the unions to the Democrats over the years. There is no way Obama or any other Democrat can do what really needs to be done with the Unions because of these donations. The taxpayers of America will be throwing money at the UAW and GM (Government Motors) for years to come always spinning that what a great investment it is in jobs all across the country.
At some point, I hope the “foreign” automakers get tired of paying off a competitor and do something, anything to put a stop to this. Canada will do no better because as long as Uncle Sam keeps pumping up the business Ottawa will have to follow. How sad this has become.
Maybe when the Chevy Volt sells its first 1 million cars will some of the money be paid back—–
TJR
I can’t wait to see the “GOOD GM” DEATHWATCH #1!
I wouldn’t count on this being paid back, we’re basically giving money to GM and Chrysler.
For Chrysler, the Fiat deal doesn’t seem to be happening very quickly, and even if it does I don’t see how Chrysler gets out of this alive. The Fiat based products would probably take a couple of years to get here, and what’s supposed to happen to the company in the meantime? There’s no way Fiat plans to piss away billions to kee Chrysler from going down between now and then, and as a taxpayer I’ll be downright pissed if the government dumps one more dime of my money into that piece of shit organization. How does a dead company pay back our tax money? They don’t.
For GM, I think it all depends on what happens with the C11(-ish) restructure. If they do it right, then it should put them in fighting shape, ready to make a profit again, almost immediately. Well, once their obligations as per BK court (or the intefering PTFOA) are dealt with. I suspect, however, that as with anything involving federal intervention, the whole thing’s going to get muffed up and GM’s going to walk out of the BsB (that’s bullshit bankruptcy) with nearly as much dead weight as they go into it with. Maybe as a smoke an mirrors deal they drop a couple of brands, or somehow find a buyer for Hummer and Saab (HA!), but keep their UAW obligations, many of their dealership agreements, and just generally shave very little cost out of their daily operations. The result would be leaving, still, very little room to make a profit. Add to that the continued need for incentives to move their cars off of dealer lots and a country full of people so pissed off at GM for taking us into the shitter with them, and you get a company that may be alive, but barely, and hardly able to pay back billions of dollars in loans. So, IMO, if it’s done the way that I suspect it’s going to happen, GM’s not paying us back either.
Bend over and grab your ankles, taxpayers, we probably aren’t getting this money back.
The presidential task force has already stated clearly that union concessions are a condition for moving forward. The viability statement made that clear, requiring “Approval of the Labor Modifications (Compensation Reductions, the Severance Rationalization and the Work Rule Modifications) by the members of the Unions.” It also requires “Receipt of all necessary approvals of the VEBA Modifications other than regulatory and judicial approvals; provided, that the Borrower must have filed and be diligently prosecuting applications for any necessary regulatory and judicial approvals.”
The UAW’s position is weak; it has even less leverage than do the bondholders. Everyone is going to get crammed down. Jobs will be lost, the contracts will be renegotiated, and all the rest.
The bond holders have every right to demand as much liquidation value as possible. Now that Obama & Co. is going to deny that right by shielding the only valuable part of GM from the bond holders.
This is Communism.
I lived in China for 17 years. I know what Communism is about. Communist party leaders are not natural born odd-balls. Communism happens when people try to take the seemingly easy but actually evil path of seizing private properties.
Funny that some TTACers kept talking about Chinese government is going to seize all the GM’s properties. Well, that didn’t happen, and we are watching the American government doing that.
You need to ask yourself: “What could possibly go wrong?”
I don’t have the time nor the energy to figure it out. But, the idea that this whole process will work smoothly, seems to me, to be very questionable.
I can see hordes of angry creditors converging on the bankruptcy court. I assume that the PTFOA thinks they can use Jedi Mind Tricks to control the proceedings, but it might not be possible.
Oh, well. It should be fun to watch. Pass the pop-corn, and if you are getting up, please bring a cold one back from the fridge.
And who, pray tell, will buy the “good GM” cars?
I’m I missing something here?The unions pump money into thier party/canditate of choice.The money is then used to get the party/canditate elected.
So now the unions need help,and they call thier markers in.This sure ain’t something new
The unions invited thier date to the dance,and they paid for the ticket.You dance with the one you brung.
mikey, only thing wrong is that the unions are only a minority population among all people that voted for Obama.
Say, you pay 10% for the girl’s ticket, why do you feel entitled to have her the entire night?
This is a nice analysis of what’s likely to happen in the best possible case, and I agree with RF on this one–the PTFOA will require a repayment. To quote MikeinCanada, ‘I’m predicting the loans stay on the books of the New GM – for no other reason then political cover “See, they DO HAVE to pay us back…”’
But the best possible case may not happen, and in any event it will depend on who’s in charge of the ‘new’ GM. If it’s the same uninspired crew (who will probably want to keep Buick and Pontiac as a ‘niche brand,’ whatever that is), then it’s only a matter of time until both ‘old’ and ‘new’ are BK. My litmus test is what they call the new improved version. If there’s anything resembling General Motors in the title it’s doomed. If it’s something like “Chevrolet Cadillac Motor Co.” it has a chance.
I think the government in it’s current arrogant state will jump to head of the queue only to be sued by very strong teams of lawyers that will cost us, taxpayers, huge amounts of money. And there is no escape from it. It is not a war or national emergency – it is redistribution of wealth. Those schmacks who were holding to their shares will be sacrificial lamb, but bondholders will put government sheisters to shame with Wachtel level firms and will be paid from government coffers at our expense. There was a reason Fed was very dissatisfied with bondholders resistance to convert their papers to worthless shares.
@wsn I agree with you 100%.But you can’t knock the unions fot trying to squeeze the biggest bang for thier buck they can get.
I’ve never been a strong Union man.Right now they are the only friends we have.Here in Oshawa even the retired salary guys are kind’a union friendly these days.
Its kinda weird in a way,cause for the first time ever all GM employees have a common bond.
Fact is hourly,salary,retired, active,and thousands of dependents and those living on surviver benifits,are all gonn’a get fu–ked.
Its one thing to stand on the bridge,having a beer and waiting for the train wreck.You a have a whole different perspective,when your a passenger.
There will be no write-off. We will be payed back, but it will take a long time.
And who, pray tell, will buy the “good GM” cars?
