The main problem with libertarian / pure capitalism is that it just does not work in the real world. It's just some nutty fantasy world they want to live in. The same goes for those fruiloops that want extreme socialism.
The best system is a combination of both. Where corporations/capitalism is the driving economic force with government used to regulate and protect the citizenry from the abuses of unfettered capitalism.
I'm mystified why that is such a hard concept to comprehend.
There are a ton of arguable reasons to dislike Obama's financial decisions made thus far. The auto bailouts, however are not one of them. No matter how you look at it, the "auto bailouts" were an astoumding success.
Countless numbers of jobs were saved at a time when Americans needed them the most. These companies were not taken over by the government, they were given loans which have almost completely been paid back to the American people.
The auto ind. have started to make record profits.
a system where some win and a lot lose is a stupid system. friedman is an idiot! what's wrong with everyone gaining capital either through private enterpise or government.
its irrelevant if government bailouts "work" or "dont work". When the government FORCIBLY deprives citizens of their property via taxation, and gives that money to others to whom it does not belong, it is theft. Plain and simple ...
@alc99 - COMMUNIST central government planning bailed out failed companies to keep people working , but there government owned companies and profits. SO it is natural they bailed them out.
But in the process they DESTROYED whole economy.
CCCP Yugoslavia(number 1 reason for war there) Poland
USA now is on the same path , they will keep bailouts until everything falls apart.
@zyjelly I'd like to have a CPA look over those books. Autoworkers earned their benefits and shouldn't be denied them because of management blundering. How much are their liabilities for management benefits, bonuses and endless perks for destroying once great corporations? They gave H. Ross Perot 5 Billion dollars to resign from GM. And that's just one example.
Friedman was wrong. Chrysler returned to profitability and repaid U.S. taxpayers. Letting them go out of business would have been disastrous for workers and taxpayers alike. Just imagine if the college where he was a professor went bankrupt and was going to end his tenure and cushy income, bet he'd sing a different tune.
@bddc201 Friedman was right. They would of returned to profitability faster or would of went out of business. How was forcing taxpayers pay for their bailout GOOD for the taxpayers?
@Xantheus07 Chrysler's workers kept their jobs, the taxpayers were repaid and we still have 3 major domestic automotive assemblers. If Chrysler had gone out of business, hundreds of thousands of workers in the supply chain would have been out of work, foreign competitors would have moved in like sharks and there would be less competition. All those people out of work would have cut the tax receipts. Friedman was an arrogant charlatan and possibly a sociopath.
@bddc201 Out of work for how long? Whats wrong with Foreign competitors? Competition is what keeps prices down. People like you just assume those people would be out of a job for the rest of their lives. It is NOT the governments responsibility to keep Private companies afloat. Friedman was right and the only arrogant charlatan is you. Lets see you go on news shows and discuss your economic prowess.
@Xantheus07 You sound a little invested in this. No, they probably wouldn't have been out of work forever, but probably would have been forced into bankruptcy, then a job that paid way less and expected far more. There has been a progressive silent war being waged on the working class in this country ever since Reagan was elected and it hasn't been good for anyone but the wealthy. As for foreign competitors, that's a whole other dialogue.
@bddc201 "There has been a progressive silent war being waged on the working class in this country ever since Reagan was elected and it hasn't been good for anyone but the wealthy." Yeah i guess its silent to everyone but communist huh. Also i guess all the people who became wealthy in the last 20 years are now the bad guys say for example the creators of google, facebook, youtube, myspace...etc. Tell me how many working class people did they kill to become rich. The only 1 invested in this is u
Under that system you are proposing -- in which corporation capitalize on profits and socialize losses -- there would be no incentive for any corporation to be efficient and be competitive. Would you care about putting in effort if you knew you would never fail? You are a lefty, probably. You support corporatism. I will side with capitalism. Thank you very much.
Gm did not go broke because they made bad cars! They went broke because they went into the banking business, GMAC. They got into the sub prime mortgages.
