GM President Wagoner resigns...

Osterizer wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Examples of modern Socialism: ~Road construction ~Any publicly funded school (this includes state colleges as well as secondary and elementary) ~Libraries ~Police/Fire Departments ~Any branch of the Military ~State run Hospitals Now, is socialism all bad? I know I don't want to get rid of all the things I listed above.

And is not everyone of those things ROYALLY screwed up in it's operation?

So? I'm not talking about if they're are run according to anyone's definition of efficiently. I'm saying they're socialist and generally agreed to be necessary.

Also, if you think corporations are all paragons of perfect operation..I can't wait until you work in one.

Chris_V wrote: They dictate terms of the loan, like payment, etc. they can refuse to loan for certain business types, true. They don't dictate how to run your business or WHO CAN RUN IT! Never have I had a loan, business or otherwise, where the bank did that.

..and this isn't a very typical loan situation.

Also, GM could've told the government "We don't want your welfare." They didn't. So they're stuck with the devils bargain of their own making.

Maybe this is the point where a Republican should speak up about personal, as well as corporate, responsibility. Seems that R's like that line of thinking when it doesn't apply to CEO's or Corporations. I guess poor people are the only ones who get the "personal responsility" or "up by your own boot straps" sermon.

GM made this bed. Now they're lying in it. Get as mad as you want but GM is to blame for all of this. Big O is attempting to help them clean up enough to get back into business.

Ousting their failure of a CEO was the first step.

And I reiterate my last statement. Banks do not dictate how a business is run or who runs it. Venture capitalists do that, becasue they personally invest in the company and become owners. Banks do NOT.

..and how is that different than taking government money as a loan and promising to return it with interest? I could argue that's venture capitalism. Venture because we have no idea if it's even coming back but are investing hopes of a profit. Capitalism because we're investing in a company in the hopes of making money back via the interest charged on the loan.

I'm not a financial guy so I'm out of my element here. But I think investing money in the hopes of getting a larger return than your initial investment qualifies as venture capitalism.

Having a military is not socialism. And that's one of the few areas that the federal government SHOULD be in charge of.

Well. The Military is owned by and paid for by the government. We, as individuals don't own it. It is not run with any thought towards profit. It answers to no one in terms of practicality or profitability.

So, it's collectively owned. Doesn't earn profit. Is supported by the government. I could also argue the military culture is socialist. Check out the form of medicine the military has. Their resources are all pooled. "To each according to his need" would apply as well. If a soldier needs bullets one soldier would hand them over presumably. Same with food. Socialism.

Now. The definition of socailism:

Dictionary reference.com said: so⋅cial⋅ism    –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Seems like the military is socialist to me.

Few of the things you listed are run very well. And only the bigger libraries (like the Enoch Pratt Free Library system here in MD, which was a private foundation that still gets quite a bit of it's money from private donations, and is really not part of the government) seem to be run well. And even then, that's really not an example of socialism. A service being part of the government does not make it socialist, otherwise simply *having* a government would be socialist. No, socialist is having the government run private industry, and socialist is wealth redistribution.

We're not talking about if an entity is run well. That's a slippery term. I would say the police, fire, and military are run well. Or are you saying our police depts, fire depts, and brothers in arms suck!?

..but you're splitting hairs. Not really a valid part of the discussion.

Also, your definition of socialism is not the agreed upon definition. Read my quoted definition above. You don't get to redefine words to support your argument.

Wrong -verb - someone who disagrees with me.

By my definition, now in place, of the word "wrong". You are Wrong. Stay tuned as I redefine words to further support my arguments.

I would argue that the military is not a socialist organization. Your definition reads:

Xceler8x said: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole

By that definition, the lowest private would have just as much say and interest in the organization as the highest ranking general. I'll tell you from experience, brother, that is absolutely not the case. But, I'm digressing from the original topic here....

Chris_V wrote: The government running private business is a bad idea. PERIOD. The BANK doesn't run your effin' business OR TELL YOU WHO CAN RUN IT if you get a loan from them, so the government should not. What part of this is flying over your head, comrade?

Normally I wouldn't engage in debate with an irrational name-caller, but I'll make an exception for you because you're apparently in dire need of the education if you're to have your own successful business (which you apparently aspire to).

For starters, I don't know what you mean by the "comrade" bit, but if you're insinuating that I'm a communist you're a berkeleying idiot. You're the one who apparently thinks everyone in the economy should be able to suck at the government teat on equal terms without regard to abilities, contribution, or merit. I'm advocating a system in which decisions are based on individual merit and everyone has the freedom to accept or reject commercial transactions that are offered to them.

(If I've misunderstood and you're just using "comrade" a friendly greeting, I apologize for tearing you a new one in the preceding paragraph.)

Secondly, while I agree that governments are bad at business, I doubt they could do much worse than Waggoner who's managed to obliterate about 95% of his shareholders' value during his tenure. I'm sure you'll have plenty of excuses for his performance, but as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility and "the buck stops here" kind of stuff.

Back to the fundamental premise you're apparently either incapable of understanding or unwilling to accept, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BANK!!!

If GM wants normal commercial terms, let them go to the commercial market. Oh, yeah, that's right, the commercial markets won't lend GM a dime because GM is already over-extended and their current management renders them un-creditworthy. Thus, it make perfectly good sense for the government to require a management change as a condition precedent to loaning them more money that the current management has failed to demonstrate any reasonable means of repaying.

Furthermore, your red herring about SBA loans suggests that you are either incredibly naive about or ignorant of how banks make small business commercial lending decisions. Small business loans are based almost entirely on the credit-worthiness of the principals. Thus, it is possible, even likely, that two borrowers could present identical business plans to the same banker and one would be approved and one would not based solely on who the manager of the company was. This is effectively deciding to lend or not based on who runs the company, which is what you castigate the government for doing.

Finally, your assertion that the government is doing this retroactively is simply false. However, even if it were true, banks do this all the time. I'll give you a real world example. My firm has a line of credit that the partners individually guarantee. If a partner leaves the firm the bank can call the note immediately. Thus, the bank effectively has veto power over the firm's management and has effectively made each partner their indentured servant (for so long as we borrow their money).

I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, so this is my last post engaging with you on this topic. However, in considering all of this I do ask that you consider the golden rule: "Those that have the gold make the rules."

billy3esq wrote: I don't really care whether you agree with me or not, so this is my last post engaging with you on this topic. However, in considering all of this I do ask that you consider the golden rule: "Those that have the gold make the rules."

With that in mind, we really should be ruled by pirates then...atleast they're more honest in their theivery.

...and McCain with an eyepatch would have totally won!!