Lots of folks, I would think. Hell, a lot of people buy the bad GM cars – just not enough so GM can make money.
If “Good” GM will make cars like the Malibu and CTS, and improve their remaining lineup, I don’t see why they should have trouble moving the metal – if metal is moving at all.
wsn :
April 13th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The bond holders have every right to demand as much liquidation value as possible. Now that Obama & Co. is going to deny that right by shielding the only valuable part of GM from the bond holders.
This is Communism.
I lived in China for 17 years. I know what Communism is about. Communist party leaders are not natural born odd-balls. Communism happens when people try to take the seemingly easy but actually evil path of seizing private properties.
Funny that some TTACers kept talking about Chinese government is going to seize all the GM’s properties. Well, that didn’t happen, and we are watching the American government doing that.
GM would have failed back in December if the government hadn’t loaned it the money, and the bondholders would be in even worse shape.
The government isn’t “seizing” anything that has any value here. GM has a value in the negative tens of billions of dollars.
Plus, the government seizes private property all the time in a non-communistic fashion, unless building a freeway (by buying up the properties on the route via eminent domain) makes one a communist.
“GM will probably consist of Chevrolet and Cadillac”
Chevrolet, Cadillac, and GMC.
I doubt that Obama/Democrats are stupid enough to try and run an auto company but the “bad GM” will be paid for by the taxpayers just like the bank’s “toxic assets”.
autonut :
April 13th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
There was a reason Fed was very dissatisfied with bondholders resistance to convert their papers to worthless shares.
———————————————
Well, since Fidel Castro is retired, why not hire him as the Fed chair?
He is very experienced with state seizing private properties.
Geotpf :
April 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
GM would have failed back in December if the government hadn’t loaned it the money, and the bondholders would be in even worse shape.
The government isn’t “seizing” anything that has any value here. GM has a value in the negative tens of billions of dollars.
—————————————-
1) Your reasoning would have been valid if during the first bailout the government placed itself as the first in line of the debt holders. But it didn’t happen. So, the “GM would have failed” argument is invalid for current first in line debt holders.
2) Suppose that GM has $1 in assets and $2 in debt. Yes, over all, it’s negative value. But for the first in line debt holder, who lend $1 to GM, he is supposed to get his full $1 at liquidation. By denying him the due $1, the Fed is doing what Mao or Castro did years ago.
I, for one, would really like to see a moratorium around here on such empty jargon as “communist”, “socialist”, “fascist”, “Nazi” and the rest. In other words, Godwin’s Law extended to its most logical conclusion.
The hyperbole really debases the level of discussion. It provides no useful information, and tends to lead conversation away from cars and the automotive industry into a downward spiral of repetitive, unsubstantiated political rants.
If one can’t express his point of view without reaching for cliches, then it should make you wonder whether the point was particularly insightful in the first place. If you can’t add some well-constructed thought and some factual data into it, then think twice about saying it, particularly if you’ve said it many times before.
Pch101, Communism is real. As real as the taxes out of our pockets.
I use the term “Communism” to save space. Otherwise I would have to use a paragraph to describe the current state of American economics. Just as we use the term “car” to replace a full paragraph to describe a mechanical structure.
I use the term “Communism” to save space.
Er, no. One would use words such as “green” in place of “verdant” to save space.
You use “communist” out of context because you don’t have enough of a knowledge about comparative politics and economic systems to know better, and because it’s easier to reach for extremes because you aren’t capable of proper analysis. Joe McCarthy didn’t die, he just got broadband internet access.
Perhaps slightly off-topic.. The consensus seems to be the “Good GM” comprises Chevy and Cadillac. Does this mean Corvette will stay under the Chevy umbrella, or does anyone think Corvette will become a stand-alone brand?
“Say, you pay 10% for the girl’s ticket, why do you feel entitled to have her the entire night?”
As long as I get the 10% that counts.
You use “communist” out of context because you don’t have enough of a knowledge about comparative politics and economic systems to know better, and because it’s easier to reach for extremes because you aren’t capable of proper analysis. Joe McCarthy didn’t die, he just got broadband internet access.
While we’re calling for moratoriums on things, I’m pretty sure one of the things there’s already a moratorium on is “flaming … fellow commentators”.
Mikey
you can’t knock the unions fot trying to squeeze the biggest bang for thier buck they can get
I don’t mind…. I don’t care what the UAW workers get paid either. I really don’t care any more about GM than I do about the company that makes my shoes and socks.
However, I hope you won’t object to me complaining like Hell about them trying to get money out of my pocket for something that I have no interest in, and voting against any politician that tries to do that. Money that will go into the pockets of UAW workers is coming out of my pockets.
As long as they were minding their own business (even if that meant going out of business), I was minding my own business .
Nothing personal against you, and I understand your situation. I have close to 30 years with my firm, and a pension waiting. I’d hate to have it diminished. However, I’ve worked hard to see that my firm is managed as well as it can be to protect that pension….
I don’t think that GM and the UAW have been good stewards for their pension funds. All the kids who are older than you ate all the cake, and now there may not be enough left.
That’s terrible, but I don’t think America is in the mood to buy the UAW more cake.
FIAT has been planning to enter the North American market for the last few years so i would be surprised if it takes years to engineer their cars for the American market. I expect them to be there in six months.
GM isn’t in trouble, GMNA is in trouble (for a long time) and it is pulling GM-E, GM-Asia and the rest with them. A bankrupt GM will be a GM only existing of GMNA and as such will go the same way as Chrysler
“Joe McCarthy didn’t die, he just got broadband internet access.”
Lol that’s so true. Or a cable news show.
Of course it’s a write-off. ANY money given to GM or Chrysler is a write-off. The government is only trying to wash its hands. “Look! We DID try!” Plausible deniability.
@Ingvar
The gov’t saying “Look! We DID try!” has nothing to do with plausible deniability.
Plausible deniability refers to the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command where upper rungs quarantine the blame to the lower rungs.
I’d like to launch the term Persistent Idiocy, though, to describe GM management during the past ten years.
Wow – what an unholy mess. Frankly, far too many clever people involved for me to add anything of perspicacity.
However, makes you glad to have bought shares in Ford. Last man standing indeed. Let the US government play cars – Ford can concentrate on munching up market share and doing wonders for my portfolio!