@zabijakblbu The collapse of ineficient banks and corporations is actually the reson why capitalism works, not proof that it fails, once the government controls stuff, it doesnt collapse no matter how inefficient it manages it. The whole point of bankrupcy is competition, and the whole point of competition is to channel ''greed'' towards productive behavior. What is it that you don't understand in the way economic insentives affect human behavior?
@TheProgressistViewer It's very easy ... capitalism itself heads to total society colaps as it takes away a real sense of human society existence which is surely not in its members self-satisfaction in separate lifes and material profits. Human society is about cooperation, doing what you feel is your mission without looking on your personal profit on the first place ... how could i explain it ... are you christian? So ... something like this ...
"Human society is about cooperation, doing what you feel is your mission without looking on your personal profit "
Friedman is not even discussing personal decisions, he is discussing government. True "Cooperation" is voluntary, and concerns the decisions of individuals. Government is by it's very nature a coercive institution. Somethings people need to be coerced into (such as not killing their neighbor) others they don't.
@TheProgressistViewer You are right about that. It's great when it fails b/c they can oust unionized workers and the buyer will pick it up for peanuts and make bank. These people get hypnotized by Ron Paul and they don't know much about economics...except what they thought they understood from listening to a soundbite.
I can imagine the kind of idiots Obama has as economic advisers. I remember reading an article on where one of Obama's economic advisers said that Obama never really listened to them and rarely changed his mind.
The only conceivable reason that Obama would take over GM, is that he did not want the existing union contracts (which slowly drained GM) to be renegotiated. It was just a payoff to more of his union buddies.
The next product of the federal gov will be snake oil that cures capitalism
Milton was right then and Obama is wrong now. Obama has not only sustained a poorly run business but also taught many other large American companies that they can still be run poorly but will get bailed out if well connected politically.
Except that GM is now doing quite well and employs over 200,000 people. The government made a profit on the deal, the shareholders are doing great and the employees are happy. What a terrible result.
@dtorfleming Detroit auto workers are not entitled to a job. If GM can't employ land labor and capital productively and produce goods consumers want to buy, what good are those jobs and the "value" they produce for stockholders? And you forgot about the one group that drives an economy - the consumers. Profits signal that companies are producing what consumers want and value. GM faced bankruptcy because consumers didn't value what they were producing. End of story.
@dtorfleming It's great that GM has survived but they should be getting their own financing or people like yourself can rescue them. Taxpayer bailouts only serve to teach companies they need more lobbyists than good business people. And BTW, GM stock is now worth a fraction ($24) of what you paid for it ($33).
I say let the Democrats keep taking over the car companies, b/c some day, a Republican President and Congress can use that power to break the Unions and the Union Contracts and sell the companies off back into the market and pretty much destroy what the Socialists attempted to pull in this country.
@sgt7 it was the government letting Lehman bros going under that sent a wave of uncertainty through the interbank lending markets and this was felt throughout the whole economy. Imagine if Gm Chrysler and ford went under. all of the parts companies would have lost 50% of their business...Toyota and Honda cant make up for that production. Business failure would have been rapid and and widespread. Thats not justice, that's just nihilism. We don't live in competitive capitalism but monopolies.
I don't think ppl understand the necessity of the bailouts: ppl deposit paychecks in banks, their consumption is on credit cards, their cars and houses are paid for by loans. Our lives are too financialized to let banks fail as if that has nothing to do with us. Car companies dont make cars, they use steel, chemicals, rubber, glass, electronics, plastics, tools, moulds, machines, they employ electricians and plumbers to run plants - the ripple effect of this would have been horrendous.
@JP2times2007 the fallacy is that the steel, chemicals, rubber, glass, electronics, plastics, tools, moulds, and machines would vanish when the company goes bankrupt. The truth is the assets would be purchased by someone else who thought they'd be able to put them to better use. they would then need people to work with the assets which would foster new agreements. maybe some of the workers would be able to get there jobs back, probably at a lower pay rate.
