Thursday, May 28, 2009

Sultan Knish Asks What's Wrong with A Little Wealth Distribution Anyway?



Blogger Sultan Knish posted the following article today. You'll find my comments in red.

Word that the Obama Administration may have used its power over Chrysler's restructuring process to shut down dealerships whose owners donated to Republican candidates, while leaving open dealerships that donated to Obama is spreading across conservative blogs. But while this kind of abuse of government power is shocking, it really shouldn't be. (I really hope that this isn't true. Will we ever know? If it is true, how do you Obama supporters feel about that? Is corruption OK as long as it's Barack Obama...you know, retribution for all of the foulness of white politicians throughout the annals of time?)



Government is an engine of wealth redistribution, and when it gains control of businesses, it redistributes wealth in a way that benefits its supporters. That is what government always does, no matter how it disguises it.

That is why despite all the leftist wishful thinking in the world, centrally planned economies are corrupt, inept and inefficient. (Wishful thinking or just plain "back-azzward" thinking?)

The free market operates based on profit motive. A store owner's goal is to sell products in order to earn a profit. If he provides discounts, he has to do it based on an economic incentive, for example selling at a lower cost per unit to a purchaser who buys large quantities. A store owner who sells products at a lower price to Democrats and at a higher price to Republicans, or who sells at a lower price to whites and at a higher price to blacks... is hurting his own profit margins and so is really hurting himself. The profit motive "purifies" economic behavior in the free market to a degree. By contrast within government there is no "purifier", except the legal system, which is also controlled by the government. (Well, that's as it should be according to Obama and Sotomayor)

A government's economic behavior is controlled by politicians who have only one goal, Patronage. Politicians gain control of resources in order to reward their supporters. This takes the form of providing government contracts or jobs to the individual supporters. It also takes the form of providing general forms of aid targeted at their base, e.g. welfare, union jobs. (Most people understand this and acknowledge the truthfulness of this statement-- but fail to take it to it's logical conclusion as described in the next paragraph)

When government gains control of businesses, it naturally goes into wealth redistribution mode and begins providing patronage to the supporters of the ruling party. Communist countries are a example of the system taken to its limits, with the entire economy controlled by the ruling party and wealth distributed to supporters of the party, based on their level of support and affiliation. (I've concluded that while Obama supporters will acknowledge that most politicians are panderers and beholden in some form or another to some group or organization, they fail to acknowledge that the "love-child" of pandering/beholdeness and expanding government is soft tyranny. They seem incapable of connecting the dots when it comes to Obama)

The more wealth the Federal government took in and gave out, the more it got into the patronage business. And that corrupted the free market and the national economy. Where individual businesses have economic disincentives for practicing discrimination or handing out wasteful contracts, the government has none.

Where individual free market profit is economic in nature, governments spend money in order to reward supporters and expand their base of support. Everything the Obama regime has done is textbook Machiavelli, but it is also the inevitable result of letting the same government that has treated the national budget as a pork barrel take holds of banks and the auto industry. (Yet, Obama supporters are perplexed and wondering why "wingnuts" like yours truly won't get off of Obama's case. Makes you wonder who the real "wingnuts" are doesn't it?)

No doubt there is a long list of industries that Obama will be happy to "bail out", and by bail out, we mean of course spend billions in taxpayer owned debt to take over, carve up and hand out to their supporters.

The rape of the American auto industry by Obama and his henchmen was a classic case of a gang of politicians robbing the country blind in order to provide patronage to their backers, both at the union and the dealership level. But that is par for the course.

Obama promised to fix the capitalist arrogance of the free market with some wealth redistribution, which is a lot like a mugger telling you that he can cure your credit card debt by taking all your money. Now we're seeing just how far that mugging went and how many victims it's leaving behind. And we're not done yet.

If the initial phase was the mugging, the next phase is that the beating the mugger dished out transmitted a disease which is now in the veins of his victim. When government takes control of an industry, it immediately promotes rent seeking behavior in order to increase its own wealth and power. This naturally drives up the cost of everything, produces inferior products and adds layers on bureaucracy on top of everything. (Oh Joy! Hope and Change is Mother.....isn't it?)

CAFE and a big package of regulations will insure that Chrysler and GM produce cars that meet the standards of the left, and that no one will actually want to buy or drive. The government naturally will buy the cars, both for itself, and subsidize their purchase for the "disadvantaged." Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac will have an auto buddy who exists to insure the "right" of everyone to own a car, with loans to people who can't pay them, for cars they can't afford. (Obama supporter: What's the matter with that?)

If Obama gets his way, the US auto industry will wind up looking like its Soviet counterpart, a government subsidized white elephant that will benefit no one but politicians and their supporters. And it will once again serve as a textbook example of what's wrong with wealth redistribution, and how absolute government power over the free market, corrupts it absolutely into patronage. (Source)-emphasis added

55 comments:

RightKlik said...

Great. Post.

Linda said...

