Why is the federal government providing $25 billion dollars to an American industry that has been on the brink of bankruptcy for years? Does no one in Congress understand the concept of capitalism? If an entire industry is going under it is because there is not a demand for their products. If GM, Ford and Chrysler can’t compete on the global market, they need to stop making cars or increase efficiency, not borrow money to cover the discrepancy between supply and demand. This $25 billion amounts to nothing more than dead weight loss. Now, the manufacturers will have to replace that loss in addition to getting their supply and demand curves back in line.
Although I have not been briefed on the economic forecast for the “Detroit 3,” I do know that people are not buying cars they days. This means manufacturing cars is ill advised and cutting back production is the answer. Unfortunately, this might mean people will lose their jobs but it does not make sense to continue pumping money into an industry that is not taking measures to operate in accordance with the demands associated with their consumer market.
If they are going out of business, they need to go to a bank or they need to close their doors. That’s what capitalism is all about. It is inappropriate for the Federal Government to “loan” money to whoever asks. What happens if the auto manufacturers go out of business? How will the American people get their $25 billion back? The answer, if we are concerned with helping the American auto industry, is finding a way to stimulate the economy so that people can buy cars, not giving businesses money to make a product no one can buy!
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The State of the Union
Pursuant to last night's presidential elections and the ensuing commentary, I have a few things I feel are absolutely necessary to point out.
1. Why was there "unprecedented security" in Grant Park but the same was not warranted in Arizona?
Although it has certainly (albeit, sadly) been a concern that Obama might meet the fate of JFK, thus being the motivating factor behind the "unprecedented security" in Grant Park, it seems to me that far more people despise Sara Palin. Granted, I would suggest she's more likely to meet said fate on an unfortunate hunting trip, perhaps with Vice President Cheney, than at any lackluster Republican political fiesta. Does no one find it ironic that the "moral evangelical" Republicans are the ones we're actually concerned about murdering someone for once? Due to my frank disregard for Republican political issues in the wake of the Democratic victory, I will not discuss, but will only hint at similar acts with regards to, say... abortion clinics. Yet, on the whole, the country still maintains the stereotype that it is blacks who we should be afraid of in a dark alley, for at any moment, they might pull a gun on us.
2. I heard some moron on talk radio (because I never listen to talk radio I have no idea who it was, 810 am around Albany, NY) this morning suggest that higher taxation is a "loss of liberty."
As a preliminary matter, you might have a point. But riddle me this: isn't it a far greater loss of liberty NOT TO HAVE A JOB? I am fairly certain that is the predicament that the Bush, i.e. Republican, administration managed to get millions of Americans in. Shit, if you can't afford to put gas in your gas and a beer at the bar, you're stuck your house. How free does that make you?! As Southwest airlines says, "You are now free to move about the country." If you can't afford to get anywhere, you're not free. If you can't put food on the table, you're hardly living the American Dream. If your house is being foreclosed on, what good is the right to property? I think we all get the point. Pay a few extra bucks in taxes, circulate money in the economy, and we'll all prosper.
Interestingly, CEOs, top execs, many (aka pretty much anyone who hasn't already lost their Wall Street job) are taking a pay cut. So, riddle me this: what's the difference between a pay cut because the Bush administration let the economy get this bad and higher taxes? I'll tell you: the money doesn't go anywhere because it doesn't exist, apparently, so the government can't reinvest it in the economy so it might eventually get back to you. I wonder if there are any job requirements to being a political commentator, like having a basic understanding of politics or the economy.
3. Last night on CNN Bill Bennett made a comment to the tune of: We have a black President of the United States, clearly there is no longer any basis to state that African-Americans in this country are disadvantaged in their ability to succeed.
First of all, Barack Obama is a mixed race individual who identifies himself as an African-American. He is free to associate with whatever racial group he feels most comfortable, but that does not change the most important fact at play, his upbringing. Were Bennett's comment to be anything short of ignorant, we'd have to overlook the two African-Americans that have been appointed to the Supreme Court. And, for that matter, all accomplishments any individual African-American has achieved. The theory, that because one man did it, means that the problem of racism is resolved on the whole is ludicrous. The systematic structural basis of racism in this country is well documented and it was pathetic to see 3 other intelligent, educated people comment after Bennett before finally, someone spoke up, and pointed out the ridiculousness of the conclusion Bennett had drawn. And to think that man was once the Secretary of Education in the United States... talk about structural racism!
