Bailout every industry?

inlet13

Not going to try to say I understand the context here. I hope he didn't mean this as it may come across. But, this is an interesting quote from President Obama.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Questions:

Who here believes the federal government should do this with every industry?

If you do, where exactly do you suggest a line is drawn?

Should the federal government just take over everything?

Moreover, how exactly is this quote not advocating socialism?

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

Not going to try to say I understand the context here. I hope he didn't mean this as it may come across. But, this is an interesting quote from President Obama.

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Questions:
Who here believes the federal government should do this with every industry?
If you do, where exactly do you suggest a line is drawn?
Should the federal government just take over everything?
Moreover, how exactly is this quote not advocating socialism?

...
It depends.
Finance? Banks? Just let them go over the cliff... then what?
Regarding the auto industry... does anyone really think that dumping all of the people associated with auto manufacturing into the ranks of the unemployed is a good thing for America?
Smaller industries with smaller work forces... like shoe makers or television builders. Sorry.

hedonist

Perhaps simplistic on my part, but shouldn't any organization that isn't run well, or has half-assed employees, or is losing money, or whose product is becoming irrelevant - be allowed (I don't like using this word in this context but I guess it applies) to fail? Or be allowed to try and save themselves on their own?

And by the same token, it would seem that those that ARE run well would naturally succeed, maybe expand.

Evolution, along with supply and demand.

Like I said, simplistic. I realize there are many factors that surround a company's longevity, and their collapse or success.

And no, I don't like the government getting involved, and not solely on principle alone - they don't have their act together and have shitty judgment in terms of using money wisely.

(they're good at printing it, though )

Cosmo

Sort of along those same lines... would the Americans that felt the auto companies should have gone bakrupt been fine if China came across the sea and bought GM and Chrysler in order to get into an established maker, rather than trying to start up an auto industry of their own?

unsung

I am against bailouts in general and especially against bailouts for the banking sector.

cincybearcat

I don't think he is referring to bail outs for all industries, just that he wants the same resurgence. He wants to bring them all back. Would be an interesting question to ask him though..."mr pres, you had to bail out auto, how do you intend to bring back other manufacturing, bail outs?"

peacefrompaul

No and No

peacefrompaul

Cosmo wrote:

Sort of along those same lines... would the Americans that felt the auto companies should have gone bakrupt been fine if China came across the sea and bought GM and Chrysler in order to get into an established maker, rather than trying to start up an auto industry of their own?

No, I'd rather GM and Chrysler learned to adapt to the car market and succeed like I know they can.

peacefrompaul

hedonist wrote:

(they're good at printing it, though )

According to Ben Bernanke we can print our way out of debt.

mikepegg44

Cosmo wrote:

Sort of along those same lines... would the Americans that felt the auto companies should have gone bakrupt been fine if China came across the sea and bought GM and Chrysler in order to get into an established maker, rather than trying to start up an auto industry of their own?

I am fine with a business going under, being bought by the "chinese" or whoever. It sucks for the people in that line of work, but if all industries don't get the same treatment under the law, that is called favoritism, that is EXACTLY what crony capitalism is all about...it isn't about free markets, it is about who's ear you were able to get to at what time...it is a joke.
Sorry guy, you are too small to care about so your employees are ok to suffer...we need car commercials on t.v about the American spirit...so we are going to save them...

brianlux

I don't see the quote as advocating socialism but even if Obama did advocate socialism would it matter? Does anyone really believe the US is in hopes of or in danger of (depending on your view point) becoming socialist? I wouldn't get my hopes up or be fearful.

polaris_x

socialism! ... ... there goes the boogey man again! ... strike fear in the heart of the ignorant!

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

I don't see the quote as advocating socialism but even if Obama did advocate socialism would it matter? Does anyone really believe the US is in hopes of or in danger of (depending on your view point) becoming socialist? I wouldn't get my hopes up or be fearful.

Re-read it. I understand the context may be semi-confusing. But, if he's saying we should do what we did with the auto industry to all industries, I'm pretty sure that's advocating a form of socialism.

Here's the definition:

Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]


Once again, I admitted I don't know his context. I'm assuming it just came out wrong. But, I have to say if it didn't come out wrong, or it was a Freudian slip, it was advocating socialism.

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Sort of along those same lines... would the Americans that felt the auto companies should have gone bakrupt been fine if China came across the sea and bought GM and Chrysler in order to get into an established maker, rather than trying to start up an auto industry of their own?

I am fine with a business going under, being bought by the "chinese" or whoever. It sucks for the people in that line of work, but if all industries don't get the same treatment under the law, that is called favoritism, that is EXACTLY what crony capitalism is all about...it isn't about free markets, it is about who's ear you were able to get to at what time...it is a joke.
Sorry guy, you are too small to care about so your employees are ok to suffer...we need car commercials on t.v about the American spirit...so we are going to save them...

The problem is people really don't understand what bankruptcy means. There were other ways to handle these problems.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I don't see the quote as advocating socialism but even if Obama did advocate socialism would it matter? Does anyone really believe the US is in hopes of or in danger of (depending on your view point) becoming socialist? I wouldn't get my hopes up or be fearful.

Re-read it. I understand the context may be semi-confusing. But, if he's saying we should do what we did with the auto industry to all industries, I'm pretty sure that's advocating a form of socialism.

Here's the definition:

Socialism play /ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic system characterized by social ownership and cooperative management of the means of production,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]


Once again, I admitted I don't know his context. I'm assuming it just came out wrong. But, I have to say if it didn't come out wrong, or it was a Freudian slip, it was advocating socialism.

Could be. I can't picture Obama blatantly advocating socialism- this country would never stand for it's president doing that today- maybe 75 years ago, but not today. If Obama is trying to be subtle in advocating socialism, he won't make any progress. Either way I don't see anything here to cause a stir over.

Americans are fearful of socialism to the point of being unwilling to be educated about socialism and its various forms. It's starting to feel like the 50's and early 60's again. I remember quite clearly many people crying "pinko!" and good people were getting blacklisted and loosing their careers for any tiny characteristic that could possible be interpreted as communist. The fear thing is getting that ridiculous again. If it wasn't so unsettling it would be amusing.