Deadman's picture

    Obama will mean the end of capitalism!!!! (Whoops, too late ...)

    The day after Obama won the election, a Republican friend of mine on Facebook joined a group that planned on getting together on Inauguration Day to mourn 'The End of Capitalism as We Know It'*.

    Members of the group were waxing bitter in the message board, complaining about how Obama was a socialist who was going to destroy the U.S. economy.

    I had to laugh ... and cry.

    Cry because these people were so caught up in their own right-wing economic philosophies (many of which I actually agree with) that they couldn't even for one moment take the time to appreciate the historical significance of what this country's voters had just done.

    No matter what your politics, every one should be able to do what John McCain eloquently did on election night: Recognize that this country has taken a large, profound step to move past its racist beginnings (and recent history) and elected a candidate that preached unity and bipartisanship and re-engaged vast segments of the American people by inspiring a renewed sense of hope and idealism.

    But many of Obama's opponents don't even want to give him a fighting chance. They believe he is doomed to fail and his liberal agenda will cause the collapse of the American empire and its glorious capitalist experiment ... which is why I also had to laugh when I read those messages.

    That experiment has already failed. The empire is already collapsing. Socialism is already here ... And it all happened under a Republican administration.

    Just today, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson generously let the American people know that after careful deliberation, the $700 billion he asked for from Congress is now going to be put to a vastly different use than was originally intended.

    Money that was supposed to be used to buy up bad loans and mortgages rotting away on the balance sheets of banks and gumming up our credit system is now going to be doled out  (in a command-control style, I may add) to buy stakes in troubled banks, as well as potentially help out a number of as-of-yet unspecified companies in as-of-yet unspecified non-financial industries.

    (So much for the program's name: TARP, Troubled Asset Relief Program. Calling it the Tits and Ass Relief Program would have made about as much sense).

    Mark my words: The cost of this program will end up far exceeding $1 trillion (though we may eventually get some of that money back). And that's in addition to the hundreds of billions the Fed has already spent trying to buck up our decrepit financial system.

    Instead of facing the consequences of a decade-long U.S. consumer spending binge, which was encouraged and exacerbated by a housing/credit bubble caused by our government's easy money policies, we are flailing around haphazardly, trying anything and everything to bail our way out of this mess. But all we are doing is throwing good money after bad, and leaving future generations of Americans an enormous, crippling pile of debt.

    The most egregious example of this will likely be the auto industry bailout that is quickly becoming a political inevitability. Right now, the best I can hope for is that the money comes attached with some sort of regulatory plan and set of conditions. If changes aren't made to the auto companies' operating structure (i.e. mainly, a renegotiated contract with the labor unions), they'll be facing the same dire situation a few months down the road because they just cannot currently compete with the lower-cost manufacturers in Japan and throughout the rest of Asia.

    Do I think an auto bailout is a good idea? No way. I'd much rather see GM and Ford be allowed to go bankrupt, and work to restructure their operations through that process, while we spend the money we'll be using in the bailout to retrain displaced workers and invest in start-ups pursuing new green energy technologies. But I understand millions of jobs are at stake. I understand that the American people would find it hard to understand why Wall Street and the fat cat elites who work there and produce nothing of tangible value got bailed out while the manufacturing engine of the country was left to wither on the vine.

    The fact of the matter is, America has never been a purely capitalistic system. We came to grips some time ago that capitalism without safety nets ends up benefiting the few at the expense of the many, and will eventually destroy itself through social instability. That's why we have Social Security, and welfare, and Medicare, and public schooling and student loan programs, etc. etc.

    But it is still quite ironic that the biggest government nationalization and socialist expansion efforts in decades will be coming at the end of a Republican administration that never pursued the fiscal responsibility platform of the conservative movement and is now too afraid to deal with the nasty flip side of the free market policies it espoused.

     

    *I think that was the name of the group - I can't find it on Facebook any longer ... maybe they, too, realized the insanity of their hypothesis

    Comments

    Kinda leaves you speechless doesn't it?  When I hear anything coming out of Paulson's mouth any more I want to throw things.  One of the really ugly things about the auto group going under is the big pensions they have to pay out.  I think GM has raided the pension fund so they have to keep some kind of cash flow going to continue to pay the pensioners.  Why do I get the impression that the current administration is just trying to throw out as much cash to big (make that HUGE) business before they have to leave?  Paulson in effect said today 'I have mine to give out as I please.  If the auto boys want any congress has to spit it out.'  Yeah - the end of capitalism as we know it - but not because of Obama, you jerks.

    The only thing that would bring me any satisfaction now is somekind of brand on the CEOs and mystry boys that made up and sold the disastrous deriviatives that started this.  Smack in the middle of their foreheads! (And I do mean an old-fashioned cattle brand where skin is burnt and it lasts forever!). 