@aussieconservative If GM had been allowed to declare bankruptcy, that would make the existing contracts null and void. They could start over either as non-union or renegotiating the contract for union workers. The company would not have disappeared.
@JP2times2007 Nothing stands out more than the pay differencial between say a toyota worker at $49 per hour average and GM at $71. Nothing stands out more than the millions of dollars that GM has payed its top executives to go bankrupt whilst toyota pays its top executives substantially less for a profit (except in the most recent financial year). now imagine the injustice of working at toyota and paying federal income tax to bail out a worker in detroit that earns considerably more than you do
@aussieconservative When has pay differentials ever been a serious argument in capitalist societies? On the one hand you're decrying the bailouts bc its unfair in free markets but then you make a moral appeal based on the fact that GM workers get more than Toyota workers: CONTRADICTION. Sure Toyota pays there workers less and then their car quality suffers (millions of recalls) because workers clearly dont give a fuck about quality coming off the line.
@JP2times2007 You think the WORKERS sabotaged the cars (intentionally or not) because they weren't paid enough??? Fortunately, that's not the case. It was design flaws, things that should have been identified and fixed before they got to the assembly line. The idea that everyone who does the same job should be paid the same is preposterous. Businesses differ in their income, people differ in their skills, etc. People are not the same and they should be treated as the individuals that they are.
@aussieconservative, you're comparing apples with oranges. Of that $71/hour at GM, the UNION got the majority of it. That was not the pay that went to the workers. Their gross, before taxes, was probably $25-30, if that. The $49/hour is the gross amount going to the workers, before taxes.
@JP2times2007 If GM had been allowed to declare bankruptcy, that would make the existing contracts null and void. They could start over either as non-union or renegotiating the contract for union workers. The company would not have disappeared.
@zippywebgenie GM did declare bankruptcy and very successfully. It entered ch. 11 on June 1, 2009.4th largest in US history. Bankruptcy doesnt nullify contracts, its restructures the companies to pay its debts. Non-unionized employees are unsecured creditors and receive least priority. Unionized ones are secured creditors and have the ability to renegotiate. Gm cut 30,000 jobs from US operations. They shed billions in debt. U have no idea about this. U think they didnt go bankrupt.
@JP2times2007 Yeah, right. How many companies who declare bk get $600 million from the fed to bail them out? That's not exactly normal, is it? You seem to have forgotten about that "loan." Next you'll tell me they paid off that loan, without more fed money from the spendulous. GM made many mistakes for years, ones deadly to their business. GM should have closed down in Detroit years ago, and left the union there. GM should have closed down. Something else would have taken its place.
@zippywebgenie and even if it had dissolved, the vacuum could be filled by replacement businesses if they were easier to initiate and maintain. To quote Rand, "Get the hell out of my way!"
@zippywebgenie GM already forced the union laborers to take heavy pay cuts and concessions while executives received hefty bonuses. GM wasn't in financial problems because of unions, they were in trouble because of moronic business decisions, like going into the lending business (GMAC). That and things like having over 30 different instrument cluster options available for one model of auto. Or giving H. Ross Perot 5 Billion dollars to resign. That's billion with a B.
you know what is funny obama, GM went bankrupt anyway you tool. so we spent billions of dollars which just delayed the inevitable. And lo and behold GM has returned with things restructured.
I wish Friedman had wanted to run for office. He would've been a real intellectual who wouldn't have made such poor intellectual decisions.
Government doesn't have a right to decide which companies fail and which ones succeed! Why should the automakers get preferential treatment while the rest go to the unemployment line? It's harsh, but that's reality! We're in an economic downturn, and those auto employees should have to face reality: in this economy, very few people have guaranteed jobs for life. It's the postindustrial way. Get used to it. Get job skills for a higher-wage occupation, lazy bum autoworkers.
@whoo689 because cars are systems that bring together chemicals, rubber, steel, glass, design, computer tech, tool and die, oil, shipping, etc. together. Letting the 3 fail would have meant significant damage to these industries. Moreover, if these intermediary companies lose their 3 biggest customer, their wouldn't be sufficient demand from others to keep them open to supply Toyota and Honda. The ripple effects would have been disastrous. Failure was not an option unless you are a nihilist.