I agree with RK...great post, but scary when you actually put it into words what our president is actually doing.

I do hope that our country can survive as the country we know and love. I for one don't want to live in a socialist economy. I think those that do should move to Russia, or where ever they still have socialism.

Paul Ervin said...

george bush did the same thing. remember haliburton and enron? just sayin...

Conservative Black Woman said...

PaulErvin~I think it's curious that as hated and reviled as Bush was by the left that if concrete evidence existed which could impune George Bush it would have not only surfaced but he would have been impeached....like Clinton. I am aware that the game of politics is unclean and anyone involved most probably has unclean hands. However when I think of all of the Clinton "gates" Whitewater
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Vince Fostergate
Donations from convicted Drug dealers and Weapons dealersgate
Wag-the-Doggate
Zippergate/Interngate
Chinese Commiegate
Pardongate

and the fact that he was actually IMPEACHED and the Left loves this man....it only solidifies in my mind that George Bush was/is quite an ethical man at least by comparison.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Also Bush didn't nationalize Enron or Halliburton. He didn't steal property from private citizens. Same can not be said for Obama.

uptownsteve said...

Oh CBW you're lurching into wingnut territory now.

I know how much you want to convince these white righties that you're one of them and not the "uuusual" negro but how and when did Obama "steal" private property?

Please explain.

uptownsteve said...

it only solidifies in my mind that George Bush was/is quite an ethical man at least by comparison.


You're joking right?

Did you forget:

Iraq Invasion
Abu Ghraib Prison Torture
CIA Pre-9/11 Intelligence Failures
HHS Deceptive Ad Campaign
HHS Scully Scandal
Government-wide Accounting Problems
Sex Education Misinformation
CAPPS II Failures
Real Costs of the Iraq War
Patient neglect at Walter Reed
Firings of US Attorneys
Outing CIA Agent Valerie Plame
Civilian Contractors in Iraq
The inept response to Hurricane Katrina
NAS warrantless wiretapping

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

"...The government naturally will buy the cars, both for itself, and subsidize their purchase for the "disadvantaged."

Wjat is wrong with subsidizing a car purchas efor the "disadvataged"? I have no problem with th egovernment using my tax money to get a single mother who is on food stamps and on cash benefist who has a job r needs a car to get to one, an automobile, just as long as its not an Escalade....

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~"I know how much you want to convince these white righties that you're one of them and not the "uuusual" negro but how and when did Obama "steal" private property?

Please explain."
Perhaps I am the "unusual" negro but I assure the motive is to make more of you "usual" negroes "unusual" like me than it is to convince "white righties" of anything because the "white righties" already know the truth about Obama.

Obama's take over of GM is essentially a theft of private property ask the 789 auto dealerships owners whose businesses were either closed, or re-assigned how their "private property" has been affected. BTW, did you know that 4.8% of Chrylser dealerships are minority owned and it just so happens that 4.8% of the chrysler dealerships closed were MINORITY OWNED -- I wonder how they are feeling about all this "Hope & Change"--smh.

Here are but a few snippets regarding the Gov't theft which you are completely unaware of...I guess it has something to do with your "usual" negro status...lol:

In Melbourne Florida, Dodge-Isuzu Dealership owner George Joseph has lost his Automobile franchise. Sunshine Dodge, his dealership, has been a family business for 35 years, one in which he is a second generation manager.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s stress here that Mr. Joseph will get absolutely no compensation. He will have to sell his inventory without the benefit of factory incentives, an inventory of over a million dollars

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a Canada Free Press article today, another Dealership in Long Island New York is facing the exact same seizure. Jim Anderer’s Chrysler dealership has been stolen from him. No sound explanation is given; the government is simply stealing his dealership.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not an issue isolated on the East coast, here locally in Portland; Timberline Dodge is being forced to sell of its inventory as the Government once again, has stolen their dealership franchise.

Conservative Black Woman said...

DJBA~"Whats is wrong with subsidizing a car purchas efor the "disadvataged"?Surely you jest!!!??? The government is seizing the vehicles of dealers (private citizens) who have taken business loans; who have built or inherited their businesses; these dealers HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME and giving the property OF THE DEALERS to the poor. WTH? That's not OK!!! Why do you not see a problem? Give me your car then, I'm poor.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

To my knowledge the cars are to be disposed of or liquidated in a manner because the car makers have to file bankruptcy becuase of their own greed. If the government bought some up with our tax money and sold them to disadvantaged people who have need of transporation, I see no problem with that.

Like with all other social programs, income guidelines should be put in place, and no one should be getting an SUV or luxury car, giving some single mother a GM or Chrysler mini van that's on the lot at a subsidized price is a good invest. She gets to work, to the store, to school, makes more money eventually and pays taxes into a system that wil help someone else.

Sorry, you conservative folks just seem out right greedy and selfish sometimes, is it so har for you to understand that there are people in worse shape than you who can use help, and that but for the grace of God, you could be that person?

