That’s the beauty – or flaw, depending on your perception – of the American political system. Namely, that a politician can backtrack from his or her core beliefs when necessary to stay in office.

The quotas on Japanese cars staved off something worse – namely, tariffs or domestic content legislation.

Of course, they also encouraged the Japanese to move upmarket (if they could only import so many cars, they were going to import more profitable ones) and set up an American production base. Both of which ended up hurting the domestics in the long run.

Harley Davidson? That’s called effective lobbying. I’m sure that, over Obama’s term, we will find areas in which he takes actions that don’t fit what he said he would do, or that deviate from leftist orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean he is a conservative – unless he governs completely from the right. Which is highly doubtful.

BDB: Don’t even confuse early-20th Century progressives with modern day liberals. It’s like confusing the Republican Party of the 1860s with the modern day one.

Can’t buy that. (And was I just imagining all of the praise for Franklin Delano Roosevelt by the left during the campaign, and constant pointers to his “first 100 days” when Obama was elected?)

Many liberals have been supportive of an interventionist foreign policy and strong U.S. military. They just want to make sure that they – and not Republicans – are running both. Unless Hillary Clinton, for example, is not longer a liberal…

BDB: The “unions” Hitler replaced the real Unions with were a farce and window dressing. They didn’t mean anything, anymore than the fact the Soviet Constitution guaranteed free speech. The industrialists got to dictate working conditions, work rules, etc, by fiat, and the right to strike was outlawed. The national “Labor Front” was just window dressing and a rubber stamp for whatever the owners of the corporations wanted.

The Strength Through Joy program was not just window dressing. It was a very far-reaching program that did bring benefits to workers’ lives.

People, especially many Germans, don’t like to admit it, but if Hitler had stood for re-election in early 1939, he would have won in a landslide – especially among the working class.

Pch101: It was more than that. Reagan wanted oligopoly in certain areas because it was believed that small US companies facing larger US competitors would not be able to compete as the economy globalized.

That’s pro corporation, without a doubt. That contradicts your earlier statement: “When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.”

That seems to me to be more of a pro-business outlook than a pro-corporate outlook. Businesses need to be organized as corporations to compete in world markets. Whatever the type of business, Regan wanted as many obstacles removed for them as possible. If a mom-and-pop operation had a thriving export business, Reagan would have supported it, too.

But that doesn’t mean he would have necessarily bailed out corporations when they failed. That is the ultimate test of whether a leader or government is “pro-corporation.” (And I don’t think that first Bush and then Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler because of their exports or that they are competing in world markets.)

pch101: All libertarians are conservatives, but that does not stand to follow that all conservatives are libertarians. The absence of regulation, open borders and isolationist foreign policy views of textbook libertarianism are rejected by most who are on the right.

This is true, but that doesn’t mean that some libertarian ideas have not had a major influence on conservative thought.

pch101: I’d avoid the delusions of grandeur that some libertarians engage in. Libertarianism just isn’t that popular, and conservatives tend to pick and choose the bits that they like from the libertarian camp while avoiding the stuff that they don’t. In other words, most of it.

Certain aspects libertarian ideology have a had an impact on thinking. It’s the more mundane stuff that blocks their path to success (or elected office).

In this point, they are like communists and committed socialists. The latter two have many ideas, they inhabit think tanks and universities, and rarely, if ever, end up getting elected to office. But one cannot say that some of their ideas do not bubble up in the mainstream – but such ideas are always cleaned up, watered down, and presented by a more “respectable” person or official.

pch101: That’s wrong. If you are discussing political ideology, then you need to address one’s ideological motivations for a particular position.

When it came to building super highways, the motivation of Roosevelt was the same as that of Hitler. He believed in roads for rapid movement of troops. That is why he supported the construction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike – in addition to putting people to work, but putting people to work was also part of Hitler’s reason for building the Autobahn.

The main reason he didn’t need to build as many roads was because the states had traditionally taken on this role (in Pennsylvania, for example, Governor Gifford Pinchot had earlier instituted a program to pave country roads to “get farmers out of the mud.”)

pch101: It traditionally is. The right-left axis began in the French parliament, where the monarchists who favor state institutions sat on the right, while those who favored popular rule sat on the left. The military and monarchy were closely associated, as the former used force to defend the latter, and that tradition remains.