One of the fallacies used to keep the automakers from going bankrupt is this weird notion that we NEED to manufacture things like cars in order to have a good economy. What bullshit! The economy doesn't give 2 shits, pardon my french, what's produced. All that matters is GROWTH! Growth and prosperity and job creation and whatnot.
0:52 well what if the only way to manage companies effectively is bad business? what do you do then?
Deltrix4762 3 weeks ago
One word "UNIONS"
BillyThorton68 1 month ago
The main problem with libertarian / pure capitalism is that it just does not work in the real world. It's just some nutty fantasy world they want to live in. The same goes for those fruiloops that want extreme socialism.
The best system is a combination of both. Where corporations/capitalism is the driving economic force with government used to regulate and protect the citizenry from the abuses of unfettered capitalism.
I'm mystified why that is such a hard concept to comprehend.
stddgv11 2 months ago
There are a ton of arguable reasons to dislike Obama's financial decisions made thus far. The auto bailouts, however are not one of them. No matter how you look at it, the "auto bailouts" were an astoumding success.
Countless numbers of jobs were saved at a time when Americans needed them the most. These companies were not taken over by the government, they were given loans which have almost completely been paid back to the American people.
The auto ind. have started to make record profits.
stddgv11 2 months ago
a system where some win and a lot lose is a stupid system. friedman is an idiot! what's wrong with everyone gaining capital either through private enterpise or government.
halflifeproductionz 2 months ago
its irrelevant if government bailouts "work" or "dont work". When the government FORCIBLY deprives citizens of their property via taxation, and gives that money to others to whom it does not belong, it is theft. Plain and simple ...
82airbornesoldier 3 months ago
Milton for President lol
gamevirus01 3 months ago
I'd like to see more videos like this where obama is contrasted with Friedman.
spader49 6 months ago
@spader49
With Obama's economic illiteracy, this is just scratching the surface. Any particular issue you'd like to see Obama/Friedman contrast?
PenguinProseMedia 6 months ago
@PenguinProseMedia spending and healthcare, would be two good ones.
spader49 6 months ago
@alc99 - COMMUNIST central government planning bailed out failed companies to keep people working , but there government owned companies and profits. SO it is natural they bailed them out.
But in the process they DESTROYED whole economy.
CCCP Yugoslavia(number 1 reason for war there) Poland
USA now is on the same path , they will keep bailouts until everything falls apart.
aviomaster 6 months ago
@zyjelly I'd like to have a CPA look over those books. Autoworkers earned their benefits and shouldn't be denied them because of management blundering. How much are their liabilities for management benefits, bonuses and endless perks for destroying once great corporations? They gave H. Ross Perot 5 Billion dollars to resign from GM. And that's just one example.
bddc201 7 months ago
bailout = legalized stealing.
mba2ceo 9 months ago
Friedman was wrong. Chrysler returned to profitability and repaid U.S. taxpayers. Letting them go out of business would have been disastrous for workers and taxpayers alike. Just imagine if the college where he was a professor went bankrupt and was going to end his tenure and cushy income, bet he'd sing a different tune.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Friedman was right. They would of returned to profitability faster or would of went out of business. How was forcing taxpayers pay for their bailout GOOD for the taxpayers?
Xantheus07 9 months ago
@Xantheus07 Chrysler's workers kept their jobs, the taxpayers were repaid and we still have 3 major domestic automotive assemblers. If Chrysler had gone out of business, hundreds of thousands of workers in the supply chain would have been out of work, foreign competitors would have moved in like sharks and there would be less competition. All those people out of work would have cut the tax receipts. Friedman was an arrogant charlatan and possibly a sociopath.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 Out of work for how long? Whats wrong with Foreign competitors? Competition is what keeps prices down. People like you just assume those people would be out of a job for the rest of their lives. It is NOT the governments responsibility to keep Private companies afloat. Friedman was right and the only arrogant charlatan is you. Lets see you go on news shows and discuss your economic prowess.