Conservative Black Woman said...

DJBA~Giving freely is wonderful and should be done regularly. You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who does not feel this way. But the government should not take from one group to give to another....it's wrong.

Paul Ervin said...

uptownsteve said...

it only solidifies in my mind that George Bush was/is quite an ethical man at least by comparison.


You're joking right?

Did you forget:

Iraq Invasion
Abu Ghraib Prison Torture
CIA Pre-9/11 Intelligence Failures
HHS Deceptive Ad Campaign
HHS Scully Scandal
Government-wide Accounting Problems
Sex Education Misinformation
CAPPS II Failures
Real Costs of the Iraq War
Patient neglect at Walter Reed
Firings of US Attorneys
Outing CIA Agent Valerie Plame
Civilian Contractors in Iraq
The inept response to Hurricane Katrina
NAS warrantless wiretapping<-------------You beat me to it UTS.

uptownsteve said...

"Obama's take over of GM is essentially a theft of private property ask the 789 auto dealerships owners whose businesses were either closed, or re-assigned how their "private property" has been affected. BTW, did you know that 4.8% of Chrylser dealerships are minority owned and it just so happens that 4.8% of the chrysler dealerships closed were MINORITY OWNED -- I wonder how they are feeling about all this "Hope & Change"--smh."

CBW, did you forget that Richard Waggoner of GM came to Washington (in a lear jet BTW) with a tin cup in hand asking for a Government bailout of GM?????

Do you believe that without the bailout these dealerships would have remained opened???

If so how and why if they needed the government money in the first place to stay afloat?

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

"DJBA~Giving freely is wonderful and should be done regularly. You will be hard pressed to find a conservative who does not feel this way. But the government should not take from one group to give to another....it's wrong."

You conservatives seem to understand capitalism, but you do not understand how scoiety works.

People pay taxes, thegroups you speak of are supposed to be fluid, those taxes, part of them at least, are to provide a social saftey net for those who are disadvantaged at one time or another. For example, a person who recieves aid, ends up becoming a businessman making great deals of money, his taxes in turn go to help someone else as he was helped, or if he loses his fortune, then the taxes he and others paid go to help him.

Why do you all have such a problem...oh never mind, greed and selfishness, hust like the peopel of Sodom.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

Uptown wrote: "If so how and why if they needed the government money in the first place to stay afloat?"

Exactly. It seem like the only welfare you Conservatives are for is corporate.

JudyBright said...

Why do you all have such a problem...oh never mind, greed and selfishness, hust like the peopel of Sodom.No, we don't get confused and think the Federal Government is a charitable organization. Thanks for judging us anyway.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Judy:

You wrote: "Why do you all have such a problem...oh never mind, greed and selfishness, just like the peopel of Sodom. No, we don't get confused and think the Federal Government is a charitable organization."

Well guess what, the people of Sodom were not judged for not having a common "charitable organization". They were judged as a GROUP CORPORATELY for not helping the poor.

We all have to pay taxes, we all do not HAVE to contribute to charitble organizations, so no charitable organization is responsible for the whole American Society, the government IS, responsible and accountable.

You continue with: " Thanks for judging us anyway."

You have been judged by your actions and your words.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]Government is an engine of wealth redistribution, and when it gains control of businesses, it redistributes wealth in a way that benefits its supporters. That is what government always does, no matter how it disguises it.
[/quote]

CBW:

This makes sense to most UNTIL you note all of the places in America and around the world that have GOVERNMENTS yet have no WEALTH to redistribute.

If GOVERNMENT was the magic trick in "redistributing wealth" Detroit and Cleveland would be GOLD MINES with their governments in place.

Rose-Bud said...

I think everyone is forgetting that private industries provide over 70% of the jobs in America. Eventually, when that percentage goes, the amount of poor people who have jobs will also decrease, so what will they need cars for? Then taxpayers will be on the hook for more than their housing, and food, but for their car expenses.
We are going to turn into a nation of welfare for all peoples.
BTW-Corporate welfare is wrong if it is abused, but when used correctly, those corporations keep people with jobs. Their are bad apples in all facets of life, and in the end they will be judge by a higher being.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Rose:

"BTW-Corporate welfare is wrong if it is abused, but when used correctly, those corporations keep people with jobs. Their are bad apples in all facets of life, and in the end they will be judge by a higher being."

To bad you can't ever seem to see it used "correctly" (translation for conservatives: AT ALL) when it comes to the average Joe.

Guess you or someone you actually care about would have to be in a bad way and in need of assistance before you understand....until then make sure the corporations you give a pass to look out for your best interests.

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW, CF, Rose, Judy and all other "conservatives":

"Government is an engine of wealth redistribution, and when it gains control of businesses, it redistributes wealth in a way that benefits its supporters. That is what government always does, no matter how it disguises it."

First off, I'd like to know how much or your "wealth" is being "redistributed". Nice catch phrases, but empty rhetoric at most, this is not the Soviet Union no matter how much you all run around saying the sky is falling.