The government never intended to get its money back. The extended TTAC gang are surely not the only people bright enough to realize that this money was being pissed down a rathole.
They will, however, talk tough and make all the right noises before writing off the money. They can’t risk a fundamental foundation of institutional investing (bonds) by undermining the very thing that lowers their risk (the fact that bondholders are creditors and thus first in line in restructuring or liquidation). There is a reason bonds cannot expect the same returns as equities: the risk is (supposedly) lower. If bonds carry reduced returns without the risk safeguard, who will continue to invest in bonds?
As for Pch101’s comment: I agree. I’m tired of the way these terms are chucked around on TTAC. It is intellectual laziness, and symptomatic of the extreme polarization in political thought.
And I don’t think Pch101’s comment was flaming at all. I hope RF and his crack team don’t feel the need to delete his post.
I don’t understand the question. Why would the government need to write off loans to itself?
The hyperbole really debases the level of discussion. It provides no useful information, and tends to lead conversation away from cars and the automotive industry into a downward spiral of repetitive, unsubstantiated political rants.
If one can’t express his point of view without reaching for cliches, then it should make you wonder whether the point was particularly insightful in the first place.
I’d suggest you read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, who goes into the intertwined histories of the fascist and progressive movements.
There are times when analogies to communism, fascism, socialism or capitalism are indeed appropriate.
We need some kind of reverse-Godwin law that describes how some folks can’t tolerate an appropriate analogy to a discredited ideology.
In the present case, companies doing the bidding of the government (firing executives, killing off models and brands) is a characteristic of fascist systems. Right now the gov’t has loaned money. If those loans were turned into an equity stake, we’d be approaching something more like socialism, where the state own enterprises.
I also agree with Pch 101. The same goes for the F word, it does nothing to enhance the topic.
so, what happens to the accounts payables? What happens to pensions? How do you divide plants between two companies? As said above, the devil’s in the details, and there are a lot of details :(
Pch101 :
April 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
You use “communist” out of context because you don’t have enough of a knowledge about comparative politics and economic systems to know better, and because it’s easier to reach for extremes because you aren’t capable of proper analysis. Joe McCarthy didn’t die, he just got broadband internet access.
—————————————–
I don’t need comparative politics to know what is Communism, because I spent the first 17 years of my life under the Communist China regime. (Then 17 years in Canada). How many years did you live in a Communist country?
Do Americans need to be a scholar at comparative politics to know what is democratic voting? Should those who don’t be denied the right to vote?
Many Americans (or Canadians) thought “Communism” is far and odd. I just want everyone here know that it’s not limited to an obscure foreign place. It’s here upon you.
Like it or not, I am just a messenger. (Sort of like a previous VW owner giving suggestions to prospect VW buyer.)
“I’d suggest you read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, who goes into the intertwined histories of the fascist and progressive movements.”
Goldberg’s book is a joke. It comes from the “Hitler ate sugar*!” ‘school’ of historical analysis.
Goldberg’s book is literally worthless – even if you accept the line of argument that Hitler represented a strain of totalitarianism distinct from but farther from liberal democracy than Stalin’s, his militantly ignorant work of political theatre cheapens your position, occults anything that resembles legitimate scholarship, and puts a crass political motive behind any even casual attempt to discuss history. That and he does a horrific disservice to the study of totalitarianism as an American phenomenon and is mainly doing what he does to call liberals nasty names, which is totally the one thing keeping us off the road to serfdom.
The Nazi Party may have had “Socialist” in its name, but North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic, and the Holy Roman Empire wasn’t any of those three words.
* http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar
Two GM predictions:
1) The loans will never really be repaid in full. The dollar amount of the principle may eventually come back in inflation degraded currency, but we will have less spending power after the GM loan than before.
2) There will be many lawsuits lasting for many years and lawyers will always sue the part of GM with deeper pockets. Attempts to separate “good” GM from “bad” GM will be very messy.
BTW, Hitler was a Union-buster and hated organized labor, but I’m not about to call the people on her who rail against the UAW closet Fascists.
Goldberg’s book is a joke. It comes from the “Hitler ate sugar*!” ’school’ of historical analysis.
Your comment makes it clear that you haven’t read Goldberg’s book.
“Your comment makes it clear that you haven’t read Goldberg’s book.”
O RLY? Why don’t you read the rest of what I wrote?
Speaking of books people haven’t read, have you ever taken a gander at Mein Kampf? There are whole screeds directed against “the Left”, not just Marxists but liberals and various people on the center-left. The very first people sent to concentration camps were left-wing politicians, and Goldberg completely insults their memory. Meanwhile, the conservatives actively supported Hitler in his rise to power, there was ZERO opposition on the right to him. The only political party to vote against his seizure of power were the Social Democrats.
Try reading what an actual historian has to say about his book.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history
I have suddenly come to the realization that GM may someday have only 12% of the North American market, and will not be any larger than Nissan. Does anyone realize Cadillac sells less cars than either Pontiac and Buick.
Wow, the US car industry is really headed for a shitbath.
“Does anyone realize Cadillac sells less cars than either Pontiac and Buick.”
Yeah, but without fleet sales is that still true? I’d be shocked if it were.
I really don’t see how they put Humpty Dumpty GM back together again without a federal judge. There is a huge soup sandwich of constituencies out there and this thing has become political.
Many of these constituencies have huge unreasonable expectations given the bailout mania of recent months.
BDB,
Try reading what an actual historian has to say about his book.
Your “actual historian” is a freelance writer. I don’t see that his credentials as a historian exceed those of Goldberg. Neiwert’s a lefty writer who’s upset that a book about commonalities between the progressive and fascist movements doesn’t talk about the KKK and George Lincoln Rockwell, hardly disciples of Hayek.
In any case, I notice you didn’t say that you actually read Liberal Fascism.
GM is entering the government’s hospice program. Nobody here gets out alive. The cancer has spread throughout the whole organization.
Perhaps slightly off-topic.. The consensus seems to be the “Good GM” comprises Chevy and Cadillac. Does this mean Corvette will stay under the Chevy umbrella, or does anyone think Corvette will become a stand-alone brand?
My guess would be that it will just stay with Chevy for now.