Militarism was a hallmark of the Soviet Union, and Putin appears to be promoting the same as he consolidates power in Russia.

Even France – which is hardly a right-wing country – has maintained a strong military regardless of which party was in power and does not hesitate to use it when necessary. (The idea that the French are “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” is nonsense. They can be tough when the need arises, and do no hesitate to aggressively protect their national interests with military force.)

That was the point of the metaphor. What the US is doing currently is not unique, either. The US and other western democracies have done similar things before, particularly during times of crisis.

If this was a communist country, it would have seized control of every auto company operating in the United States, created a permanent centralized planning program over 100% of US vehicle production, and limited our choices to a few awful selections. It would have also created a government-controlled sham union designed to create the illusion of an empowered workforce. And it would have done it a long time ago; it wouldn’t have waited for the greatest meltdown in seven decades to start.

None of that has happened. Your analogy therefore fails. Find a less polarizing, more accurate comparison, your current one isn’t working.

-The Nazis built superhighways and supported private car ownership
-The United States builds superhighways and supports private car ownership
-Therefore, Americans are Nazis.

—————————————-
Your analogy is flawed.

Car ownership is not unique to the Nazis. It can happen in any social systems. So, yeah, it’s wrong to say a system that allows car ownership is Nazis.

However, a government owning, planning and operating an industry is a unique, defining characteristic of Communism.

Thus, I have rightly stated that what the US did to GM is a Communist action.

The US is not a Communist state yet, because it’s other actions are not entirely Communist.

But should what’s happening at GM serve as a precedence for future dealings, the US would become a Communist regime in no time.

And you might notice that the US is not operating the entire automotive industry, but is attempting to prevent a specific company that is considered to be “too big to fail” (i.e. it can’t fail without creating ripple effects that go well beyond the company itself) from dragging down the rest of the economy.

——————————————–

What I notice is that the US government is operating the entire automotive industry. The government now decides which company receives TARP, which CEO to kick out, which brands to cut, which cars to buy with public funding, which cars are (supposed to be) green … That is about to which extend China did/doing.

Do you truly expect Obama personally assembling cars for the US government to be “operating the entire automotive industry.”

———————————————
The scope is different, the motivation is different, and the end game is different.

——————————————–
Whether it’s in China or in the US, the scope is the same: to protect inefficient domestics from fierce foreign or private competitions.

The motivation is the same: to protect auto jobs for social stability and more importantly to protect the financial interest of the elite class (no, not the bondholders, think of the CEOs).

The end game is the same: they will die out. Before they completely die, they will keep on producing cars that nobody wants to buy. They will either slash the price, or force agencies to buy, or deny foreign companies access to the market.

And you might notice that the US is not operating the entire automotive industry, but is attempting to prevent a specific company that is considered to be “too big to fail” (i.e. it can’t fail without creating ripple effects that go well beyond the company itself) from dragging down the rest of the economy. The scope is different, the motivation is different, and the end game is different.

You have taken the “affirming the consequent” logical error to new depths:

-The Nazis built superhighways and supported private car ownership
-The United States builds superhighways and supports private car ownership
-Therefore, Americans are Nazis.

Your argument is illogical and extremist. You habitually compare apples to oranges, and you fail to see that governments **of all types** sometimes tinker with the economy on occasion, particularly when things get bad.

The US is not communist, and it’s ridiculous to say that it is. You don’t have to like the policies, but to claim that they are communist suggests a limited vocabulary and a general ignorance of political theory. That dog don’t hunt, and the more that you go on, the more that it looks like Old Yeller.

The US is not a communist country, so stop bleating out that rhetoric as if Mao was on the one dollar bill. Your over-the-top descriptors tell me nothing, other than the fact that you don’t know much about either your home country or the one that you live in now.

———————————————–

It seems, after all, you don’t even know what Communism is about.