Fact is Governments have a purpose, ours should be to be accountable to and to look out for the society it represents.

I think ours has really dropped the ball over the last 30 years, and allowed CORPORATE GREED to run nigh unchecked, hopefully that era has come to an end.

I guess you all must be mad that the billionaire industry leaders till have their money and you have all lost your stock value...or mad that a faction of your tax money goes to a WIC program you don't qualify for....utterly fascinating...

JMK said...

"To my knowledge the cars are to be disposed of or liquidated in a manner because the car makers have to file bankruptcy becuase of their own greed." (DJBA)
<
<
<
DUMBEST statement made in this comments section.

You even top the reliably misinformed UTZ on this one.

UNLESS, of course, you meant "UAW greed"?

The ONLY reason Chrysler, Ford and GM can't compete with VW, Toyota, Nissan, Volvo, BMW, Honda, etc., is that those companies were allowed (by GOVERNMENT) to come here (a good deal) and set up shop in non-Union locales.

Those companies provided LOTS of much needed and welcome jobs to many areas of the country.

The "Big Three" have tried to rein in UAW costs, to no avail....no Chapter 11 will accomplish that for them.

A UAW member isn't worth a cent more than an auot-worker in TN or AL.

If Americans are willing to do those jobs at a total cost of $50/hour (incl wages, pension and health benefits) than THAT'S the prevailing MARKET RATE!

The "Big Three" (now "bankrupt three") are stuck paying $75/hour in total laor costs (wagess, pension and healthcare costs).

The UAW's greed has killed the golden goose.

Please stop making inane statements that make you look foolish.....you're not UTZ.

JMK said...

TYPO: NOW Chapter 11 will accomplish that for them.

JMK said...

"when did Obama "steal" private property?" (UTZ)
<
<
<
OK, second dumbest (MISINFORMED) statement in this section.

You're slacking UTZ, you've been outdone this time!

The BIGGEST theft of property was carried out by the government directed bankruptcy filing by Chrysler, in which actual CREDITORS (ALWAYS 1st in line BY CONTRACT LAW) had the contractual owed to them by Chrysler TAKEN, so that the government could give a 35% share of Chrysler to the UAW, keep a 50% share for the government, with 15% set aside for Fiat.

Banks and other creditors had their REAL PROPERTY stolen by the U.S. government in that transaction.

The long term ramifications of that is that NOW, going forward, few, if ANY banks and creditors will likely lend to major companies, fearing that the same theft could occur at any time going forward.

That's probably a bit tougher to understand than DEBTS and DEFICITS and Congressional control of the U.S. budget, BUT it's an important concept to understand.

Oh Lord....look who I'm talking to about understanding things....

OK, that above statement (BUT it's an important concept to understand") is now the third dumbest statement in this section.

JMK said...

MISSING WORD: The BIGGEST theft of property was carried out by the government directed bankruptcy filing by Chrysler, in which actual CREDITORS (ALWAYS 1st in line BY CONTRACT LAW) had the contractual OBLIGATIONS owed to them by Chrysler TAKEN...

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: "DUMBEST statement made in this comments section."

and follow with: "UNLESS, of course, you meant "UAW greed"?

lolololololololololol. The irony is funny.

Are you positing that the management in GM and Ford and Chrysler as well made NO money? Only the Union got rich? lol. Oh wait, I forgot, you follow the party line so you are simple enough to believe the Unions drove the automakers in the ground, not their business model. Typical.

JMK said...

"Are you positing that the management in GM and Ford and Chrysler as well made NO money? (DJBA)
<
<
<
Making money wasn't the problem. It NEVER is.

The UAW contracts which raised the "Big Three's" Labor Costs to over 1/3 HIGHER than their competitors (UAW Labor Costs = $75/hour, compared to %50/hour for their competitors) are what ruined the "Big Three" by rendering them unable to compete within their own country!
<
<
<
Only the Union got rich? (DJBA)
<
<
Again, you don't understand the cause nor the crux of the problem.

The UAW did NOT "get rich".

Unfortunately, however, the contracts it negotiated resulted in Chrysler, Ford and GM being unable to compete with foreign competitors making cars right here in the USA.

The "Big Three's" Labor Costs now total $75/hour compared to just $50/hour for their competitors.

NONE of the workers for BMW America, or Toyota America are complaining about their wages and benefits to my knowledge.

The Company is merely an entrepreneurial entity and as such it is the Sun around which all other bodies revolve, from the highest of those lower bodies (the CEO) the lowest of those lower bodies (the least paid employees)...all of their LIVES revolve around the profitablity of the Company they work for.

They owe it their allegience, their best efforts and the whole of their lives, for like the Sun, it provides them with sustenance and the very ability to live.

Management owes the Company even more. It owes it the moving of that company's agenda into every phase of human life, to seek to influence governments, lawyers, judges and educators and move those to embrace that corporate agenda so that all my benefit from its ability to create and generate life.