Xantheus07 9 months ago
@Xantheus07 You sound a little invested in this. No, they probably wouldn't have been out of work forever, but probably would have been forced into bankruptcy, then a job that paid way less and expected far more. There has been a progressive silent war being waged on the working class in this country ever since Reagan was elected and it hasn't been good for anyone but the wealthy. As for foreign competitors, that's a whole other dialogue.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 "There has been a progressive silent war being waged on the working class in this country ever since Reagan was elected and it hasn't been good for anyone but the wealthy." Yeah i guess its silent to everyone but communist huh. Also i guess all the people who became wealthy in the last 20 years are now the bad guys say for example the creators of google, facebook, youtube, myspace...etc. Tell me how many working class people did they kill to become rich. The only 1 invested in this is u
Xantheus07 9 months ago
@Xantheus07 I don't recall accusing anyone of murder. Being wealthy in and of itself is not inherently evil.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201
Under that system you are proposing -- in which corporation capitalize on profits and socialize losses -- there would be no incentive for any corporation to be efficient and be competitive. Would you care about putting in effort if you knew you would never fail? You are a lefty, probably. You support corporatism. I will side with capitalism. Thank you very much.
LogicalFlawDetector 8 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector What system did I propose?
bddc201 8 months ago
@bddc201
Corporatism. It's implied, from your irrational justification for bailouts and pseudo-compassion for workers and tax payers.
LogicalFlawDetector 8 months ago
@LogicalFlawDetector You sound like a smart guy, so smart that you know what happens when you assume things; correct?
bddc201 8 months ago
Down with the James Taggarts of the world
Porojukaha 10 months ago 2
Gm did not go broke because they made bad cars! They went broke because they went into the banking business, GMAC. They got into the sub prime mortgages.
MrGearySr 11 months ago
@MrGearySr either way it was poor management.... the argument to bail them out is just as weak, perhaps more so.
2plus2make4 10 months ago
yes, i agree in that with Friedmann but it would just show that capitalism doesn't work (after colapses of Banks, corporations ...)
zabijakblbu 1 year ago
@zabijakblbu The collapse of ineficient banks and corporations is actually the reson why capitalism works, not proof that it fails, once the government controls stuff, it doesnt collapse no matter how inefficient it manages it. The whole point of bankrupcy is competition, and the whole point of competition is to channel ''greed'' towards productive behavior. What is it that you don't understand in the way economic insentives affect human behavior?
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer It's very easy ... capitalism itself heads to total society colaps as it takes away a real sense of human society existence which is surely not in its members self-satisfaction in separate lifes and material profits. Human society is about cooperation, doing what you feel is your mission without looking on your personal profit on the first place ... how could i explain it ... are you christian? So ... something like this ...
zabijakblbu 1 year ago
@zabijakblbu
"Human society is about cooperation, doing what you feel is your mission without looking on your personal profit "
Friedman is not even discussing personal decisions, he is discussing government. True "Cooperation" is voluntary, and concerns the decisions of individuals. Government is by it's very nature a coercive institution. Somethings people need to be coerced into (such as not killing their neighbor) others they don't.
Califacience 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer You are right about that. It's great when it fails b/c they can oust unionized workers and the buyer will pick it up for peanuts and make bank. These people get hypnotized by Ron Paul and they don't know much about economics...except what they thought they understood from listening to a soundbite.
pimpingmrli 1 year ago
I can imagine the kind of idiots Obama has as economic advisers. I remember reading an article on where one of Obama's economic advisers said that Obama never really listened to them and rarely changed his mind.
The only conceivable reason that Obama would take over GM, is that he did not want the existing union contracts (which slowly drained GM) to be renegotiated. It was just a payoff to more of his union buddies.
The next product of the federal gov will be snake oil that cures capitalism
groam6666 1 year ago 3
Milton simply makes sense. Why haven't people learned?