Communism, in terms of economics, is all about state planning and operating industries, i.e. what the Chinese government is doing to SAIC, or what the American government is doing to GM.

Communism, in terms of political structure, is all about demolishing the government—people are supposed to live in harmony without a government. That, we don’t have an example anywhere in the world yet.

It so happens that no government is willing to give up power. So, the Soviet and Mao era China models could be described as Communist economy + one party dictatorship (which is actually anti-Communism).

To be precise, no country is pure anything. There were still very small dose of democracy and capitalism within these countries.

The American political structure is somewhat elitist and somewhat democratic. Yes, you got to vote, but the establishment is so large, that the elected doesn’t fully represent the true will of the nation.

The American economy was previously a mixture of free market and also elitist. Now that every special interest group is lobbying for its own piece of pie. The compromise, now it seems, is the Communist economy model.

Again, in case you don’t know about the detail:

Communist model =
1) state inject money to state owned banks
i.e. Bank of China prints money, federal government gives that money to China Construction Bank.
Fed prints money, federal government gives that money to Citi group.

2) state owned banks is force by the executive branch to give loans to state owned industries
i.e. China Construction Bank (instructed by various levels of government) to give loans to multiple state companies
Citi (instructed by federal government) to give loans to GM, etc.

3) the state owned industries can then pay workers, but more importantly, pay CEOs (who has good connections with the government).
i.e. RiR got paid for running company down; similar things happen in China all the time.

4) during good times, the state owned industries make risky bets. CEOs pocket the profits; they just ask for more loans if there are losses.
i.e. AIG, Citi, ML, BoA …
very common in China also, such as Chinese Airline Fuel Company, etc.

Essentially, the communist economy, as we know it, is about the “elites” using the system. They make bets and keep the profits. The losses are to be shared, as in the “common” part of communism. Centuries ago, those in power would simply take what’s in the cache of the state, now that they become smarter and use the “system” to make profits.

In a capitalist (market) economy, the above procedure would break at step two, because the banks won’t lend money to the obviously non-viable companies. And thus step one won’t happen in the first place.

It was more than that. Reagan wanted oligopoly in certain areas because it was believed that small US companies facing larger US competitors would not be able to compete as the economy globalized.

That’s pro corporation, without a doubt. That contradicts your earlier statement: “When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.”

You’re engaging in a logical error called “affirming the consequent.” A simple example:

-All poodles are dogs.
-Rover is a dog.
-Therefore, Rover must be a poodle.

All libertarians are conservatives, but that does not stand to follow that all conservatives are libertarians. The absence of regulation, open borders and isolationist foreign policy views of textbook libertarianism are rejected by most who are on the right.

I’d avoid the delusions of grandeur that some libertarians engage in. Libertarianism just isn’t that popular, and conservatives tend to pick and choose the bits that they like from the libertarian camp while avoiding the stuff that they don’t. In other words, most of it.

The rationale as to why he embarked on a public works program matters less than he did it in the first place.

That’s wrong. If you are discussing political ideology, then you need to address one’s ideological motivations for a particular position.

There are a lot of activities that all governments engage in because those are functions of government. The 1930’s were a period of sheer desperation for governments around the world. At that point, they were in survival mode. European states, both right and left, have institutional memory of what happened to Marie Antoinette, and they’d like to avoid her fate.

And militarism is not necessarily a hallmark of right wing thinking

It traditionally is. The right-left axis began in the French parliament, where the monarchists who favor state institutions sat on the right, while those who favored popular rule sat on the left. The military and monarchy were closely associated, as the former used force to defend the latter, and that tradition remains.

We should all feel free to call GM upper management something even worse – incompetent.

No argument there!

While supporting quotas for Japanese imports and instituting protectionist measures to save Harley-Davidson.

“And militarism is not necessarily a hallmark of right wing thinking. American progressives in the early 20th century were quite happy to support both a strong American military and an inteventionist foreign policy. ”

Don’t even confuse early-20th Century progressives with modern day liberals. It’s like confusing the Republican Party of the 1860s with the modern day one.