The involvement of government with industry is a horrific thing, even though it is often in a Company's best short-term interests. It increases intervention, reduces competition and ultimately reduces any incentives for innovation and advancement.

Alfred Sloan (the 1930s CEO of GM) was among the first Corporate titans to embrace a merger with government and that has been to the everlasting demise of both the productivity and the prosperity for ALL of America's people.


While I'm certain that Al Sloan meant well, the results of his policies were, while in the best interests of GM, AGAINST the best interests of the American worker and more importantly the American CONSUMER, as they ultimately diminished domestic competition within that arena and reduced innovation, which results from such competition.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]begins providing patronage to the supporters of the ruling party. [/quote]

It is critical to understand what is going on.

Just as Idi Amin was able to play upon the resentment of the Ugandan peasant who looked angrily through the plate glass window of the Chinese and Indian merchants who sold goods in the Ugandan's native country as they stood on the outside with fire raging in his eyes, so is the case in our present circumstances.

For those who have been drawn to the leftist snipers that have been taking shots at evil corporations since his formative years in college....today offers the opportunity for those who have seen themselves as having been keep off of the up escalator in their chances to make it to the top have instead turned to the GOVERNMENT as a means of TAKING CONTROL over the force that most threatens them.

Where as (in their view) corporations operate as closed clubs - THE GOVERNMENT functions off of POPULISM and POPULARITY. In building a political machine they can execute a takeover of the means of production.

It is my view that THIS is the foundation that Obama and many of his leftist followers are operating from.

dirtyrottenscoundrels said...

I really admire your column!

I appreciate your approach to this administration - and check out our new article - I think you'll appreciate it!

http://ping.fm/mhaQE 6 Months of Obama - list of problems and questions - new article! Please Read!

DJ Black Adam said...

@CF:

"Just as Idi Amin was able to play upon the resentment of the Ugandan peasant who looked angrily through the plate glass window of the Chinese and Indian merchants who sold goods in the Ugandan's native country as they stood on the outside with fire raging in his eyes, so is the case in our present circumstances."

Did you just compare this administration and by mutual implication Barack Obam to Idi Amin?

Simply amazing....

uptownsteve said...

"Did you just compare this administration and by mutual implication Barack Obam to Idi Amin?"

Yeah he did.

CF is a shameless bootlickin Tom.

He's actually proud of it.

uptownsteve said...

For CBW and JMK

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

"The change in America's financial rules was Ronald Reagan's biggest legacy and the gift that keeps on taking."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html

DJ Black Adam said...

@Uptown:

JMK is the type who blames government for everything, especially when corporations screw up. Regular people should NEVER get hlp from the government, JMK would cut WIC, Medicaid and Food Stamps, but has no porblem watching the government underwrite big business when they screw up.

Constructive Feedback said...

[quote]Did you just compare this administration and by mutual implication Barack Obam to Idi Amin?[/quote]

Actually, DJ Black Adam - if you understood basic sentence analysis like what my 3rd grader is doing in school - YOU'D have noticed that the FOCUS of my claims was about PLAYING UPON PEOPLE'S RESENTMENTS......not a comparison between the goals of the "Amin Administration" and the "Obama Administration".

Don't worry bro. I understand.

DJ Black Adam said...

@Conservative Feedback:

Your reply was: "Don't worry bro. I understand."

Actually, you DON'T understand, or more to the point, you are trying to be deceptive at BEST.

I am sure you used the specific example of Idi Amin as specifically for the imagery it causes.

Man up at least.

uptownsteve said...

DJBA

"JMK is the type who blames government for everything, especially when corporations screw up."

Even though out of all of the posters here, he's the only one who receives a government paycheck.

You gotta love the consistency of these righties!

uptownsteve said...

CF

"YOU'D have noticed that the FOCUS of my claims was about PLAYING UPON PEOPLE'S RESENTMENTS..."

Oh you mean like how the Republican Party has been doing with white folks for the last 40 some odd years?

And black fools like you continue to support them?

DJ Black Adam said...

@Uptown

You wrote:"And black fools like you continue to support them?"

Now Now Uptown, I would call CF a fool...a sychophantic moronic cretin? Sure. But not a fool...to light.

JMK said...

“JMK is the type who blames government for everything, especially when corporations screw up. Regular people should NEVER get hlp from the government, JMK would cut WIC, Medicaid and Food Stamps, but has no porblem watching the government underwrite big business when they screw up.” (DJBA)
<
<
<
Actually you couldn’t be more wrong DJ, like virtually all Conservatives, I support the most vital government functions, especially the safety and security functions of government. I just want even those functions, streamlined and made as cost-effective as is humanly possible.

I even support basic public assistance, though I also support mandatory birth control and even abortion for all those who are chronically dependent – those mired on public assistance, incarcerated felons and those committed long-term to mental hospitals.