If we get into a branding discussion, I would say that ‘Vette should be it’s own brand – functionally it already is. I don’t see a problem selling a high priced car at a Caddy dealership. But I think GM has bigger problems to wrestle with right now.
Does anyone realize Cadillac sells less cars than either Pontiac and Buick.
If I’m not mistaken, Caddy comes in at #5 in sales amongst GM’s pantheon of brands. Buick is #6. Pontiac is #3 with a large part going to fleet sales. Still, a large part goes to individuals too, and while I personally find it perplexing that people buy Pontiacs rather than Chevies, I think the fact that they do so indicates the market wants another brand, above Chevy, but well below Caddy.
“In any case, I notice you didn’t say that you actually read Liberal Fascism.”
I did, it’s a joke. I mean, if you take his conclusions at face value, then World War II was a conflict where a Fascist USA is allied with a Fascist Soviet Union fighting a Fascist Germany.
I could write one called “Conservative Communism” and talk about how Stalin was really a right winger because he loved militarism, flag waving, loyalty to the state, industrialization, outlawed prostitution, criminalized homosexuality, and ate meat. Not to mention that Karl Marx himself favored mass gun ownership and free trade.
BTW, Hayek? You mean the Hayek that said this?
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.
Why, he sounds like some kind of Islamoliberalcommiefascist!
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/september/f_a_hayek_on_socia.php
Drove by a GM dealership today and in huge yellow letters on the side of a GMC Sierra pick-up was $18880!
It sounded interesting enough to make me pull in for a second look. The salesman wasted no time in getting out to the lot and within a few minutes of talking to him I told him it sounded good…….lets write it up. Told him I would give him the $18880 plus the 13% tax we pay here in Ontario in cash or certified cheque. I also told him I wasn’t interested in paying the $1350 destination charge or the $399 administration charge. He also wanted an additional $40 for gas and $10 to switch the licence plates into my name. He would of course be adding the 13% tax on to these items also just to add insult to injury.
I told him that I would call him back when I got home and talk again. When I called him back later in the day and repeated my original offer he again refused and said that the administration charge and destination charge was not negotiable and that even though the dealership insisted that he charge for the gasoline in the tank he could offer me a “free” oil change.
I replied that things would be cheaper and more negotiable after June 1st and told him to have a good day.
If GM is in such turmoil you would never know it judging by the treatment this dealership gives potential CASH customers.
It burns me that the only reason they exist at all is because of US and Canadian taxpayer dollars.
Let this dog DIE!
I don’t need comparative politics to know what is Communism, because I spent the first 17 years of my life under the Communist China regime.
I spent my diaper-clad years in the good ol’ US of A, but that wouldn’t make me a natural expert on baseball, Ford Pintos or the Federal Reserve by default. Please.
When you earnestly compare a one-party dictatorship complete with block captains and death penalty vans with a small-l liberal democratic republic with an electoral process and a Bill of Rights that most people take seriously, then you will naturally lack credibility because the comparison just isn’t credible.
The US is not a communist country, so stop bleating out that rhetoric as if Mao was on the one dollar bill. Your over-the-top descriptors tell me nothing, other than the fact that you don’t know much about either your home country or the one that you live in now.
If you have a problem with what is going with the US auto industry, that’s fine. (It’s not as if I’m exactly tinkled pink myself.) But you should be able to articulate your views in an intelligent, fact-based way that uses actual data and reasonable metaphors, not some left-field mangled definition of communism because you don’t have any backup.
That’s exactly what McCarthy did, which is why I raised his ghost. He used the “C” word to create panic and division when neither was helpful, and all to advance his questionable political career. It’s an ugly chapter of US history, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let it repeat itself without a fight.
Curveball prediction…..
The Chinese bid for the “new GM” and win…
I’m pretty sure the Judge has to take the highest offer..
back to the topic at hand here…
My take on the whole “Good GM” vs. “Bad GM” thing is that the latter will act simply as a vehicle for disposing what plagues GM in it’s current form. “Bad GM” has a very limited shelf life, it exists only to be thrown under the bus. Here’s the way I see it shaking down…
1. Current GM files for bankruptcy. Right now, the only asset they really have is the intrisitic salvage value of what they own.
2. The parts of GM worth salvaging go into “Good GM”. This will include likely any intellectual property rights, patents and all design drawings and details for both models produced under the banners held by “Good GM” and “Bad GM”.
3. Anything of limited use gets thrown into “Bad GM”. This includes old and obsolete factories and their employees, plus any of the debt obligations will be bought by “Bad GM” at a cheap price, through a US Government loan.
4. “Bad GM” may flounder for a bit, but likely it will simply just enter Chapter 9.
5. Whatever is left of “Bad GM” is simply sold off to whomever would buy it, so likely the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and Russians. Note what I said above though. If you buy an ex GM factory and want to use the existing toolings and have copies of design drawings, you will need to pay licence fees to “Good GM”.
6. The owners of “Bad GM”, aka the US Government, will have their loan paid out by the proceeds of the sale. Since the bondholders already took a haircut when the original GM went bankrupt, the proceeds may actually be close to the value of the money loaned to “Bad GM”.
7. “Good GM” continues on and hopefully prospers, still making money off the poor suckers who bought their old plants.
This situation may seem a bit odd and may not be technically legal, however from what I’ve read this is essentially what happened with the Savings and Loans Resolution Corp. I may be wrong at this, I am not an expert at US bankruptcy law since I live up in Canada, but this may be a possible scenario.
All collectivist ideologies have one thing in common: State ownership of the individual.
All people who embrace these collectivist ideologies have one thing in common: Immaturity.
The “New GM” will be a private entity.
I’m with Robert. The taxpayers probably go to the head of the line one way or the other. Without the taxpayer support, the whole shooting match would already be in liquidation.
Pch101 :
April 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
That’s exactly what McCarthy did, which is why I raised his ghost. He used the “C” word to create panic and division when neither was helpful, and all to advance his questionable political career. It’s an ugly chapter of US history, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let it repeat itself without a fight.
While I disagree with McCarthy’s methods, he was right. Just read the Venona Papers and what was released out of the former Soviet Union. There were plenty of US government employees working for the Kremlin.