    As far as Paulson, man, the guy looks sleep-deprived (or like he's been on some sort of month-long cocaine binge). I kind of feel bad for him. I think he wants to do the right things for the country, but is finding out awfully quick how enormous and intractable our problems are. and his public performances inspire anything BUT the confidence the markets are so desperately seeking. unfortunately, his actual game plan will also prove to be woefully inadequate.


    You are right, deadman.  Paulson is doing the best he can and I need to remember that.  I think he is just the focus of my frustration at a situation I am powerless over.  I am reminded of thinking that there was a level of money that moved around the world in a way that was as distant and mysterious to me as far galaxies. And this was after three economics classes!  


    I agree that the auto bailout will happen for the reasons you offer and add that the auto industry is such a symbol of American manufacturing that to for them to go bankrupt would be a psychological blow to the country. But perhaps this is at least an opportunity to force them to finally focus on more fuel efficient cars.


    i mostly disagree with that psychological blow hypothesis, or at least that preventing such a blow is worth the cost of temporarily saving what will be still-doomed entities.

    btw, why do we need to build the actual cars in the U.S. - apple doesn't build its iphones here, but that American company sure has created a lot of jobs and value for this country. Can't we find ways to develop energy-efficient, or stylish, or innovative vehicles, brand them with our still powerful labels, and just outsource the manufacturing to other countries. i dont know if that's feasible, but we ought to look at this idea as creatively as possible, not just do what's politically expedient.


    The thing is, it's great to say let them go under or let the markets decide where cars are built, but have you ever been to Michigan? Because generations of families have built their whole lives around the auto industry. To say, well, they can be retrained, or that's life, or there are always losers in capitalism belies the fact that, should the auto industry go under, lives would be utterly destroyed. What happens in Michigan's economy is always a precursor to what is about to happen nationally. When Michigan starts to tank, in a couple of years, we'll all be in trouble. It happened in the 70s and it's happened again. Maybe next time, we won't be so oblivious when it starts so we can do something to prevent disaster.

    a) i have been to michigan, though i dont think it's relevant here since i was in Battle Creek, home of Kellogg's, celebrating the Biggest Breakfast Table in America yearly extravaganza. That was quite the treat ...

    b) The car industry just isn't as important to his country as it once was. For decades, it was THE industry for America. In fact, I dare say, for better or worse, it's the problems on Wall Street that will end up leading to the problems in Michigan and not the other way around. Wall Street and Silicon Valley are now much more important to the country's economic growth than Detroit. And we should be seeking to position ourselves for the next big opportunity rather than worry about an industry past its prime (hell, like I said, the next great opportunity could be in transportation, just not the big trucks and SUVs Detroit fell in love with making).

    And of course there will be pain, lives destroyed. and the government needs to try and minimize that suffering. i just don't see how you avoid it without totally closing off our economy from the rest of the world, which will lead to less growth (and more pain) in aggregate for the country.

    c) And I'm not really saying the U.S. auto industry should go under, but the bankruptcy process encourages companies to recapitalize, restructure their operations, and most importantly, gives them cover to renegotiate new, less onerous union contracts that will make them more competitive in the global marketplace. Just throwing money at the problem is merely a stalling tactic.

     


    I don't think that the Obama plan is to merely throw money at the problem, and I agree that is a dumb idea. My perspective is definitely tainted by growing up in the Midwest in the 1970s and 1980s, watching the manufacturing industry basically close up shop. Whole communities died along with them and only started to come back in the 1990s, but that was based on a somewhat false sense of prosperity, when credit was cheap and the sky was the limit. I'm not a protectionist, but I think that there is something to be said for balance. The auto industry has been in trouble for years and we're just now starting really to think through a different kind of future, with greener cars or retooling factories for a new energy economy. But just as the economic problems in the 1970s were predicated largely on the failure of manufacturing as the largest industry in the US, a big part of our problem right now is that the financial industry got too big, not by itself, but in relationship to other industries that drive the economy. We need balance. Of course, I should add the caveat that I'm no economist and I am just talking based on what I've seen or think I remember from my childhood. I could totally be talking out of my ass. As for unions, though, I disagree with you vehemently. When the unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Auto workers have already been screwed out of a lot of pay and benefits because unions have lost their standing. I say give the unions more power for collective bargaining, not less.

    The formatting on this site is a mystery to me. That comment had paragraphs and everything!

    Normally, when you post or comment, you should see editing buttons at the top of the textbox. But it's a little buggy, and sometimes they don't load right. When that happens, the spacing disappears from anything that you post. If it does happen, just refresh the page. The buttons should then appear, and everything should work. Unfortunately, our tech budget is approximately $0.


    You should call yourselves Dagbank. Then you could get some of that cash they're throwing around.


    A brilliant plan. Besides, dag is too big to fail. It would drag the whole internet down with it.