Dependency should never be encouraged. In fact, in my view, and I'm sure you'd agree, those who are dependent should be focused on ONE thing and ONE thing ONLY, self-improvement and all social programs should limit the actions of those on such programs to those which fulfill that goal.

Ironically enough, the far-Left is currently angered that the government is looking for only “a short-term involvement in the private sector.” Many on the far-Left have begun calling Rahm Emmanuel, “Obama’s Karl Rove”, as Emmanuel, one of the architects of the “Blue Dog Democrat” revolution – running Conservative Democrats across the South and out West, in 2006 and 2008, resulting in over 20% of today’s Congressional Democrats being Conservative, “Blue Dog” Democrats - is said to be behind the Obama administration’s goal of “saving Capitalism” rather than transitioning to a more government-run, or socialistic system.

The primary reason that socialism, or the “Command (government-run) economy” DOESN’T WORK is that it’s worker-centric, as opposed to the private sector being consumer-centric.

A consumer-centric economy puts the customer and consumer needs/wants first and seeks to give the people more of what they want at the best possible price, even at the expense of worker pay and benefits. The worker-centric economy puts the needs and wants of the worker first and that is always disastrous. That’s why socialist economies produced goods with very few designs, virtually no innovation and little popular support.

Be that as it may, I am very happy to see that you’ve conceded my point that the UAW is primarily responsible for the “Big Three’s” demise. With labor costs a full one-third higher than its domestic competitors, the “Big Three” could not compete.

I’m glad you’ve come around on that particular point.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

Thank you for laying out your position clearly and intelligently. Though of course we are not in 100% agreement, there are a few fundamentals we seem to be able to agree on. I agree on limits to benefits, always have, but more often the folks on the right side of the fence seem to be pressing those limits to mimic no help at all, whereas the left may go to far, the right generally does not go far enough.

You wrote: “Be that as it may, I am very happy to see that you’ve conceded my point that the UAW is primarily responsible for the “Big Three’s” demise”

I have never denied that the UAW or Government were part of the problem, you just seem to act as if the UAW and Government were the only problems, when in fact their poor business models were and in my opinion, are the primary agitating factor.

uptownsteve said...

"Many on the far-Left have begun calling Rahm Emmanuel, “Obama’s Karl Rove”, as Emmanuel, one of the architects of the “Blue Dog Democrat” revolution – running Conservative Democrats across the South and out West, in 2006 and 2008, resulting in over 20% of today’s Congressional Democrats being Conservative, “Blue Dog” Democrats - is said to be behind the Obama administration’s goal of “saving Capitalism” rather than transitioning to a more government-run, or socialistic system."

Name one and provide a quote.

JMK said...

"I have never denied that the UAW or Government were part of the problem, you just seem to act as if the UAW and Government were the only problems, when in fact their poor business models were and in my opinion, are the primary agitating factor." (DJBA)
<
<
<
I appreciate the thoughtful reply and yes, there are indeed a number of points of agreement here.

One thing, however, is that I've NEVER heard ANYONE Right or Left call for "ending public assistance".

Very few on the Right (perhaps a few more on the Left), in fact, support my view that dependency should NEVER be "encouraged or enabled", requiring limiting the actions of those who are dependent to focus them entirely on the task of self-improvement.

That would, of course, require mandated birth control - not allowing the dependent to bring children into such a dysfunctional and chaotic environment.

As to the causes of the U.S auto industry's demise, the car companies merely responded to American consumer demand, which is their primary responsibility.

Americans LOVE bigger cars and "light trucks" (Pick-Ups and SUVs). The "customer is ALWAYS right," ergo the consumer is NEVER wrong.

Now the "Big Three's" management DID indeed approve all those cost-prohibitive UAW contracts, but GOVERNMENT allowed foreign competitors to come into America (a very good thing) but without the UAW albatross around their necks. That gave those foreign competitors an edge in the "Big Three's" home market! They probably SHOULD'VE either mandated that those firms take on the existing terms of the UAW contracts OR tariff those products to make up for the disparity in costs....although either of those two tacts would've almost certainly driven out those foreign auto-makers.

The result of that government action was that America's "Big Three" could NOT compete with the domestic-based foreign competition because of the labor cost disparity - the other car-makers had a labor cost a full THIRD lower than Ford's, GM's or Chrysler's.

Of course workers everywhere want the most compensation they can get, BUT it's vital that worker demands DO NOT harm or disable (render less competitive) the entity they work for and owe their allegience to.

We are still in the first phase of this economic downturn, with widespread and massive private sector layoffs and downsizing.

The next stage will be a LOT more painful for a LOT of people unused to being effected by such things.

As tax revenues dry up from a downsizing private sector, state, local and ultimately the federal government will all have to downsize as well in response to dwindling revenues and that'll mean fewer law enforcement, teaching and bureaucratic jobs.

Much of that will hopefully be carried out via attrition (simply not replacing retiring workers and adding that workload to those that remain), but there WILL BE a certain number of layoffs, as well.

