advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Silencio
Date: December 03, 2008 01:00AM
Devil's advocate here: how would people feel if GM were allowed to go Chapter 11 and some Chinese company swooped in and bought all the good bits for pennies on the dollar? Would that be bad for our national interest, or is that just free market, global capitalism at work?

I have no love lost for the Big Three, that's for sure. I have never owned one of their vehicles and never had plans to ever consider owning one. However, the crisis they're going through currently is IMO more directly related to the ongoing credit crunch and the spike in gas prices this past summer than it is to their collective inability to innovate or beat the UAW into a pulp.

No good choices here. None that I can see...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Black Landlord
Date: December 03, 2008 01:10AM
Quote
davester
Quote
Dakota
The country needs 15 million vehicles every year. Somebody has to make them, big three or not, and they all can't be imported. So what is the problem?

Sorry, imported versus domestic has no bearing on whether to bail out the big 3. The foreign makes build a huge number of cars in the US, while the Big 3 build a huge number of cars in Mexico and Canada to avoid US labor and healthcare costs.

Besides which this country does not need 15 million vehicles a year.
It needs to learn to do without 15 million vehicles a year.



[www.papanicholas.com] coffee smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mikeylikesit
Date: December 03, 2008 02:54AM
Quote
cbelt3
I'd rather see us nationalize energy. Electric power was created with government funds- bond sales, primarily. Now incredible profits are being made and no further investment is done.
Since they're not taking the money and building more power plants and improving the infrastructure, offer to buy 'em out and control them.

Power to the People !

(Yeah, Ohio is about to 'deregulate' electricity. We're all gonna get Enronned to death. It's going to be a cold winter, and me without a wood burner.)

Interesting but little noted side note to the California/Enron story. When the industry was deregulated the local DWP was not since it was owned and operated by the City of LA. The incumbent mayor, Richard Riordan a Republican, made a determined run to sell it off and privatize the utility.

The debate raged for some time and eventually the mayor lost out to locals so by the time Enron began their price run-up, LA DWP was still publicly owned and operated.

While California private utilities were hauled over the coals by manipulation of markets and supplies and while consumer rates went to astronomical levels and brownouts were common statewide, LA never experienced a rate increase or brownout. The local agency had locked in contracts and purchase agreements that insulated it from the havoc the spot buy private utilities were subject to.

If the local DWP had been seeking short term profits for shareholders, it might have been a different story. If the short sighted Republican mayor had his way it might have been a different story.

Those who think government can't do anything right ignore that Social Security is the single most successful government program in our history, it's still solvent and the drums they recently employed announcing it's demise 30-years from now ring hollow next to the current day failure of private enterprise and our banking system.

When the system fails it's ours; when it profits it's theirs!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: December 03, 2008 07:40AM
Since we're talking fantasies here with upstart American auto companies, imagine what a b!tch it would have been if the United States had been forced to contract with Japan and Germany to make its tanks and vehicles during World War II. Or France, for that matter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: karsen
Date: December 03, 2008 09:25AM
Quote
JoeH
Problem is karsen, your entire argument falls flat on its face because there is no "upstart American automobile company" anywhere in the wings looking to take over a piece of the market.

There are some small American automakers, Tesla for instance. I'm sure they'd like a bigger piece of the market. That's not my point though, my scenario was obviously fictional, the point being it stifles competition and innovation.


Quote
JoeH
Given the startup costs to enter in this day and age where you have certain technologies required to even have a sellable vehicle, it is unlikely there will be a "new" company able to enter the market.

If you think it's unlikely now, wait until a potential startup has to compete against a nationalized mega corporation.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 03, 2008 10:06AM
This is a Michigan bailout. The car manufacturers in the south don't seem to have the problems that the Big Three in Michigan do. Let 'em go belly up.



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: lafinfil
Date: December 03, 2008 10:43AM
Quote
swampy
This is a Michigan bailout. The car manufacturers in the south don't seem to have the problems that the Big Three in Michigan do. Let 'em go belly up.

You lack a basic understanding about how the supply chain works in the automotive industry.
The various domestic and import manufactures use many of the same suppliers for a lot of basic component parts.

Many of the import manufactures that you seem to think are doing well are already starting to hurt
because of a slowdown in manufacturing from sub suppliers because reduced overall demands.

