A nightmare for socialists

samsara15

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
967
Location
Moonbase 2B
that even socialists such as me can dread. I have read lots of over-blown nonsensical hype about the temporary takeover of GM. Have any of you seriously considered the negative side effects of what might happen if the government actually turns a profit? We'll NEVER get them out of it. They'll maybe even start pressuring us to by their vehicles.

I live in a county that has a county run alcohol stores - no private stores. Long ago, Seventh Day Adventists, who prohibit the use of alcohol, dominated our county politics. As a result, the county took over the sales and distribution of all alcoholic beverages. Since I live in the suburbs of DC, eventually, the county became rich and prosperous, and has one of the highest per capita incomes, per county, in the US. Prosperous people drink upscale alcoholic products. First rate wines and scotch.

Guess what? The Puritanical alcohol control system imposed by the county system makes it almost impossible to get first rate alcoholic products, top wines and cognacs, and so forth. Private stores cannot sell liquor, and have only county bought access to better quality wine and beer. So as a result, most people have to go to DC to get their higher quality alcoholic beverages. The county will not give up its monopoly, since it makes a lot of money off the sale of alcoholic beverages, and would have to raise taxes if it gave up its monopoly.
 
Werbung:
that even socialists such as me can dread. I have read lots of over-blown nonsensical hype about the temporary takeover of GM. Have any of you seriously considered the negative side effects of what might happen if the government actually turns a profit? We'll NEVER get them out of it. They'll maybe even start pressuring us to by their vehicles.

I live in a county that has a county run alcohol stores - no private stores. Long ago, Seventh Day Adventists, who prohibit the use of alcohol, dominated our county politics. As a result, the county took over the sales and distribution of all alcoholic beverages. Since I live in the suburbs of DC, eventually, the county became rich and prosperous, and has one of the highest per capita incomes, per county, in the US. Prosperous people drink upscale alcoholic products. First rate wines and scotch.

Guess what? The Puritanical alcohol control system imposed by the county system makes it almost impossible to get first rate alcoholic products, top wines and cognacs, and so forth. Private stores cannot sell liquor, and have only county bought access to better quality wine and beer. So as a result, most people have to go to DC to get their higher quality alcoholic beverages. The county will not give up its monopoly, since it makes a lot of money off the sale of alcoholic beverages, and would have to raise taxes if it gave up its monopoly.

If you are worried about the government making a profit. I can not think of anything they know how to run correctly. But I do think you hit on something, they are going to pressure us to buy thier cars.

I never have liked Fords much, even though I drive one... but I like them now that the did not take bail out money. So its Ford for me from now on
 
that even socialists such as me can dread. I have read lots of over-blown nonsensical hype about the temporary takeover of GM. Have any of you seriously considered the negative side effects of what might happen if the government actually turns a profit? We'll NEVER get them out of it. They'll maybe even start pressuring us to by their vehicles.

I live in a county that has a county run alcohol stores - no private stores. Long ago, Seventh Day Adventists, who prohibit the use of alcohol, dominated our county politics. As a result, the county took over the sales and distribution of all alcoholic beverages. Since I live in the suburbs of DC, eventually, the county became rich and prosperous, and has one of the highest per capita incomes, per county, in the US. Prosperous people drink upscale alcoholic products. First rate wines and scotch.

Guess what? The Puritanical alcohol control system imposed by the county system makes it almost impossible to get first rate alcoholic products, top wines and cognacs, and so forth. Private stores cannot sell liquor, and have only county bought access to better quality wine and beer. So as a result, most people have to go to DC to get their higher quality alcoholic beverages. The county will not give up its monopoly, since it makes a lot of money off the sale of alcoholic beverages, and would have to raise taxes if it gave up its monopoly.

Given a monopoly, they were able to turn a profit? That is a remarkable achievement for a government run enterprise.

GM, however, is not a monopoly. The private corporation that has been running GM has not been able to compete with Toyota effectively, nor to build as high quality vehicles as either Toyota, Honda, or Subaru. What makes you think the government can do better?
 
what seems to be lost here...is that the goverment is not running it.

Well said.
As for the earlier issues, I am pretty sure that the state of Washington more or less has a monopoly on hard liquor sales in that state. Beer and wine can be purchased from grocery stores(Popeye, or anyone who has more up to date information please correct me if I am wrong)

Either way, I think a better answer to all of the issues when it comes to consumption and quality is taxation. In Alaska, beer, wine and liquor are sold in separate stores. But the locals and state has its own specific tax on the booze. For instance, in my community, the State has thier own tariff, then there is the %10 tax on it being consumed locally.