There've already been layoffs throughout many of California's Municipalities. New York, with Wall Street downsized and looking like it won't return to the "financial Capitol of the world" it once was, is looking at cutting its Police Force by 5,000 and its looking to close 16 fire companies around the City, similar cuts are being looked at in education and social services.

A healthy public sector DEPENDS on a vibrant and POROFITABLE private sector.

That's why I'm almost certain that "the worst is yet to come" in this downturn.

Unlike UTS, here, I don't like seeing anyone else do poorly. Fewer jobs and fewer opportunities mean MORE dependency and MORE deprivation.

I want to see MORE opportunities, MORE work and a social services system dedicated to getting people out of dependency and back into work.

For whatever reason YUTZ does not. He seems to see poverty and deprivation, like everything else, only in racial terms and seems to think other people's doing poorly is in some way in his own interests.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: "As to the causes of the U.S auto industry's demise, the car companies merely responded to American consumer demand, which is their primary responsibility."

Then in that same vien, the UAW went tgo get as much as it could for its members. In any case, neither looked LONG TERM.

Again, you seem to be able to grasp the oncept as it applies to the workers, not the management, I don't understand why you can't ever place blame to businesses when what they do causes them to fail.

JMK said...

"you seem to be able to grasp the oncept as it applies to the workers, not the management..." (DJBA)
<
<
<
Not at all, DJ.

The COMPANY'S job (EVERY Company's JOB) is to respond to the CONSUMER.

The worker is merely selling a COMMODITY, his/her labor.

There's NEVER anything wrong with catering entirely to the CONSUMER, it's what makes CAPITALISM work.

Moreover, we are ALL conusmers, we are NOT all workers.

A long while back I learned and accepted that "you'll never get rich (or even do all that well) working for someone else," so I took it upon myself to learn to invest.

Over the past five years, I've earned nearly as much as I earned from working, from a series of pattern investments, one being simply buying unl gasoline futures in February (before the Summer blends come into effect - early March) and selling them by late May....it has been reliably and significantly profitable.

It's not that I don't sympathize with workers....I AM ONE, but I recognize that ALL WORKERS are selling a commodity (their own skills/labor) and some skills/labor is innately more valuable than others.

I also built decks for a long time and at one time hired five crews to keep up with that business.

I factored in the cost of that labor along with all my other "commodity costs" - wood, nails, railings, concrete for anchoring posts, etc.

Often, on say, a $3,600 deck, the cost of my inanimate materials would be around $1000, the cost of my animate materials (human labor) would cost around $1200, leaving me with about $1400 at the end of that job.

The thre guys on that crew who "worked their asses off banging nails" would make appx $400 each for two to three days work and I took $1400 for myself.

But I paid for all the ads, I paid for the tools, equipment and materials and I dropped everything off for every job and I dealt with the customers.

The worker, in that instance, just came to a job site, banged nails for about ten hours or so and went home.....not me. My job never ended, fielding calls from prospective customers, dealing with complaints, getting permits, licenses and all that good stuff.

IF a fictitious Union would've forced work rules and compensation packages that cut into my end at all, it would simply no longer be worth my while to do that.....and all those guys wouldn't have had any work. I actually worked longer and harder than anyone who worked for me. In fact, I TAUGHT all those guys how to do their jobs, as I learned it from a tough old German boss, who taught me....along with a lot of invaluable life lessons.

Without the Company....without its sustainability/profitability, there is no work, there is no livelihood for the workers. Why is that so hard for so many folks to figure out?

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"The worker is merely selling a COMMODITY, his/her labor."

Exactly, and selling that commodity to the highest bidder. The worker should gte the most he or she can for their product, their labor, the businesses are the consumer. If you don't fault the big three for their stupid short term business models, don't fault the worker for looking out for their short term interest.

FOllow your own reasoning.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"Without the Company....without its sustainability/profitability, there is no work, there is no livelihood for the workers. Why is that so hard for so many folks to figure out?"

Without the worker there is no product produced, why is that so hard for you all to figure?

JMK said...

"If you don't fault the big three for their stupid short term business models, don't fault the worker for looking out for their short term interest. (DJBA)
<
<
<
Both the short-term and LONG-term best interests of the worker is the viability of the Company he/she works for.

The current "government deal" with the American auto-makers breaks all previous UAW contracts. They're all null and void.

So are most, if not all of the promises made to retirees. They've been modified (reduced) or simply bought out.

In effect the "government plan" the "Obama plan", if you will, reduced the UAW contracts to the levels of the "Big Three's" foreign competitors.

So, those UAW demands drove the "Big Three" into bankruptcy, cost the UAW membership tens of thousands of jobs and ultimately resulted in their wages and benefits being renegotiated downwards.

That's what happens when Union's demands undermine a Company's viability.

JMK said...