I have a cousin that is a product manager for a company that supplies lighting parts to just about every manufacturer
out there - both OEM & after market in the US and around the world. We were discussing last spring
how slow downs in the auto industry had hurt their ability to fulfill contracts to automakers that
had not slowed down production. Problem is that it's noy as cut and dried as you seem to think it is.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 10:45AM
Quote
swampy
This is a Michigan bailout. The car manufacturers in the south don't seem to have the problems that the Big Three in Michigan do. Let 'em go belly up.

Now I know you are just out there in the weeds, but most people know that just because the headquarters are in Michigan, that does not mean all their operations are there. They have assembly plants and suppliers from the east coast to the west coast, in the south and the north. Not to mention also in Canada and Mexico. So in no way is this just a "Michigan bailout".



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: December 03, 2008 10:57AM
The Port of Baltimore is about 2/3 dependent on the auto industry, foreign and domestic.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 11:01AM
Quote
karsen
Quote
JoeH
Problem is karsen, your entire argument falls flat on its face because there is no "upstart American automobile company" anywhere in the wings looking to take over a piece of the market.

There are some small American automakers, Tesla for instance. I'm sure they'd like a bigger piece of the market. That's not my point though, my scenario was obviously fictional, the point being it stifles competition and innovation.


Quote
JoeH
Given the startup costs to enter in this day and age where you have certain technologies required to even have a sellable vehicle, it is unlikely there will be a "new" company able to enter the market.

If you think it's unlikely now, wait until a potential startup has to compete against a nationalized mega corporation.

Your scenario was obviously fictional, it is also completely not based in any economic reality that exists. It would stifle "competition and innovation" no more than the current and past bad oligopolistic practices of the US big 3. As for Tesla, it is a niche maker, with a niche product. At their best, they might do a fraction of a percent of the market and maybe produce as many cars as Honda produced Insights the first year of production. Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle.

As for a nationalized "mega" corporation, the difference between almost no chance and next to no chance is so small as to be no difference.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mikeylikesit
Date: December 03, 2008 11:22AM
Why does anyone take Swampy as a serious poster? She only regurgitates right wing radio talking points and they are not points to be taken seriously.

But that's just my opinion.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: billb
Date: December 03, 2008 11:29AM
Sorry but I think it's horribly comical that the same people who want to privatize this country's education system because it is broken think they can do a better job with a globalized corporation.

Heck the national transportation system can't maintain bridges, you want they should build equally dependable cars ?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: billb
Date: December 03, 2008 11:33AM
Left - wing regurgitated talking points only, please.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: MacGurl
Date: December 03, 2008 11:46AM
Quote
mikeylikesit
Why does anyone take Swampy as a serious poster?

I don't anymore, since I realized "she" is really just a troll, and I learned way back on DM not to take trolls seriously.









Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: davester
Date: December 03, 2008 11:57AM
Quote
JoeH
Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle

That is not even remotely close to being true. The three main components of the Tesla (battery, controller, motor) all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2008 11:58AM by davester.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: December 03, 2008 12:23PM
>>As for Tesla, it is a niche maker, with a niche product.

Kinda like Apple?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 12:31PM
Quote
davester
Quote
JoeH
Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle

That is not even remotely close to being true. The three main components of the Tesla (battery, controller, motor) all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before.

Tesla uses licensed technology from AC Propulsion for the controller, charger and motor. AC Propulsion's founder and the technology he started up the company with in 1992, dates back to working on the predecessor car to the GM EV1. It is also licensed to other makers. As for the batteries, they use standard LiIon cells just like in laptop batteries. Only "new" thing is to use it in a car and to use thousands together. Being not as subject to weight concerns, they chose to liquid cool the cells to keep them all at similar temperatures and to prevent overheating. Most of the rest of the tech in the battery module is existing off-the-shelf, just put together in new ways.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2008 12:39PM by JoeH.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 12:38PM
Quote
mattkime
>>As for Tesla, it is a niche maker, with a niche product.

Kinda like Apple?

Well, not really. Apple started in a new field, became a major player, dropped into a bit of a niche, and for the last decade has been working its way back out of that niche. As it is, Apple is what? the 3rd or 4th largest pc maker. (That is small pc, i.e. all personal computers.) Tesla does not even make the top 20, and is coming into a niche of an already existing large product market.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: kj
Date: December 03, 2008 12:51PM
Quote
JoeH
Quote
davester
Quote
JoeH
Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle

That is not even remotely close to being true. The three main components of the Tesla (battery, controller, motor) all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before.