    Orlando, most economist will agree that labor is the weak link in any capialist system and unions help equal things out.  The pensions that I mentioned in my comment above were taken away from the unions due to graft and given to GM to administer.  They got into the money - I'm sure legally - so the cash flow has to continue.  And you are right that there are lots of people connected to working with the auto industry in this country.  For that reason alone they will get the money.  The problem that makes me scream in rage (and a lot of other people) about them getting a handout is this - they have been losing market share to imports that were greener and cheaper.  Who was responsible for 5 and 10 year plans at these companies and what were they projecting?  How did they miss the end of oil?  Were they just grabbing what they could and hoping it would last until they retired?  You know full well if you ran your busniess like the car companies have you would at the very least lose it and then get laughed out of town.  I work very hard to eliminate reward and punishment from my thought processes but this bailout thing has hit the anger buttons and jammed them.    The problems the auto industry is facing now were not caused by the Wall Street melt down.  They were caused by poor management. 


    When the unions were strong, the middle class was strong. Auto workers have already been screwed out of a lot of pay and benefits because unions have lost their standing. I say give the unions more power for collective bargaining, not less.

    I don't buy simple equations like unions = good or unions = bad. Unions are social institutions and thus capable of both, just like companies, governments, religions, etc. Unions are certainly necessary to protect workers, and it's true that they strengthen the middle class and help alleviate the income gaps endemic to capitalism, but they can also be greedy, corrupt, racist, sexist, and xenophobic. In boom times, we need powerful unions to ensure that profits are fairly distributed. In bad times, intractable unions can make problems worse, not only by insisting on pay raises that companies can't afford but also by resisting restructuring that would make companies leaner.

    Auto workers are suffering not because the auto unions have become weak and let auto executives steal all the profits. They're suffering because the profits have dried up. The companies don't have the finances to offer the union-negotiated pay raises of the old days. Well-run unions accept the reality and exhibit flexibility when needed to allow companies to restructure and downsize. Poorly run unions resist all change and contribute to failing companies' downfalls. In boom times, it's a different story. That's when unions should have maximum negotiating power.


    Agreed that it's not an all or nothing equation, but I'd bet that most management execs see it that way: Unions = bad. Yes unions are institutions but there is also a labor movement that rises and falls on the strength of all unions--trade, service workers, teachers. I'm not saying that unions don't need to change with the times, but I also believe that to a large extent unions, and the labor movement as a whole, have fallen victim to the "ACORN syndrome". The problems that no doubt existed were greatly exaggerated and public opinion was swayed. Add that to the current mega-employers who refuse to consider unions, like Walmart. And, you're right that auto workers are suffering because their companieshave been mismanaged, not because their unions have made unreasonable demands. But again, unions and workers have been used as the great scapegoat.


    Yes, many execs see unions as bad. Yes, unions have been scapegoated. Yes, unions are very weak or nonexistent in some sectors, most notably Walmat, and that's a bad thing.

    Seems like we're pretty close to agreement. Sigh...we need more obstinate trolls.

    PS But I don't think that deadman was scapegoating unions, just noting that auto unions will need to adjust as well as auto companies if the industry is to rebound. If it even can rebound, about which I have my doubts.


    I'm feeling very protective of unions after spending four days last week camped out in a union hall for GOTV. 

    And I'm totally NOT agreeing with you, but I don't think Deadman was scapegoating unions either. But I do think that as soon as companies start to get called on their bad business decisions, their default is to start whining about the unions. It's irritating.


    wasn't scapegoating unions at all - i have very mixed feelings about how much good they do. at one point, they were absolutely necessary, because labor protections and rights were almost non-existent ... and i still think they can be a positive if they are flexible. the airline industry actually was saved - at least temporarily (if oil had stayed at $140 a barrel, would have been a different story) - because their unions realized how precarious the situation was and agreed to alter their contracts.

    but that change didn't come easy and not in time to save all the airlines. it's usually very tough for large, monolithic unions to adjust when broader conditions in their industries have changed. not surprising, they often fight hard not to give back anything they've earned in past battles.

    Ideally, I'd like to see almost all labor unions have a fair amount of their compensation tied to the profits of their employer. Company does well, union does well, and vice versa. We're all tied in this thing together and both sides need to do a better job realizing that.

    in the auto industry, it's just a fact: U.S. workers are compensated at significantly higher rates than their counterparts throughout the world. It's very tough for automakers to be profitable and competitive with that cost structure. No doubt, US automakers compounded the problem by choosing not to invest in small, more efficient cars, and doubling down on SUVs and trucks at just the wrong time, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Without change in their cost structure, any government bailout plan would provide nothing more than a stay of execution.


    U.S. workers are compensated at significantly higher rates than their counterparts throughout the world.

    Yes, but U.S. auto executives are compensated at far higher rates relative to their counterparts thoughout the world. Total executive compensation is of course a small part of total labor costs, but isn't there some hypocrisy in executives telling unions that wages need to be in line with other countries?


    totally fair point, which is why executive AND labor compensation ought to be tied closely with company profits. that's not to say equally tied tho of course. that's socialism ...


    Latest Comments