"Without the worker there is no product produced, why is that so hard for you all to figure?" (DJBA)
<
<
<
Except for the most highly skilled labors (ie. patent law, thoracic surgery, neurology, etc.) most skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor is both common ("a dime a dozen") and competely interchangable.

That is, while virtually ANYONE can be trained to sweep a floor, work on an assembly line, frame a house, etc. NOT many people can create and maintain a viable enterprise where nothing existed before. While the entrtainment "artist" is generally far more creative than the average person, the highest form of creativity on earth, the "greatest artist of all" is the entrepreneur, who creates viable businesses and industries where nothing existed before.

That is how skills are valued by the market. The most common and easiest to master skills have a huge supply compared to demand and pay little, while skills that are harder to master and more dangerous (ie. mining, trucking, high-rise iron work) tend to have fewer practitioners, or less supply than there is demand and thus pay somewhat more.

America's auto workers were and ARE in direct competition with their fellow Americans working for foreign auo-makers, here in the U.S. - they ignored that fact at their own peril and are now paying a terrible price.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"That is, while virtually ANYONE can be trained to sweep a floor, work on an assembly line, frame a house, etc. NOT many people can create and maintain a viable enterprise where nothing existed before."

You miss the point. It becomes about supply and demand, a floor sweepr can only demand so much, a docttor much more. My point, is if your business needs a worker, and you ahve to pay them x amount of dollars because if you don't they go to work for your competition, oh well, thems the rules.

Sure, the business owner will make the lions share, as he or she should, but, your workers are stil the consumers in most cases, in an ideal model, the proble, that some of the workers are now in parts of the world where they are not consumers to the other business in the loop.

JMK said...

"My point, is if your business needs a worker, and you ahve to pay them x amount of dollars because if you don't they go to work for your competition...." (DJBA)
<
<
THAT'S exactly what I SAID!

"A UAW member isn't worth a cent more than an auto-worker in TN or AL.

"If Americans are willing to do those jobs at a total cost of $50/hour (incl wages, pension and health benefits) than THAT'S the prevailing MARKET RATE!"

So, YES, THOSE are indeed the rules....and once the U.S. government allowed foreign auto-makers to come into the USA and make cars in Right-to-Work states, it, in effect, endorsed the lower wage rate as "the prevailing market rate".

Otherwise, the government would've demanded that either (1) those foreign auto-makers pay the prevailing UAW compensation rates (it DID NOT), OR (2) PAY tariffs/taxes ON their products to the point where their products were leveled to that of the "Big Three" (again, it DID NOT).

The U.S. government set the stage for the demise of the American auto industry, when it allowed competitors into the country who were not bound by the same UAW packages America's auto industry was.

That HUGE disparity in compensation packages (the "Big Three" paying a full THIRD more) made it impossible for U.S. auto-makers to compete.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"That HUGE disparity in compensation packages (the "Big Three" paying a full THIRD more) made it impossible for U.S. auto-makers to compete."

Again, nobody put a gun to their heads, nor did anybody stop them from just saying: "We can't do business like this" and closing up shop. Since they were making their money (management) making substandard vehciles, they figured they'ed ride it to the end, and they did. They share the blame, I don't understand why you can't or won't see that.

JMK said...

“Again, nobody put a gun to their heads, nor did anybody stop them from just saying: "We can't do business like this" and closing up shop. Since they were making their money (management) making substandard vehciles, they figured they'ed ride it to the end, and they did. They share the blame, I don't understand why you can't or won't see that.” (DJBA)
<
<
<
That’s absolutely wrong.

Until this current bankruptcy, the UAW actually told GM, Ford and Chrysler how many cars they could make.

American cars have greatly improved, after abandoning the “planned obsolescence” of an earlier era, in fact American cars have actually been better made (in terms of quality) than their competitors over the last decade.

Bottom-line, a worker has business and no right to harm the company or entity he works for, because the worker of today has no right to ruin things for the workers of tomorrow and that’s what those contracts DID.

I’m glad you can see that those UAW contracts made it impossible for Chrysler, Ford and GM to compete with the foreign auto-makers who build THEIR cars in America!

Yes, THAT was entirely due to the government, which took lobbying money to allow those foreign competitors into the country without the UAW albatross that was hung around the necks of the “Big Three”. But do those in government have any responsibility for the workers or the companies in the American auto industry?

Hell no!

Government officials rightfully could care less whether those companies and those jobs remain viable.

So, government officials only did what they ALWAYS do – look out for SELF first.

It’s the UAW that SHOULD’VE seen the negative impact of its contracts and recognized that so long as other Americans were willing and able to do those SAME jobs (for other companies) for a third less, than THAT was the new market rate for THOSE jobs.

The UAW, in effect, chose NOT to save those companies and NOT to save those jobs.

They SHOULD’VE worked for the SAME rates as their fellow workers in all those “Right to Work” States.

JMK said...

MISSING WORD: Bottom-line, a worker has NO business and no right to harm the company or entity he works for, because the worker of today has no right to ruin things for the workers of tomorrow...