The “unions” Hitler replaced the real Unions with were a farce and window dressing. They didn’t mean anything, anymore than the fact the Soviet Constitution guaranteed free speech. The industrialists got to dictate working conditions, work rules, etc, by fiat, and the right to strike was outlawed. The national “Labor Front” was just window dressing and a rubber stamp for whatever the owners of the corporations wanted.

Reagan believed that free markets eliminated the need for antitrust legislation, and that markets would regulate corporations. That is not the same as saying he believed in government intervention on behalf of corporations in the economy – quite the opposite. For example, he opposed the Chrysler bailout (as did The Wall Street Journal), but it was done deal by the time he won the 1980 election.

Believing the corporations should have the freest reign possible to do their business is not the same as always favoring corporations. If said corporation goes bust, the right wing says, “Too bad. Not my problem.”

pch101: Libertarianism is a tiny niche group on the right. They are not in the mainstream of the right, nor are they in league with conservatives on many issues, which is precisely why they get a different label to identify themselves.

Libertarian teachings on antitrust and the role of markets have been hugely influential over the years.

What prevents the party itself – or any of its candidates – from reaching power is the more mundane stuff.

Namely, most people don’t want a brothel operating next door to their house; they don’t want their neighbors keeping five junked cars in the front yard; they like pollution control measures; and if they are cheated by a Bernie Madoff, they want the government to do something about it.

Pch101: By the mid-30’s, most governments were following some sort of Keynesian stimulus program because the old methods had failed miserably. (In the past, they had always failed, but this failure had been worse than usual.) They hadn’t all become “leftists”, but were trying to fix their broken systems by whatever means necessary.

If a leader adopts tactics advocated by those on the left, and other leaders who adopted them are described as liberals or leftists, then said government leader is from the left – at least on that issue.

pch101: BDB is correct. Hitler’s supporting coalition was from the right, and his main opponents were on the left. He broke the unions, attacked the communists and cozied up with the churches. This is all in the record, and not debatable.

What matters is what he did when in office, not who supported his rise to power. Lenin was supported by parts of the middle class and peasant class who later ended up being executed by the Communists.

Hitler heavily regulated the economy, instituted public works programs and tightened control over corporations. He institued the Kraft durch Freude (English translation – Strength Through Joy) program that was designed to eliminate the need for labor unions. He opposed unions not because he didn’t believe worker complaints were legitimate – but because he didn’t want another power base operating outside of government influence. The Strenght Through Joy program – which eventually encompassed the development of a low-cost car for workers, the Volkswagen – was the Nazis’ substitute for a labor union.

Corporations and the rich supported him because the alternative during the chaotic years of the early 1930s was worse – namely, communism, which would have brought even more government control of the German economy, along with confiscation of their property. A communist takoever of Germany in the early 1930s was a real possibility.

He opposed the communists and certain socialists because they advocated complete abolition of private property, and they took a more internationalist outlook. He particularly hated the second aspect – as did the average German, who was still angry over the humiliation of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. But his appeals to nationalism were not a tactic limited to the right – Stalin used them as well in the Soviet Union.

The fact that Hitler was an enthusiastic – and successful – participant in ideological warfare with communists and socialists on the left doesn’t mean that many of his ideas and policies were not leftist in nature.

Here in Pennsylvania the state Republican Party has been devouring itself as its moderate and conservative wings engage in regular warfare. That doesn’t mean that members of the more moderate wing aren’t true Republicans (despite the “RINO” rhetoric being thrown around).

pch101: What FDR, Hitler, and a whole bunch of other governments had in common is that they tried to use government programs to reduce unemployment, which was a devastating problem at the time. The difference was that FDR built roads for the sake of infrastructure, while Hitler built them so he would have an easier time invading Poland and France.

The rationale as to why he embarked on a public works program matters less than he did it in the first place. Also note that a big part of why he did it was to bring down unemployment levels. He also wanted the average German to have a car – that is why he pushed the program that ultimately resulted in the Volkswagen – and he knew that they would need good roads for those cars.

And militarism is not necessarily a hallmark of right wing thinking. American progressives in the early 20th century were quite happy to support both a strong American military and an inteventionist foreign policy.