Andybaby 1 year ago 2
If you use Milton as a reference point - you would need the Hubble telescope to find Obama.
deathtrapdeath 1 year ago
Oh Milton, why did you have to go? We're in a real mess and we have an idiot for a president.
RightWingCon81 1 year ago 3
Milton was right then and Obama is wrong now. Obama has not only sustained a poorly run business but also taught many other large American companies that they can still be run poorly but will get bailed out if well connected politically.
alc99 1 year ago 37
@alc99 they blackmail with the threat of their own weaknesses. That is pull superseding push.
killer3596 11 months ago
@alc99
Except that GM is now doing quite well and employs over 200,000 people. The government made a profit on the deal, the shareholders are doing great and the employees are happy. What a terrible result.
dtorfleming 1 month ago
@dtorfleming Detroit auto workers are not entitled to a job. If GM can't employ land labor and capital productively and produce goods consumers want to buy, what good are those jobs and the "value" they produce for stockholders? And you forgot about the one group that drives an economy - the consumers. Profits signal that companies are producing what consumers want and value. GM faced bankruptcy because consumers didn't value what they were producing. End of story.
PenguinProseMedia 1 month ago
@dtorfleming It's great that GM has survived but they should be getting their own financing or people like yourself can rescue them. Taxpayer bailouts only serve to teach companies they need more lobbyists than good business people. And BTW, GM stock is now worth a fraction ($24) of what you paid for it ($33).
alc99 1 month ago
I say let the Democrats keep taking over the car companies, b/c some day, a Republican President and Congress can use that power to break the Unions and the Union Contracts and sell the companies off back into the market and pretty much destroy what the Socialists attempted to pull in this country.
investorspolldotcom 1 year ago
@investorspolldotcom ah that's pretty ingenious
gonadcancervictim 1 year ago
@sgt7 it was the government letting Lehman bros going under that sent a wave of uncertainty through the interbank lending markets and this was felt throughout the whole economy. Imagine if Gm Chrysler and ford went under. all of the parts companies would have lost 50% of their business...Toyota and Honda cant make up for that production. Business failure would have been rapid and and widespread. Thats not justice, that's just nihilism. We don't live in competitive capitalism but monopolies.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
I don't think ppl understand the necessity of the bailouts: ppl deposit paychecks in banks, their consumption is on credit cards, their cars and houses are paid for by loans. Our lives are too financialized to let banks fail as if that has nothing to do with us. Car companies dont make cars, they use steel, chemicals, rubber, glass, electronics, plastics, tools, moulds, machines, they employ electricians and plumbers to run plants - the ripple effect of this would have been horrendous.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
@JP2times2007 the fallacy is that the steel, chemicals, rubber, glass, electronics, plastics, tools, moulds, and machines would vanish when the company goes bankrupt. The truth is the assets would be purchased by someone else who thought they'd be able to put them to better use. they would then need people to work with the assets which would foster new agreements. maybe some of the workers would be able to get there jobs back, probably at a lower pay rate.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@aussieconservative If GM had been allowed to declare bankruptcy, that would make the existing contracts null and void. They could start over either as non-union or renegotiating the contract for union workers. The company would not have disappeared.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
@JP2times2007 Nothing stands out more than the pay differencial between say a toyota worker at $49 per hour average and GM at $71. Nothing stands out more than the millions of dollars that GM has payed its top executives to go bankrupt whilst toyota pays its top executives substantially less for a profit (except in the most recent financial year). now imagine the injustice of working at toyota and paying federal income tax to bail out a worker in detroit that earns considerably more than you do
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@aussieconservative When has pay differentials ever been a serious argument in capitalist societies? On the one hand you're decrying the bailouts bc its unfair in free markets but then you make a moral appeal based on the fact that GM workers get more than Toyota workers: CONTRADICTION. Sure Toyota pays there workers less and then their car quality suffers (millions of recalls) because workers clearly dont give a fuck about quality coming off the line.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