Tesla uses licensed technology from AC Propulsion for the controller, charger and motor. AC Propulsion's founder and the technology he started up the company with in 1992, dates back to working on the predecessor car to the GM EV1. It is also licensed to other makers. As for the batteries, they use standard LiIon cells just like in laptop batteries. Only "new" thing is to use it in a car and to use thousands together. Being not as subject to weight concerns, they chose to liquid cool the cells to keep them all at similar temperatures and to prevent overheating. Most of the rest of the tech in the battery module is existing off-the-shelf, just put together in new ways.

Who cares it it's repackaged existing tech? The make a product that they can sell. Is it completely impossible that they expand their offerings? Ramp up production? The Koreans started from almost nothing (selling cars made mostly of mitsubishi parts), and now the Chinese are entering the frey. Why couldn't we accomplish what they are? I think GM's doomed. Put the bailout money toward a new start. kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 01:27PM
I personally do not care if it is repackaged existing tech, apparently it matters to davester. But it is not innovative in the big "I" type of innovative that is likely to create or greatly (or even more than slightly) change a market. Tesla could expand, but it has taken over $100 million in investment money to get to the point where they have sold a few hundred cars starting earlier this year. Have they passed a thousand yet? The Korean companies had the advantage of government and cultural organizations to back them while building up their industry. The Chinese ones will have the same. As for bailing out GM, the discussion started with whether we should nationalize them. I don't favor that, the current situation definitely does not call for that. As for bail out, maybe, if the terms are right for us as a country. Or are you advocating that we put our tax money into Tesla instead?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: davester
Date: December 03, 2008 01:41PM
Quote
JoeH
I personally do not care if it is repackaged existing tech, apparently it matters to davester. But it is not innovative in the big "I" type of innovative that is likely to create or greatly (or even more than slightly) change a market.

What? You're the one who brought it up, so now you don't care about it? It is not that significant an issue to me, I simply responded to what I thought was an inaccurate statement. Now you're talking about "innovative in the big "I" type of innovative", which wasn't the topic at all. As to whether it is "repackaged existing tech", that all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. So what if Tesla licensed some of AC Propulsion's patents. Tesla has done a huge amount of research and development, and as a result their components are significantly different and incorporate advances that do not appear in AC Propulsion products. In your book, perhaps that is repackaging, in my book it's a lot more than that.



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: kj
Date: December 03, 2008 02:13PM
The Tesla is innovative, and I would much rather our gov't put money into it, and other ventures, than waste it on GM. If tesla could sell as many cars as hyundai, I think that would change the market pretty substantially. And it might be a product someone from outside the U.S. would be interested in, too.

It changes my perspective to think that rather than bail out or nationalize GM, why don't we all just make our next purchase a GM car? That would bail them out, and we'd get a car. With the bailout, we pay for a car, and don't get a car. But would people bail them out by buying their cars? Apparently not, so why bail them out and likely get nothing back, especially if you would never buy their product? kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 02:15PM
Davester, you called it as "all incorporate significant and fundamental technological advances that are far beyond any EV technology used before", usually "innovative" is a shorter term to describe that. I responded only to show it was not as you thought. On my part, stating "Tesla in the end is mostly repackaging existing technology into a vehicle", was in response to karsen's use of the company in an example where he talked of stifling "competition and innovation". At this point, Tesla is not particularly competitive or innovative, or at least yet. As I said, it appeared to make a difference to you, but as you now state, it looks like it is about on my level of care. I don't wish them ill , and maybe they will be a factor at some point a decade or more in the future. But as a potential solution to the current mess in the car market, they are not even in the running.

Karsen uses the standard arguments for free market, let the chips fall where they may, approach to running the economy. But what we actually have to deal with is a market where there are many impediments to the entry and replacement of existing suppliers of items. One of the biggest is that many aspects of current and future technology take large sums of money to even bring to market, tends to keep small players from even getting in. And unless there are incentives, the big players tend to go for "safe" choices, look where that got GM, Ford and Chrysler. At this point there are three main options. One, we nationalize; two, we "bail out"; and three, let whoever fails, fail. I don't think the first is going to happen, or should happen. Most of the argument is whether we do the second and on what terms. The third might happen, but there is a lot of pressure to not do so because of the other impacts on the US economy.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: karsen
Date: December 03, 2008 02:26PM
Quote
mattkime
>>As for Tesla, it is a niche maker, with a niche product.