Granted we can get some of the high end stuff(not really for wines) like Grey Goose and any number of micro brews etc etc, but the cost is heavy. Meaning that a 750ml bottle of Crown Royal which costs roughly $25 in most places, costs $50 here, due to taxes and shipping.
 
Well said.


Who is in charge of GM?

Who fired the last CEO and who hired the new one?
Who is setting pay scales?
Who is saying what type of cars will be made?

Those are things that the person running a company decides

those things above were all decided by obama. the government runs it and hires little minions to run the smaller stuff. But the big stuff, the main stuff is decided by the government aka obama

I dont see how we can pretend that obama/government is not running things
 
what seems to be lost here...is that the goverment is not running it.--Pocketfullofshat
Well said.
Orwellian double speak from the Presidents speech:


The most fundamental decisions are the BIGGEST decisions concerning the company! Would any of you, who claim the government is not running GM, have a problem with me making all the most fundamental decisions for how you run your life? I'll decide where you live, what job you work, how much money you make and how you spend it, who your friends are and how you interact with your family but other than that... You'll be totally free of my meddling, because I'm not interested in running your life.

(D) Barney Frank, chairman of the financial services committee, used his clout to keep GM from closing a plant in his district that is costing GM millions of much needed restructuring money.

(R) Jim Jordan asked Obama to personally step in and stop GM from closing a Plant in his district of Mansfield Ohio, also slated for closure.

President Obama had several conversations with Detroit Mayor Bing and several top white house officials from the Administration to assure the Detroit mayor that GM would retain its headquarters in the Ren Center, rather than relocating to the adjacent town of Warren where they were offered lucritive, and much needed, tax breaks for the company.
 
Who is in charge of GM?

Who fired the last CEO and who hired the new one?
Who is setting pay scales?
Who is saying what type of cars will be made?

Those are things that the person running a company decides.
Yeah....and, the "former"-owners made such great-decisions, in all o' those areas.

:rolleyes:
 
Would any of you, who claim the government is not running GM, have a problem with me making all the most fundamental decisions for how you run your life? I'll decide where you live, what job you work, how much money you make and how you spend it, who your friends are and how you interact with your family but other than that... You'll be totally free of my meddling, because I'm not interested in running your life.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....show us what-you've-got, first!!!
 
Who is in charge of GM?

Who fired the last CEO and who hired the new one?
Who is setting pay scales?
Who is saying what type of cars will be made?

Those are things that the person running a company decides

those things above were all decided by obama. the government runs it and hires little minions to run the smaller stuff. But the big stuff, the main stuff is decided by the government aka obama

I dont see how we can pretend that obama/government is not running things

for like the 100th time, NO ONE FIRED HIM...he quit, Obama asked him to step down and he did , but that was a choice not fired. And being that he sucked, and failed to come up with a plan anything like what was needed , it was felt it was best to let someone else try.

And actuly GM would be the one saying what cars to make, And at Chrsler it would be Fiat now most likey.

and the goverment is not setting pay scales, its trying to limit and make sure that they are actuly paid for long term thinking not short term gains...as the one puting the money in, I think we have the right to expect long term thinking and for them to actuly perform to get paid more...maybe you think short term and bonus for failing are good though.
 
Werbung:
for like the 100th time, NO ONE FIRED HIM...he quit, Obama asked him to step down and he did , but that was a choice not fired. And being that he sucked, and failed to come up with a plan anything like what was needed.....

.....After being given 2 MONTHS to DO so!

(I guess Pandora is still a big-fan o' those endless, Bush-style "passes". :rolleyes: )​

"President Obama has a clear message for General Motors and Chrysler. Come back with a better plan or the funds are cut off.

Senior Administration officials said on Sunday that after reviewing the plans submitted by GM and Chrysler on Feb. 17, the President and his top advisors have determined that, not only did the companies not finish the restructuring moves required of them to get more funding, but they need to go farther than the Bush Administration originally demanded.

The government’s intent is clear. President Obama won’t throw money after two companies that have been lurching from crisis to crisis and losing ground to the Japanese and Koreans for years. They have to cut deep and show that they will be able to thrive. “It sounds like they figured it out,” says Maryann N. Keller, a longtime industry analyst who now sits on the board of Dollar Thrifty Rental Cars. “They won’t just put a feeding tube in these companies.”
 
Back
Top