Responding to an earlier request by GM, Chrysler, and Ford seeking $25 billion in loans from the federal government (a figure recently raised to $50 billion), Socialist Party USA Vice-Presidential nominee Stewart Alexander has upped the ante and called for an even larger sum, along with his own plan for a socialist reshaping of the industry:
Alexander has proposed a long term, comprehensive program that will require the investment of $300 billion over the next decade; Alexander’s plan would also call for a major restructure of the U.S. automobile industry. Under his plan, the U.S. government would nationalize the U.S. oil industry, the ethanol industry, and the automobile industry. Over a period of 10 years, the U.S. government would invest $300 billion into the automobile industry manufacturing fuel efficient vehicles and electric cars; expanding the industry to all areas of the U.S, to include more rural areas.
By January 2010, 90 percent of all automobiles and trucks that are shipped to the U.S. would be restricted to zero emission standards. This requirement would not apply to automobiles and trucks that are manufactured by foreign automakers here in the U.S. By 2015, over half of all new cars and trucks, sold in the U.S. would be required to have zero emission; and by 2020 that requirement would apply to 95 percent of all new vehicles sold nationwide.
It should also be noted that the proposed funds and standards would not necessarily be an exclusively American affair:
Under Alexander’s plan, foreign automakers doing business in the U.S. would also be eligible to receive these federal back loans; however, with the same requirements of the U.S. automakers, these companies would be required to operate under U.S. authority and nationalized before receiving any federal assistance.
Alexander closes his latest missive referring to a federal bailout proposal expected to come from the big three manufacturers over the coming weekend, saying “this corporate bailout is short sighted and should be rejected by Congress.”
I know, but in my defense I had to finish up some summer reading.
It’s the government’s fault Mike T reads so god damn slow.
“People are dying due to preventable causes because they can’t afford health care — and the reason they can’t afford health care is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION into the market causes prices to be too high!”
I just got to the part in the Ruwart book. But I have my doubts that it is the only reason, as I’m not going to jump around saying it’s the governments fault for everything. Not giving them a free ride, but I don’t know enough about the healthcare industry to make an assessment like that.
Even here, in poverty-stricken south eastern Ohio, I have seen countless people open their wallets and give thousands in order to help their neighbors, family, and friends pay hospital bills. This was done of their own free will out of a desire to help those in need. If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
Ross – None of us know enough about anything to really debate it. You’re just getting piled on because you have an unpopular opinion (in these circles). You probably know as much as the rest of us.
People are dying due to preventable causes because they can’t afford health care — and the reason they can’t afford health care is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION into the market causes prices to be too high!
You know, after having a few of these arguments, I’ve realized that I don’t know enough about the subject to debate it.
However, for now I do know that people are dying due to a preventable cause and people are suffering due to a preventable cause. So we should do everything in our power to stop it. Even if that means scraping some extra cash off the accounts of the well-to-do.
And Gravel wasn’t for single payer healthcare.
Also, Ross, in addition to the moral objections to universal health care, there’s also the fact that the state is incapable of delivering anything as efficiently as the market does. People constantly blame the market for the high health care costs in the status quo, but that ignores the existence of Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, and countless other government interventions in the health care market.
More government interference will only cause the price to go even higher, and the quality to go even lower, since the government is just another middleman that further alienates the buyer and seller and thus distorts the natural relationship between supply and demand. People are motivated to seek the highest quality at the lowest cost only when they’re shopping for themselves, using their own money.
“The more I think about it, the gladder I am that Barr beat Gravel.”
Now you’re catching on, GE. Barr is a long way from a perfect libertarian, but at least he believes that some rights are inalienable. Gravel, on the other hand…well, let’s just say that when you open that Populist Pandora’s Box, things can get ugly in a hurry.
By the way, Ross is a really good guy and a great reporter for IPR, and we’re jumping on him, gangland style here. But that’s how it goes.
But consider this: THIS is the type of philosophy Gravel wanted to bring into the LP!
The more I think about it, the gladder I am that Barr beat Gravel.
By the way: I’m better off for not having healthcare coverage. I don’t get sick. If I break a bone, I pay out of pocket. It’s a lot less than paying premiums or being taxed. And plus, I don’t have to do whatever the government tells me (i.e. vaccinations, etc.). So I’m definitely better off for not having healthcare coverage, and you’re evil if you presume to tell me what’s best for me.
What if the majority of people want something like “free iPods?”
Ross’s view is very evil.
The majority right now deny equal rights to homosexuals. How daft must one be to play the “majority is always right” card? The majority in Germany followed Hitler. JFC, Ross!