BDB: I could write one called “Conservative Communism” and talk about how Stalin was really a right winger because he loved militarism, flag waving, loyalty to the state, industrialization, outlawed prostitution, criminalized homosexuality, and ate meat.
Only problem is that militarism, meat consumption, flag waving, loyalty to the state and industrialization are not necessarily “conservative” behaviors.
Anyone who believes this to be so needs to review the actions of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in the early 20th century, particularly in the years leading up to World War I (it was the progressives who agitated for U.S. involvement).
In the early 20th century, it was the progressives who led many efforts to ban prostitution.
(Incidentally, go to New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston or San Francisco, and see how many middle and upper-class liberals want prostitutes openly soliciting where they live, or a brothel operating next to their home. They will probably sound just like…the late Jerry Falwell, only without the southern accent or references to Biblical verses.)
Virtually everyone was against legalizing homosexuality in the early 20th century.
I find it amusing that anyone believes that Hitler was a right winger. When I was in college, one of my history professors – an avowed socialist, by the way, and a very good professor – made us compare the actions of Hitler and Roosevelt during the 1930s. The similarities in their domestic programs were quite illuminating.
Which isn’t to say that Roosevelt was a fascist. He wasn’t. It just shows that both fell to the left side of the ideological spectrum.
A more relevant division has been suggested by author Virginia Postrel – those who embrace the future, and those who are desperately trying to preserve the status quoe. On this site, the former would advocate letting the free market run its course with GM and Chrysler, while the latter would be those who want to pour taxpayer money into two sinking ships, oops, I mean GM and Chrysler.
moedaman: While I disagree with McCarthy’s methods, he was right. Just read the Venona Papers and what was released out of the former Soviet Union. There were plenty of US government employees working for the Kremlin.
Those papers were quite interesting. It showed that many of those mean, old anti-communists were right after all.
McCarthy’s problem – aside from his tactics – was that he was about five years too late. Steps had already been taken to rid the government of communist spies before he began his crusade.
“an avowed socialist, by the way, and a very good professor – made us compare the actions of Hitler and Roosevelt during the 1930s. The similarities in their domestic programs were quite illuminating.”
They were the same steps being taken by France and Britain and Canada and virtually every other western democracy during the depression. Again, do you eat sugar? Well, you know who else ate sugar? HITLER!
Hitler was firmly on the right. His allies in coming to power were big industrialists, monarchists, conservatives, Junkers (big land owners) and others on the right. His principal opponents were centrists, Social Democrats, and Communists. There was no opposition to him from the right. They were all too happy to go along with him as long as he would bust the Unions and the left and increase military spending. Any pretense he made towards the “socialist” in the name of his party was dropped once he was in power, where his policies favored big corporations and industrialists (just look at the Krupps).
BDB: They were the same steps being taken by France and Britain and Canada and virtually every other western democracy during the depression.
That doesn’t mean those steps were not favored by the left side of the political spectrum. It just means that they were popular in the 1930s.
If anything, it further proves that, regarding economic policies, Hitler was, in fact, within the mainstream of leftist thinking at that time.
BDB: Again, do you eat sugar? Well, you know who else ate sugar? HITLER!
Irrelevant. We are talking about specific actions tand policies taken by a person who is the head of government. A person can choose which policies to follow, and said policies will show where he or she falls along the ideological spectrum.
Everyone has to eat, and sugar – either refined or natural – is an important part of a healthy diet. The fact that Hitler ate it proves nothing, except that he was meeting at least one nutritional requirement of a healthy diet.
Although I do hope that he made regular trips to the dentist.
Hitler was firmly on the right. His allies in coming to power were big industrialists, monarchists, conservatives, Junkers (big land owners) and others on the right. His principal opponents were centrists, Social Democrats, and Communists. There was no opposition to him from the right. They were all too happy to go along with him as long as he would bust the Unions and the left and increase military spending. Any pretense he made towards the “socialist” in the name of his party was dropped once he was in power, where his policies favored big corporations and industrialists (just look at the Krupps).
You’re making a common mistake, which is to equate favoring corporations and militarism with right-wing ideology. They are not synonomous.
When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.
It favors PRIVATE PROPERTY (which means that they are concerned about stockholders) and minimal government interference in the affairs of business, but that is very different from favoring corporations. Libertarians are not agitating the government to bailout GM and Chrysler. They oppose it – and have been criticized on this very site for clinging too closely to ideology for expressing that opposition.
The “corporatists” are people like you who advocate giving private companies taxpayer money (unless one really believes that the “loans” will be repaid – such persons were probably also waiting for the Easter Bunny this past Sunday).
The rationale may be to “save jobs” or “prevent economic catastrophe” or “make sure grandpa can buy a brand-new Buick,” but the bottom line is that this is not an action supported by libertarians.
Soooo…by your own defintion, you are now a right winger? Who knew!
It’s the same mistake you made in a prior post, when you equated militarism, meat consumption, flag waving, loyalty to the state and industrialization with “conservative” behaviors. As history has shown, both sides of the ideological spectrum have been happy to adopt those tactics to gain and hold power. Unless Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot are now right wingers. That should certainly make for an interesting discussion.
As I said, read Postrel’s writings to get a better handle on more meaningful ways of determining ideological divisions.
When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.
You’ve made a common mistake — you’ve rewritten the definition to suit your particular vision of it.
For example, the Reagan vision of conservatism favored oligopoly and opposed antitrust. The theory was that globalization had created the need for large US companies unfettered by regulation that could compete in world markets. An obviously pro corporate stance, surely you wouldn’t label Reagan as a leftist.
Libertarianism is a tiny niche group on the right. They are not in the mainstream of the right, nor are they in league with conservatives on many issues, which is precisely why they get a different label to identify themselves.
By the mid-30’s, most governments were following some sort of Keynesian stimulus program because the old methods had failed miserably. (In the past, they had always failed, but this failure had been worse than usual.) They hadn’t all become “leftists”, but were trying to fix their broken systems by whatever means necessary.
BDB is correct. Hitler’s supporting coalition was from the right, and his main opponents were on the left. He broke the unions, attacked the communists and cozied up with the churches. This is all in the record, and not debatable.
What FDR, Hitler, and a whole bunch of other governments had in common is that they tried to use government programs to reduce unemployment, which was a devastating problem at the time. The difference was that FDR built roads for the sake of infrastructure, while Hitler built them so he would have an easier time invading Poland and France.