Kinda like Apple?

I thought the same thing. Doomed!

What would have happened 15 years ago if the government said Microsoft is too big to fail, and stepped in and gave Billions of dollars and government backing to Microsoft, essentially forcing the competition like Apple out of existence? Everyone would have to use a @#$%& OS and use @#$%& brown Zunes.

It's quite simple, competition spurs innovation. Get rid of the incentive to compete and ultimately you get rid of innovation. It continues to spiral downhill form there.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: karsen
Date: December 03, 2008 02:42PM
This is a serious question, not trying to be a smart ass here:

How is it the Big Three ALL need money at the same time? How is it that these once fierce competitors are now united in an effort to ALL receive Government funds? If the problem really is the credit crunch and the Big Three really just need some funding to help them through this downturn in the economy then why aren't we hearing about Toyota and Honda woes?

I find it hard to believe all three of them are on the brink of complete failure. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that ALL THREE will fail if they do not receive Billions (perhaps trillions) in bail out funding. Maybe I'm just being cynical but if one of the big three fails, isn't that great news for the other two? I could see a scenario where one fails and the other two are stronger because of it.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: December 03, 2008 03:36PM
>>At this point, Tesla is not particularly competitive or innovative, or at least yet.

I don't necessarily agree with that. Small changes can make a big difference, even with existing technology.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: JoeH
Date: December 03, 2008 04:34PM
Quote
karsen
This is a serious question, not trying to be a smart ass here:

How is it the Big Three ALL need money at the same time? How is it that these once fierce competitors are now united in an effort to ALL receive Government funds? If the problem really is the credit crunch and the Big Three really just need some funding to help them through this downturn in the economy then why aren't we hearing about Toyota and Honda woes?

I find it hard to believe all three of them are on the brink of complete failure. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that ALL THREE will fail if they do not receive Billions (perhaps trillions) in bail out funding. Maybe I'm just being cynical but if one of the big three fails, isn't that great news for the other two? I could see a scenario where one fails and the other two are stronger because of it.

To be serious, in my opinion it is because all three basically followed the same "safe" and "short term" business decisions over the last decade or so. Oil and gasoline prices were relatively low for a while, let's push high profit margin light trucks and SUV's in the consumer market. Instead of putting R&D money into improving fuel economy, they lobbied for no changes to the CAFE standards instead. Also to keep those high profit LT's and SUV's out of the CAFE calculations.

As for quality, most of the improvements I have seen have been only in reaction to market pressure from the quality of the cars from the Japanese makers and then the Koreans once they got their act together. Too many reports of cars from the Big 3 with less than good reliability in transmissions, engines and other components during the late '90's and earlier this decade. For some models they have finally achieved parity with Toyota and Honda, but some of that has been through decreased quality from some of the US assembly plants for those makers compared to imported from Japan.

As for one failing being good news to the other two, how well did that work out for Chrysler? They got a little bigger when AMC was absorbed by them, but only short term. In another way, it was also a journey down that path towards short term profits from the Jeep line of SUV's.

So all three put much into a market segment that basically imploded after a few years of high fuel prices. Ford appears to have seen the writing on the wall first, and seems to be the closest to retooling and realigning its production. But all were behind in getting to that point. Some of it could have been avoided or sped up if they had put the money and time into R&D, for instance GMC restarting its electric vehicle development recently after killing off the EV1 line and the work connected with it back in the '90's. Add the credit crunch on top of that, and they are all in almost the same condition, though it appears GMC is in the worst. As for Toyota and Honda, they are also hurting, sales for them were down about 30% the last few months compared to down around 40% for the US companies. But they have alternate vehicles in their product line already, they are not needing to retool as much.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Ted King
Date: December 03, 2008 10:42PM
The amount of money the auto industry in the US is asking for is roughly equivalent to the amount of money the US government pays out every year - and has paid out for many years - for farm subsidies. Where's all the hand wringing about that? It's odd that at a time when we are giving HUNDREDS of billions of dollars to financial services corporations and banks with practically no accountability, that giving a small fraction of that to auto makers is eliciting so much more concern. If those who think it is a bad idea to give money to the auto makers are right then we will have thrown away about the same amount of money given away every year on farm subsidies, but if they are wrong then we may save a LOT of jobs for no more than a fraction given to bankers and financial outfits or as much given in just one year to prop up farmers (and the majority of that farm subsidy money goes to large corporate farms).
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: December 03, 2008 11:25PM
the farm subsidies are wrong as well.

