Over the last twenty five years there has been a lot of rhetoric from really both parties about the function of government vs the private sector. This country was founded for two reasons, religious and economic freedom. The government was formed to support both, not **** block. I was riding in the truck on part time job one day with this young conservative. We were on a road with nothing but 18 wheelers and lot of lots with concrete suppliers. I told the guy this is the perfect senario, you have a road that was built for businesses. Trucks pick up there supply on that road, away from normal traffic. The concrete suppliers get set up in a spot that makes it easy on there customers. The normal traffic is a little safer because because there are less trucks. Its a win win, paid for by taxes. The port of Houston is a prime example. The fore fathers of our city had the great idea to dredge buffalo bayou and form a port, first to move cotton out of texas. i think the port of houston is the second largest in the us in terms of tonnage passing through. it really benefits our refineries that can import foreign oil and export gasoline. its the main driver of economic growth in this city. the port is a public institution that supports private companies. We have to change the rhetoric, stop villifying the government and businesses, and move forward.
The high cost of oil is the driver of this city's economic growth. Cap and trade would benefit Houston's economy as well. Is that the type of marriage between government and business you are talking about?
yeah, houston's economy is really being killed right now. i don't know if cap and trade is the best solution, but government has to protect its citizens and that includes environmental concerns. anyway, i guess there is no port. there is no spoon also
infrastructure projects for use by all are a far cry from bailouts, subsidies, and guaranteed loans for favored/connected parties We've got multiple federal agencies that are issued billions to dole out to companies like a slush fund, which gets rerouted in the form of campaign donations. It's a legalized form of laundering our tax dollars. Of course we don't call it corporate welfare anymore, now it's a "partnership" or "saving an industry".
We borrowed a bunch of money to prop up failing businesses and banks. Even disregarding the immorality of that, how do you figure it worked? GM's stock price?
gm is failing? we saved a bunch of jobs, and don't know how that is immoral. i'm not having a bank bailout argument again, i don't know how that creeped in here anyway.
try to extend that logic to every company that lays people off. Should we just borrow/print more and save them as well? Why does GM get special treatment? You don't see what's immoral about throwing other people's money at a specific failing business, elevated above all others? Bailouts are a manifestation of the marriage of government and business, the title of your post.
bank bailouts are an extraodinary situation. its another topic, its not like they happen even every decade gm gets special treatment because its a vital industry responsible for a boat load of jobs
So if a company gets to a certain number of employees it can no longer be allowed to fail and the American people must prop it up? What's the magic number?
fixed Of course GM is a vital company, the economy would collapse without Volts and Silverados, they're irreplaceable. Clearly the key to business success is to have the government bless your company as "vital".
you do know the unions had to make concessions. you do know the automobile industry is vital you do know the chinese like to buy gms you do know we need to increase overall exports to the rest of the world you do know that other industries depend on auto manufacturing or maybe you don't and I shouldn't make assumptions
also, please stop preaching you know more about business success than the rest of us as if your name is steve jobs. its patronizing and ridiculous and irritating and so forth and so on
you do know that if gm goes bankrupt that get to get out of paying off all debts which would cause a vicious chain reaction in other companies laying off workers. you do understand how the economy works right gm builds cars has thousands of employees they buy steel, which is an industry with thousands of employees they buy plastic, an industry with thousands of employees they out source building of many different parts so you have to look at more than gm employees now before you and the other guy respond, come at me with facts and not rhetoric. tia
That's just a summary of potential consequences. It is precisely those "too big to fail" entities who are: a) advanced experts in the field of risk and b) lobbying politicians to ensure bailouts are provided and so they can continue their high risk-high reward model, a model whose "unpredictable" risk is absorbed by the people (since the entities are never liquid enough themselves to cope with these potential consequences you refer to). The act of using people's money to bail out a group of selected individuals or entities is so abhorrent in itself, it makes a person wonder if you want to absorb what seems to be an eternal series of mini or medium sized failures, or just one big one which would make other "TOO BIG TO FAIL" entities take notice?
maybe you misunderstand me which is my fault. early last decade no one was lobbying for bailouts because they didn't think they would fail.