They had really nothing in common. And I would be cautious of using a “socialist” analysis for anything historical, as socialists tend to engage in heavy doses of revisionism, i.e. versions of history that nobody else accepts.
I’m not saying, btw, that there isn’t a “anarchist to totalitarian” axis on the political spectrum in addition to the right-left axis.
There is. On the left you have everything (going from anarchist to statist) from Anarcho-Socialists to Greens to American Democrats to European Socialists to Trotskyists to Stalinists. On the right it goes from Anarcho-Capitalist to Objectivists to Libertarians to American Republicans to Paleoconservatives to Fascists to outright Nazis.
The Left can be totalitarian, and so can the Right. To suggest only one side can be inclined towards totalitarianism is not only historically illiterate but dangerous.
Pch101: For example, the Reagan vision of conservatism favored oligopoly and opposed antitrust. The theory was that globalization had created the need for large US companies unfettered by regulation that could compete in world markets. An obviously pro corporate stance, surely you wouldn’t label Reagan as a leftist.
Reagan believed that free markets eliminated the need for antitrust legislation, and that markets would regulate corporations. That is not the same as saying he believed in government intervention on behalf of corporations in the economy – quite the opposite. For example, he opposed the Chrysler bailout (as did The Wall Street Journal), but it was done deal by the time he won the 1980 election.
Believing the corporations should have the freest reign possible to do their business is not the same as always favoring corporations. If said corporation goes bust, the right wing says, “Too bad. Not my problem.”
pch101: Libertarianism is a tiny niche group on the right. They are not in the mainstream of the right, nor are they in league with conservatives on many issues, which is precisely why they get a different label to identify themselves.
Libertarian teachings on antitrust and the role of markets have been hugely influential over the years.
What prevents the party itself – or any of its candidates – from reaching power is the more mundane stuff.
Namely, most people don’t want a brothel operating next door to their house; they don’t want their neighbors keeping five junked cars in the front yard; they like pollution control measures; and if they are cheated by a Bernie Madoff, they want the government to do something about it.
Pch101: By the mid-30’s, most governments were following some sort of Keynesian stimulus program because the old methods had failed miserably. (In the past, they had always failed, but this failure had been worse than usual.) They hadn’t all become “leftists”, but were trying to fix their broken systems by whatever means necessary.
If a leader adopts tactics advocated by those on the left, and other leaders who adopted them are described as liberals or leftists, then said government leader is from the left – at least on that issue.
pch101: BDB is correct. Hitler’s supporting coalition was from the right, and his main opponents were on the left. He broke the unions, attacked the communists and cozied up with the churches. This is all in the record, and not debatable.
What matters is what he did when in office, not who supported his rise to power. Lenin was supported by parts of the middle class and peasant class who later ended up being executed by the Communists.
Hitler heavily regulated the economy, instituted public works programs and tightened control over corporations. He institued the Kraft durch Freude (English translation – Strength Through Joy) program that was designed to eliminate the need for labor unions. He opposed unions not because he didn’t believe worker complaints were legitimate – but because he didn’t want another power base operating outside of government influence. The Strenght Through Joy program – which eventually encompassed the development of a low-cost car for workers, the Volkswagen – was the Nazis’ substitute for a labor union.
Corporations and the rich supported him because the alternative during the chaotic years of the early 1930s was worse – namely, communism, which would have brought even more government control of the German economy, along with confiscation of their property. A communist takoever of Germany in the early 1930s was a real possibility.
He opposed the communists and certain socialists because they advocated complete abolition of private property, and they took a more internationalist outlook. He particularly hated the second aspect – as did the average German, who was still angry over the humiliation of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. But his appeals to nationalism were not a tactic limited to the right – Stalin used them as well in the Soviet Union.
The fact that Hitler was an enthusiastic – and successful – participant in ideological warfare with communists and socialists on the left doesn’t mean that many of his ideas and policies were not leftist in nature.
Here in Pennsylvania the state Republican Party has been devouring itself as its moderate and conservative wings engage in regular warfare. That doesn’t mean that members of the more moderate wing aren’t true Republicans (despite the “RINO” rhetoric being thrown around).
pch101: What FDR, Hitler, and a whole bunch of other governments had in common is that they tried to use government programs to reduce unemployment, which was a devastating problem at the time. The difference was that FDR built roads for the sake of infrastructure, while Hitler built them so he would have an easier time invading Poland and France.
The rationale as to why he embarked on a public works program matters less than he did it in the first place. Also note that a big part of why he did it was to bring down unemployment levels. He also wanted the average German to have a car – that is why he pushed the program that ultimately resulted in the Volkswagen – and he knew that they would need good roads for those cars.
And militarism is not necessarily a hallmark of right wing thinking. American progressives in the early 20th century were quite happy to support both a strong American military and an inteventionist foreign policy.
Also, one of the rationales for construction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike prior to World War II – the construction of which was strongly supported by President Roosevelt – was the rapid movement of military supplies and troops in a time of crisis.
pch101: They had really nothing in common. And I would be cautious of using a “socialist” analysis for anything historical, as socialists tend to engage in heavy doses of revisionism, i.e. versions of history that nobody else accepts.
This particular lesson came from a textbook that was not written by a socialist. The professor used it and expanded upon it, but he didn’t come up with it on his own.
Although I do agree that the terms “fascist” “communist” and “socialist” are thrown around much too loosely on this site.
Obama is not any of the above.
We should all feel free to call GM upper management something even worse – incompetent.
“For example, he opposed the Chrysler bailout (as did The Wall Street Journal), but it was done deal by the time he won the 1980 election. ”
While supporting quotas for Japanese imports and instituting protectionist measures to save Harley-Davidson.
“And militarism is not necessarily a hallmark of right wing thinking. American progressives in the early 20th century were quite happy to support both a strong American military and an inteventionist foreign policy. ”
Don’t even confuse early-20th Century progressives with modern day liberals. It’s like confusing the Republican Party of the 1860s with the modern day one.
The “unions” Hitler replaced the real Unions with were a farce and window dressing. They didn’t mean anything, anymore than the fact the Soviet Constitution guaranteed free speech. The industrialists got to dictate working conditions, work rules, etc, by fiat, and the right to strike was outlawed. The national “Labor Front” was just window dressing and a rubber stamp for whatever the owners of the corporations wanted.