Who is helped by people not having their own private airplane?
This question is rediculous.
Ross,
No one. But it is up to each person to provide for themselves. If they are incapable, it is up to the American people to step up and donate to charities for that purpose (churches, civic organizations,etc) or demand that the insurance companies do so.
But when you use the threat of force (or imprisonment) to contribute someone ELSE’s money to charity…it isnt charity. It’s theft.
Okay: who is helped due to lack of health care coverage?
No one. Is whether someone is helped the only moral consideration of any action?
Okay: who is helped due to lack of health care coverage?
The government is a tool that can be used to provide for the people if they want it.
The point is, it can only “provide” for people by taking from others.
And if the majority of the people want something like universal health care or veteran’s care, then they deserve it.
In what way does wanting something equate to deserving it?
And before you lecture me on tyranny of the majority, I’d like to know who is helped by denying the majority their rights because of the objections of a minority.
I’m sure this view was popular in the South circa the 1850s.
Who is helped when thousands are dying due to lack of healthcare, because people like us are sitting around having philosophical debates rather than acting on their behalf?
I was originally going to call this a bad argument, but now I realize it is a failure to argue. You can’t assess whether something is right or wrong, because taking the time to do so is inaction? A good way to rev up war hysteria, but doesn’t quite address anything does it?
Government is different than just a group of “thugs.” It’s easy to just paint things black and white and say that the government is equal to a single criminal, but that’s not the way it is. The government is a tool that can be used to provide for the people if they want it. And if the majority of the people want something like universal health care or veteran’s care, then they deserve it.
And before you lecture me on tyranny of the majority, I’d like to know who is helped by denying the majority their rights because of the objections of a minority. Who is helped when thousands are dying due to lack of healthcare, because people like us are sitting around having philosophical debates rather than acting on their behalf?
Maybe if you buy something that kind of looks like a stereo with it or something. 😉
So if someone steals my stereo, but leaves a pile of $10’s, its ok?
Ross simply believes that a gang of thugs can call themselves “government” and then commit crimes for “the good” of the people, and that’s somehow morally justified. He also thinks he has a “say” in what they do. Quite hilarious. You have no say, Ross. When you get to be a wise old man like myself, you will see that.
“Not everyone can afford their own health care and transportation.”
Does need justify theft?
“And under socialism, wealth is not “stolen—
I guess that is technically true since everything is state owned under socialism. There would be no wealth to steal.
You’ll spend 50% of my money on a comprehensive education, and I’ll have a say in where my money goes (at least somewhat).
Ross – What about education? I think you should read the Mises books. You’ll get something out of it. So I’m establishing an organization, demanding you pay me money, and if you don’t, I will throw you in an animal cage. In return, I’ll spend about 50% of your money on some books that I choose for you to read. Good deal?
Not everyone can afford their own health care and transportation.
Ross, how is that a better system than just paying for your own healthcare and transportation?
If you were an established organization that collected taxes, and you took enough money to sustain yourself an provide for the people, and I got something – like healthcare or transportation – in return, I would have no problem with it.
Ross – So if I invade your house, steal your money, buy you some books from the Mises Institute (which would definitely be for your own good), and pay myself a “carrying charge,” that wouldn’t be stealing?
Trent, it would be stealing if the state didn’t give something back to you. But criminals don’t take your money then give you something good for it in return, like transportation or healthcare, do they?
Deran,
Under socialism, the state takes your money without you freely giving it right? I call that theft.
I think the real fallacy is the idea of dumping this money into the automotive industry at all. Rather refocus on rebuiulding the national, interurban, and local train systems, as well as light rail, trolleys etc for local use.
I agree abt the outrageousness of another taxpayer bailout of multinationals. But trying to regenerate a cheap oil-era industry seems like looking backwards and not forwards?
And under socialism, wealth is not “stolen”, like it is by tax cuts for the rich and multinationals, it is socially redirected. And not via some central plan, by the decisions of the regions themselves cooperating in a commonwealth.
It really coems down to who you think the “surplus value” belongs to.
In socialist fantasies the money is stolen. In neocon fantasies the money is borrowed and becomes someone elses problem to pay back. Some people can be very generous when they are using someone elses money.
The same place it comes from in the neocon-fascist fantasies.
$300 billion? Where does this money COME from in socialist fantasies?
Well, now we all have a reason not to vote for Alexander. He apparently lacks any understanding for how the automotive industry works and he doesn’t seem to realize that we are approaching a $10 trillion deficit.