otherwise i don't think there's any similarities between the reasoning behind bailing out the financial system and the auto companies. the auto companies are asking because now is the time and they're screwed by the lack of money for loans.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mikeylikesit
Date: December 04, 2008 04:15AM
Quote
Ted King
The amount of money the auto industry in the US is asking for is roughly equivalent to the amount of money the US government pays out every year - and has paid out for many years - for farm subsidies. Where's all the hand wringing about that? It's odd that at a time when we are giving HUNDREDS of billions of dollars to financial services corporations and banks with practically no accountability, that giving a small fraction of that to auto makers is eliciting so much more concern. If those who think it is a bad idea to give money to the auto makers are right then we will have thrown away about the same amount of money given away every year on farm subsidies, but if they are wrong then we may save a LOT of jobs for no more than a fraction given to bankers and financial outfits or as much given in just one year to prop up farmers (and the majority of that farm subsidy money goes to large corporate farms).

Public reaction to an auto bailout is based on name recognition. Archer Daniels Midland may suck more out of the treasury than all the auto makers combined but no one buys an Archer; at least not like they buy a Buick.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Dakota
Date: December 04, 2008 07:08AM
Quote
Ted King
The amount of money the auto industry in the US is asking for is roughly equivalent to the amount of money the US government pays out every year

How do farm subsidies work? Does the government actually give them cash or not take it from them? Gotta be careful with government accounting practices. Wouldn't make sense to cut their taxes first before giving them cash? Just don't take it from them in the first place.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: mikeylikesit
Date: December 04, 2008 07:22AM
Quote
Dakota

How do farm subsidies work? Does the government actually give them cash or not take it from them? Gotta be careful with government accounting practices. Wouldn't make sense to cut their taxes first before giving them cash? Just don't take it from them in the first place.

This site might be useful, the sheer numbers are staggering. farm subsidies
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: Ted King
Date: December 04, 2008 07:52AM
Quote
Dakota

How do farm subsidies work? Does the government actually give them cash or not take it from them? Gotta be careful with government accounting practices. Wouldn't make sense to cut their taxes first before giving them cash? Just don't take it from them in the first place.

[en.wikipedia.org]

"The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops, as well as guarantee a price floor. For instance in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[2] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was 3.80 farmers would get an extra 58 cents per bushel (52 cents plus the $0.06 price difference)."

The primary objection to giving money to the auto makers I've heard is that we should let the market decide who wins and who loses. Why shouldn't we then also just let the market decide about how much money farmers (which is increasing agricultural corporations) get for the crops. Why pay them extra money for crops they produce above what the market provides if the underlying principle is the same as the one applied to auto makers?

I'm not saying that farm subsidies are a bad thing necessarily - although I do suspect that much of the money is essentially an unjustified give-away to large agricultural corporations. What I'm saying is that fundamentally there isn't a significant difference between the federal government giving money to corporate farms and giving money to auto makers. And it's cost taxpayers over the years a tremendous amount more to give money to corporate farms than what the auto makers will likely get, so shouldn't we be giving farm subsidies a heck of lot more attention than we are to the auto bailout? Of course, but the political reality is that rural states have disproportionate representation in congress and so farm subsidies keep getting pushed with little resistance by Republican senators and congressman with large rural constituencies that are otherwise avid free-marketers. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: davester
Date: December 04, 2008 08:41AM
What Ted and Mattkime said about farm subsidies, and as P.J. O'Rourke once wrote, "Federal farm policies should be taken out behind the barn and shot".

Although there is a need for a few of the farm subsidy programs, the reasons for most of the current subsidies that existed at the time of their enactment ceased to exist some time ago. Many of them are now simply self-perpetuating corporate welfare payments continued only due to corporate lobbying of congressmen. I think it's a bad joke that many of the politicians give speeches about how they must protect america's poor family farmers (where 9 times out of 10 they're talking about the Exxon Mobils of agribusiness who line their campaign pockets).



"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Should We Nationalize GM ?
Posted by: freeradical
Date: December 04, 2008 11:10AM
[forums.macresource.com]

"We should just get rid of the agricultural subsidies and call it even.

From 1995-2006, Riceland Foods Inc. based in Stuttgart Arkansas received $554, 343,039 in USDA subsidies"
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 88
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018