Discussion in 'Politics' started by 151, Nov 10, 2008.

  1. 151


    I am just wondering if I am alone in thinking this is wrong.

    I mean I've always thought the post office being owned by the government was bad now some people are suggesting nationalizing every poorly run business in the country.
  2. terrible idea, even worse happening all of it under a Republican conservative administration. They're destroying capitalism
  3. What are the common denominators of the varied businesses that are failing?

    Today we have DHL AXP and CCC, what do these co's have in common?

    Are all of these leaders incompetent?


    Imo, very difficult to do business in the US.
  4. sure, it's easier in communist China

    American management has been a disaster, how comes Toyota manages to make a buck here.
  5. It's a horrible idea because it is forcing a certain business to stay running even though it is not wanted or needed.

    People make it out like GM and other companies are too big to fail because of all the employees and expenses and impacts. Someone needs to let these people know that this is natural for modern countries. Things change.
  6. Depends-I would consider communications so important, a significant government oversight, if not ownership would be in order.

    The role of government is continuity, right, otherwise why not just have a somewhat anarchic, predatory capitalist system?

    Like NeoRio says, change is inevitable, but is it actually always good? Massive business going bust, job redundancy, social upheaval on a personal scale, stress, debilitation, family breakups, you name it.

    Just to stir the pot, I'm going to suggest, that the implications of true capitalism largely erase the alleged efficiency gains of said approach, in a survival of the fittest business sense at least.

    Thing is, when a government, local or otherwise, is in strife, what does it (invariably) do?
    That's right, sells off PUBLIC assets to try and shore up the balance books, at fire sale prices.

    When things are going well-they do the same damn thing, because these assets look attractive in a boom environment to privateers.

    Strangely, the sale of public assets never results in lower taxes, (despite tax payer dollars having bought or invested in them over time) and in the "bust " scenario, taxes go up even more, one way or another.

    You have to ask-what happens, when every public asset has been privatised, and all of a sudden, these companies turn out to be either corrupt, incompetent, criminal, too damn greedy, or just to inefficient, and go bust?

    Nationalizing every poorly run business is ludicrous of course, or governments would be nationalised-or do I mean re-publicised?
    And your being sarcastic to suggest anyone is actually suggesting that of course, but between farm and industry subsidies (without overall public ownership beyond shareholding or taxpaying) , I wonder if a lot of pure free marketers are missing something, ie, the extent to which government does, actually, keep some entire sectors afloat, regardless of a percentage of public ownership.
  7. Economic change that relates to supply and demand is neither good or bad. It is natural.

    A better product than GM has been established.

    GM cannot compete.

    Does it make sense to send a message to all companies that if they can't compete anymore they can suck money out of the government?

    The size of the company does not matter.

    Economies progress through economic stages and the US left the manufactoring stage a long time ago.

    The more the government intervenes the more abnormality it causes.

    Ask yourself one question. Do companies deserve to function when they should be bankrupt and do you feel like paying for these companies to function when the should be bankrupt?

    If everyone wanted to combine morality and compassion with business than we would still be in the stone age.

  8. Typical response, and no doubt you make some good points.

    Lets reason, with the given example of GM, no it seems they cant compete. The end result of that, is monopolism, or true oligarchy.
    Why is that bad? Because again, you have a predatory principle, the basis of corporatisation.
    Competition wil cease to exist, with buyouts and takeovers, leaving you with -Lada, where no further incentive to capture market share through innovation or anything else results in stagnation, lack of investment and-wait for it-bust, net negatives for everyone.

    Toyota, wouldn't do that to you, would they? If all there competition is destroyed, well, maybe they would, given the only reason they exist is to please shareholders, whom very likely , dont actually know much about making cars.

    As for sending messages to corps, how heavily has the car industry been subsidised, and do you truly understand why??

    Big $, if the US or any other industrial nation truly, and i mean truly LOST car making ability, the global economy would collapse overnight; the reasons behind this are many, not local manufacturing , not "jobs", it spells ENORMOUS current account deficits, the likes of which not to many countries could remain solvent with.

    Your right, in theory, the size of the company doesn't matter-but it depends on the size of the economy it resides in .