Bennett's comment was the equivalent of someone saying in 1947 that because Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in the major leagues that the racial playing field had been leveled. It was not until 1984 that Ronald Reagan awarded Robinson a Congressional Medal of Freedom recognizing the amazing courage of the first man to break the racial divide and begin the movement toward racial equality. Sports are a field of employment which now are largely racially biased toward minorities where hires are made based on the athletes' ability and, as Martin Luther King once dreamed, not based on the color of their skin. Perhaps Bennett had a brain fart and thought for a moment he was on ESPN rather than CNN? I suppose with his apparent level of comprehension, it might be easy to get the two networks confused.
1. Why was there "unprecedented security" in Grant Park but the same was not warranted in Arizona?
Although it has certainly (albeit, sadly) been a concern that Obama might meet the fate of JFK, thus being the motivating factor behind the "unprecedented security" in Grant Park, it seems to me that far more people despise Sara Palin. Granted, I would suggest she's more likely to meet said fate on an unfortunate hunting trip, perhaps with Vice President Cheney, than at any lackluster Republican political fiesta. Does no one find it ironic that the "moral evangelical" Republicans are the ones we're actually concerned about murdering someone for once? Due to my frank disregard for Republican political issues in the wake of the Democratic victory, I will not discuss, but will only hint at similar acts with regards to, say... abortion clinics. Yet, on the whole, the country still maintains the stereotype that it is blacks who we should be afraid of in a dark alley, for at any moment, they might pull a gun on us.
2. I heard some moron on talk radio (because I never listen to talk radio I have no idea who it was, 810 am around Albany, NY) this morning suggest that higher taxation is a "loss of liberty."
As a preliminary matter, you might have a point. But riddle me this: isn't it a far greater loss of liberty NOT TO HAVE A JOB? I am fairly certain that is the predicament that the Bush, i.e. Republican, administration managed to get millions of Americans in. Shit, if you can't afford to put gas in your gas and a beer at the bar, you're stuck your house. How free does that make you?! As Southwest airlines says, "You are now free to move about the country." If you can't afford to get anywhere, you're not free. If you can't put food on the table, you're hardly living the American Dream. If your house is being foreclosed on, what good is the right to property? I think we all get the point. Pay a few extra bucks in taxes, circulate money in the economy, and we'll all prosper.
Interestingly, CEOs, top execs, many (aka pretty much anyone who hasn't already lost their Wall Street job) are taking a pay cut. So, riddle me this: what's the difference between a pay cut because the Bush administration let the economy get this bad and higher taxes? I'll tell you: the money doesn't go anywhere because it doesn't exist, apparently, so the government can't reinvest it in the economy so it might eventually get back to you. I wonder if there are any job requirements to being a political commentator, like having a basic understanding of politics or the economy.
3. Last night on CNN Bill Bennett made a comment to the tune of: We have a black President of the United States, clearly there is no longer any basis to state that African-Americans in this country are disadvantaged in their ability to succeed.
First of all, Barack Obama is a mixed race individual who identifies himself as an African-American. He is free to associate with whatever racial group he feels most comfortable, but that does not change the most important fact at play, his upbringing. Were Bennett's comment to be anything short of ignorant, we'd have to overlook the two African-Americans that have been appointed to the Supreme Court. And, for that matter, all accomplishments any individual African-American has achieved. The theory, that because one man did it, means that the problem of racism is resolved on the whole is ludicrous. The systematic structural basis of racism in this country is well documented and it was pathetic to see 3 other intelligent, educated people comment after Bennett before finally, someone spoke up, and pointed out the ridiculousness of the conclusion Bennett had drawn. And to think that man was once the Secretary of Education in the United States... talk about structural racism!
Bennett's comment was the equivalent of someone saying in 1947 that because Jackie Robinson was allowed to play baseball in the major leagues that the racial playing field had been leveled. It was not until 1984 that Ronald Reagan awarded Robinson a Congressional Medal of Freedom recognizing the amazing courage of the first man to break the racial divide and begin the movement toward racial equality. Sports are a field of employment which now are largely racially biased toward minorities where hires are made based on the athletes' ability and, as Martin Luther King once dreamed, not based on the color of their skin. Perhaps Bennett had a brain fart and thought for a moment he was on ESPN rather than CNN? I suppose with his apparent level of comprehension, it might be easy to get the two networks confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)