@JP2times2007 You think the WORKERS sabotaged the cars (intentionally or not) because they weren't paid enough??? Fortunately, that's not the case. It was design flaws, things that should have been identified and fixed before they got to the assembly line. The idea that everyone who does the same job should be paid the same is preposterous. Businesses differ in their income, people differ in their skills, etc. People are not the same and they should be treated as the individuals that they are.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
@aussieconservative, you're comparing apples with oranges. Of that $71/hour at GM, the UNION got the majority of it. That was not the pay that went to the workers. Their gross, before taxes, was probably $25-30, if that. The $49/hour is the gross amount going to the workers, before taxes.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
@JP2times2007 If GM had been allowed to declare bankruptcy, that would make the existing contracts null and void. They could start over either as non-union or renegotiating the contract for union workers. The company would not have disappeared.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago 27
Comment removed
JP2times2007 1 year ago
@zippywebgenie GM did declare bankruptcy and very successfully. It entered ch. 11 on June 1, 2009.4th largest in US history. Bankruptcy doesnt nullify contracts, its restructures the companies to pay its debts. Non-unionized employees are unsecured creditors and receive least priority. Unionized ones are secured creditors and have the ability to renegotiate. Gm cut 30,000 jobs from US operations. They shed billions in debt. U have no idea about this. U think they didnt go bankrupt.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
@JP2times2007 Yeah, right. How many companies who declare bk get $600 million from the fed to bail them out? That's not exactly normal, is it? You seem to have forgotten about that "loan." Next you'll tell me they paid off that loan, without more fed money from the spendulous. GM made many mistakes for years, ones deadly to their business. GM should have closed down in Detroit years ago, and left the union there. GM should have closed down. Something else would have taken its place.
zippywebgenie 1 year ago
@zippywebgenie and even if it had dissolved, the vacuum could be filled by replacement businesses if they were easier to initiate and maintain. To quote Rand, "Get the hell out of my way!"
killer3596 11 months ago
@zippywebgenie GM already forced the union laborers to take heavy pay cuts and concessions while executives received hefty bonuses. GM wasn't in financial problems because of unions, they were in trouble because of moronic business decisions, like going into the lending business (GMAC). That and things like having over 30 different instrument cluster options available for one model of auto. Or giving H. Ross Perot 5 Billion dollars to resign. That's billion with a B.
bddc201 9 months ago
Billions down the drain. Your children and their children and so forth will pay the burden with interest !!!!
axe863 2 years ago
you know what is funny obama, GM went bankrupt anyway you tool. so we spent billions of dollars which just delayed the inevitable. And lo and behold GM has returned with things restructured.
I wish Friedman had wanted to run for office. He would've been a real intellectual who wouldn't have made such poor intellectual decisions.
umrmecheman 2 years ago
Government doesn't have a right to decide which companies fail and which ones succeed! Why should the automakers get preferential treatment while the rest go to the unemployment line? It's harsh, but that's reality! We're in an economic downturn, and those auto employees should have to face reality: in this economy, very few people have guaranteed jobs for life. It's the postindustrial way. Get used to it. Get job skills for a higher-wage occupation, lazy bum autoworkers.
whoo689 2 years ago 4
@whoo689 because cars are systems that bring together chemicals, rubber, steel, glass, design, computer tech, tool and die, oil, shipping, etc. together. Letting the 3 fail would have meant significant damage to these industries. Moreover, if these intermediary companies lose their 3 biggest customer, their wouldn't be sufficient demand from others to keep them open to supply Toyota and Honda. The ripple effects would have been disastrous. Failure was not an option unless you are a nihilist.
JP2times2007 1 year ago
One of the fallacies used to keep the automakers from going bankrupt is this weird notion that we NEED to manufacture things like cars in order to have a good economy. What bullshit! The economy doesn't give 2 shits, pardon my french, what's produced. All that matters is GROWTH! Growth and prosperity and job creation and whatnot.
whoo689 2 years ago 3
Great post. We need to relearn the wisdom and lessons of the past.
alc99 2 years ago