Reagan believed that free markets eliminated the need for antitrust legislation, and that markets would regulate corporations.
It was more than that. Reagan wanted oligopoly in certain areas because it was believed that small US companies facing larger US competitors would not be able to compete as the economy globalized.
That’s pro corporation, without a doubt. That contradicts your earlier statement: “When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.”
You’re engaging in a logical error called “affirming the consequent.” A simple example:
-All poodles are dogs.
-Rover is a dog.
-Therefore, Rover must be a poodle.
All libertarians are conservatives, but that does not stand to follow that all conservatives are libertarians. The absence of regulation, open borders and isolationist foreign policy views of textbook libertarianism are rejected by most who are on the right.
I’d avoid the delusions of grandeur that some libertarians engage in. Libertarianism just isn’t that popular, and conservatives tend to pick and choose the bits that they like from the libertarian camp while avoiding the stuff that they don’t. In other words, most of it.
The rationale as to why he embarked on a public works program matters less than he did it in the first place.
That’s wrong. If you are discussing political ideology, then you need to address one’s ideological motivations for a particular position.
There are a lot of activities that all governments engage in because those are functions of government. The 1930’s were a period of sheer desperation for governments around the world. At that point, they were in survival mode. European states, both right and left, have institutional memory of what happened to Marie Antoinette, and they’d like to avoid her fate.
And militarism is not necessarily a hallmark of right wing thinking
It traditionally is. The right-left axis began in the French parliament, where the monarchists who favor state institutions sat on the right, while those who favored popular rule sat on the left. The military and monarchy were closely associated, as the former used force to defend the latter, and that tradition remains.
We should all feel free to call GM upper management something even worse – incompetent.
No argument there!
Pch101 :
April 13th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
When you earnestly compare a one-party dictatorship complete with block captains and death penalty vans with a small-l liberal democratic republic with an electoral process and a Bill of Rights that most people take seriously, then you will naturally lack credibility because the comparison just isn’t credible.
The US is not a communist country, so stop bleating out that rhetoric as if Mao was on the one dollar bill. Your over-the-top descriptors tell me nothing, other than the fact that you don’t know much about either your home country or the one that you live in now.
———————————————–
It seems, after all, you don’t even know what Communism is about.
Communism, in terms of economics, is all about state planning and operating industries, i.e. what the Chinese government is doing to SAIC, or what the American government is doing to GM.
Communism, in terms of political structure, is all about demolishing the government—people are supposed to live in harmony without a government. That, we don’t have an example anywhere in the world yet.
It so happens that no government is willing to give up power. So, the Soviet and Mao era China models could be described as Communist economy + one party dictatorship (which is actually anti-Communism).
To be precise, no country is pure anything. There were still very small dose of democracy and capitalism within these countries.
The American political structure is somewhat elitist and somewhat democratic. Yes, you got to vote, but the establishment is so large, that the elected doesn’t fully represent the true will of the nation.
The American economy was previously a mixture of free market and also elitist. Now that every special interest group is lobbying for its own piece of pie. The compromise, now it seems, is the Communist economy model.
Again, in case you don’t know about the detail:
Communist model =
1) state inject money to state owned banks
i.e. Bank of China prints money, federal government gives that money to China Construction Bank.
Fed prints money, federal government gives that money to Citi group.
2) state owned banks is force by the executive branch to give loans to state owned industries
i.e. China Construction Bank (instructed by various levels of government) to give loans to multiple state companies
Citi (instructed by federal government) to give loans to GM, etc.
3) the state owned industries can then pay workers, but more importantly, pay CEOs (who has good connections with the government).
i.e. RiR got paid for running company down; similar things happen in China all the time.
4) during good times, the state owned industries make risky bets. CEOs pocket the profits; they just ask for more loans if there are losses.
i.e. AIG, Citi, ML, BoA …
very common in China also, such as Chinese Airline Fuel Company, etc.
Essentially, the communist economy, as we know it, is about the “elites” using the system. They make bets and keep the profits. The losses are to be shared, as in the “common” part of communism. Centuries ago, those in power would simply take what’s in the cache of the state, now that they become smarter and use the “system” to make profits.
In a capitalist (market) economy, the above procedure would break at step two, because the banks won’t lend money to the obviously non-viable companies. And thus step one won’t happen in the first place.
Communism, in terms of economics, is all about state planning and operating industries
And you might notice that the US is not operating the entire automotive industry, but is attempting to prevent a specific company that is considered to be “too big to fail” (i.e. it can’t fail without creating ripple effects that go well beyond the company itself) from dragging down the rest of the economy. The scope is different, the motivation is different, and the end game is different.
You have taken the “affirming the consequent” logical error to new depths:
-The Nazis built superhighways and supported private car ownership
-The United States builds superhighways and supports private car ownership
-Therefore, Americans are Nazis.
Your argument is illogical and extremist. You habitually compare apples to oranges, and you fail to see that governments **of all types** sometimes tinker with the economy on occasion, particularly when things get bad.
The US is not communist, and it’s ridiculous to say that it is. You don’t have to like the policies, but to claim that they are communist suggests a limited vocabulary and a general ignorance of political theory. That dog don’t hunt, and the more that you go on, the more that it looks like Old Yeller.
Pch101 :
April 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Communism, in terms of economics, is all about state planning and operating industries
And you might notice that the US is not operating the entire automotive industry, but is attempting to prevent a specific company that is considered to be “too big to fail” (i.e. it can’t fail without creating ripple effects that go well beyond the company itself) from dragging down the rest of the economy.
——————————————–
What I notice is that the US government is operating the entire automotive industry. The government now decides which company receives TARP, which CEO to kick out, which brands to cut, which cars to buy with public funding, which cars are (supposed to be) green … That is about to which extend China did/doing.
Do you truly expect Obama personally assembling cars for the US government to be “operating the entire automotive industry.”
———————————————
The scope is different, the motivation is different, and the end game is different.
——————————————–
Whether it’s in China or in the US, the scope is the same: to protect inefficient domestics from fierce foreign or private competitions.
The motivation is the same: to protect auto jobs for social stability and more importantly to protect the financial interest of the elite class (no, not the bondholders, think of the CEOs).
The end game is the same: they will die out. Before they completely die, they will keep on producing cars that nobody wants to buy. They will either slash the price, or force agencies to buy, or deny foreign companies access to the market.
Pch101 :
April 14th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
-The Nazis built superhighways and supported private car ownership
-The United States builds superhighways and supports private car ownership
-Therefore, Americans are Nazis.
—————————————-
Your analogy is flawed.
Car ownership is not unique to the Nazis. It can happen in any social systems. So, yeah, it’s wrong to say a system that allows car ownership is Nazis.
However, a government owning, planning and operating an industry is a unique, defining characteristic of Communism.
Thus, I have rightly stated that what the US did to GM is a Communist action.
The US is not a Communist state yet, because it’s other actions are not entirely Communist.
But should what’s happening at GM serve as a precedence for future dealings, the US would become a Communist regime in no time.
Car ownership is not unique to the Nazis.
That was the point of the metaphor. What the US is doing currently is not unique, either. The US and other western democracies have done similar things before, particularly during times of crisis.
If this was a communist country, it would have seized control of every auto company operating in the United States, created a permanent centralized planning program over 100% of US vehicle production, and limited our choices to a few awful selections. It would have also created a government-controlled sham union designed to create the illusion of an empowered workforce. And it would have done it a long time ago; it wouldn’t have waited for the greatest meltdown in seven decades to start.
None of that has happened. Your analogy therefore fails. Find a less polarizing, more accurate comparison, your current one isn’t working.
BDB: While supporting quotas for Japanese imports and instituting protectionist measures to save Harley-Davidson.
That’s the beauty – or flaw, depending on your perception – of the American political system. Namely, that a politician can backtrack from his or her core beliefs when necessary to stay in office.
The quotas on Japanese cars staved off something worse – namely, tariffs or domestic content legislation.
Of course, they also encouraged the Japanese to move upmarket (if they could only import so many cars, they were going to import more profitable ones) and set up an American production base. Both of which ended up hurting the domestics in the long run.
Harley Davidson? That’s called effective lobbying. I’m sure that, over Obama’s term, we will find areas in which he takes actions that don’t fit what he said he would do, or that deviate from leftist orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean he is a conservative – unless he governs completely from the right. Which is highly doubtful.
BDB: Don’t even confuse early-20th Century progressives with modern day liberals. It’s like confusing the Republican Party of the 1860s with the modern day one.
Can’t buy that. (And was I just imagining all of the praise for Franklin Delano Roosevelt by the left during the campaign, and constant pointers to his “first 100 days” when Obama was elected?)
Many liberals have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy and strong U.S. military. They just want to make sure that they – and not Republicans – are running both. Unless Hillary Clinton, for example, is not longer a liberal…
BDB: The “unions” Hitler replaced the real Unions with were a farce and window dressing. They didn’t mean anything, anymore than the fact the Soviet Constitution guaranteed free speech. The industrialists got to dictate working conditions, work rules, etc, by fiat, and the right to strike was outlawed. The national “Labor Front” was just window dressing and a rubber stamp for whatever the owners of the corporations wanted.
The Strength Through Joy program was not just window dressing. It was a very far-reaching program that did bring benefits to workers’ lives.
People, especially many Germans, don’t like to admit it, but if Hitler had stood for re-election in early 1939, he would have won in a landslide – especially among the working class.
Pch101: It was more than that. Reagan wanted oligopoly in certain areas because it was believed that small US companies facing larger US competitors would not be able to compete as the economy globalized.
That’s pro corporation, without a doubt. That contradicts your earlier statement: “When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.”
That seems to me to be more of a pro-business outlook than a pro-corporate outlook. Businesses need to be organized as corporations to compete in world markets. Whatever the type of business, Regan wanted as many obstacles removed for them as possible. If a mom-and-pop operation had a thriving export business, Reagan would have supported it, too.
But that doesn’t mean he would have necessarily bailed out corporations when they failed. That is the ultimate test of whether a leader or government is “pro-corporation.” (And I don’t think that first Bush and then Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler because of their exports or that they are competing in world markets.)
pch101: All libertarians are conservatives, but that does not stand to follow that all conservatives are libertarians. The absence of regulation, open borders and isolationist foreign policy views of textbook libertarianism are rejected by most who are on the right.
This is true, but that doesn’t mean that some libertarian ideas have not had a major influence on conservative thought.
pch101: I’d avoid the delusions of grandeur that some libertarians engage in. Libertarianism just isn’t that popular, and conservatives tend to pick and choose the bits that they like from the libertarian camp while avoiding the stuff that they don’t. In other words, most of it.
Certain aspects libertarian ideology have a had an impact on thinking. It’s the more mundane stuff that blocks their path to success (or elected office).
In this point, they are like communists and committed socialists. The latter two have many ideas, they inhabit think tanks and universities, and rarely, if ever, end up getting elected to office. But one cannot say that some of their ideas do not bubble up in the mainstream – but such ideas are always cleaned up, watered down, and presented by a more “respectable” person or official.
pch101: That’s wrong. If you are discussing political ideology, then you need to address one’s ideological motivations for a particular position.
When it came to building super highways, the motivation of Roosevelt was the same as that of Hitler. He believed in roads for rapid movement of troops. That is why he supported the construction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike – in addition to putting people to work, but putting people to work was also part of Hitler’s reason for building the Autobahn.
The main reason he didn’t need to build as many roads was because the states had traditionally taken on this role (in Pennsylvania, for example, Governor Gifford Pinchot had earlier instituted a program to pave country roads to “get farmers out of the mud.”)
pch101: It traditionally is. The right-left axis began in the French parliament, where the monarchists who favor state institutions sat on the right, while those who favored popular rule sat on the left. The military and monarchy were closely associated, as the former used force to defend the latter, and that tradition remains.
Militarism was a hallmark of the Soviet Union, and Putin appears to be promoting the same as he consolidates power in Russia.
Even France – which is hardly a right-wing country – has maintained a strong military regardless of which party was in power and does not hesitate to use it when necessary. (The idea that the French are “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” is nonsense. They can be tough when the need arises, and do no hesitate to aggressively protect their national interests with military force.)