Also, one of the rationales for construction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike prior to World War II – the construction of which was strongly supported by President Roosevelt – was the rapid movement of military supplies and troops in a time of crisis.

pch101: They had really nothing in common. And I would be cautious of using a “socialist” analysis for anything historical, as socialists tend to engage in heavy doses of revisionism, i.e. versions of history that nobody else accepts.

This particular lesson came from a textbook that was not written by a socialist. The professor used it and expanded upon it, but he didn’t come up with it on his own.

Although I do agree that the terms “fascist” “communist” and “socialist” are thrown around much too loosely on this site.

Obama is not any of the above.

We should all feel free to call GM upper management something even worse – incompetent.

There is. On the left you have everything (going from anarchist to statist) from Anarcho-Socialists to Greens to American Democrats to European Socialists to Trotskyists to Stalinists. On the right it goes from Anarcho-Capitalist to Objectivists to Libertarians to American Republicans to Paleoconservatives to Fascists to outright Nazis.

The Left can be totalitarian, and so can the Right. To suggest only one side can be inclined towards totalitarianism is not only historically illiterate but dangerous.

You’ve made a common mistake — you’ve rewritten the definition to suit your particular vision of it.

For example, the Reagan vision of conservatism favored oligopoly and opposed antitrust. The theory was that globalization had created the need for large US companies unfettered by regulation that could compete in world markets. An obviously pro corporate stance, surely you wouldn’t label Reagan as a leftist.

Libertarianism is a tiny niche group on the right. They are not in the mainstream of the right, nor are they in league with conservatives on many issues, which is precisely why they get a different label to identify themselves.

By the mid-30’s, most governments were following some sort of Keynesian stimulus program because the old methods had failed miserably. (In the past, they had always failed, but this failure had been worse than usual.) They hadn’t all become “leftists”, but were trying to fix their broken systems by whatever means necessary.

BDB is correct. Hitler’s supporting coalition was from the right, and his main opponents were on the left. He broke the unions, attacked the communists and cozied up with the churches. This is all in the record, and not debatable.

What FDR, Hitler, and a whole bunch of other governments had in common is that they tried to use government programs to reduce unemployment, which was a devastating problem at the time. The difference was that FDR built roads for the sake of infrastructure, while Hitler built them so he would have an easier time invading Poland and France.

They had really nothing in common. And I would be cautious of using a “socialist” analysis for anything historical, as socialists tend to engage in heavy doses of revisionism, i.e. versions of history that nobody else accepts.

That doesn’t mean those steps were not favored by the left side of the political spectrum. It just means that they were popular in the 1930s.

If anything, it further proves that, regarding economic policies, Hitler was, in fact, within the mainstream of leftist thinking at that time.

BDB: Again, do you eat sugar? Well, you know who else ate sugar? HITLER!

Irrelevant. We are talking about specific actions tand policies taken by a person who is the head of government. A person can choose which policies to follow, and said policies will show where he or she falls along the ideological spectrum.

Everyone has to eat, and sugar – either refined or natural – is an important part of a healthy diet. The fact that Hitler ate it proves nothing, except that he was meeting at least one nutritional requirement of a healthy diet.

Although I do hope that he made regular trips to the dentist.

Hitler was firmly on the right. His allies in coming to power were big industrialists, monarchists, conservatives, Junkers (big land owners) and others on the right. His principal opponents were centrists, Social Democrats, and Communists. There was no opposition to him from the right. They were all too happy to go along with him as long as he would bust the Unions and the left and increase military spending. Any pretense he made towards the “socialist” in the name of his party was dropped once he was in power, where his policies favored big corporations and industrialists (just look at the Krupps).

You’re making a common mistake, which is to equate favoring corporations and militarism with right-wing ideology. They are not synonomous.

When it comes to economic matters, true right-wing ideology most closely resembles libertarianism, which does NOT favor corporations.

It favors PRIVATE PROPERTY (which means that they are concerned about stockholders) and minimal government interference in the affairs of business, but that is very different from favoring corporations. Libertarians are not agitating the government to bailout GM and Chrysler. They oppose it – and have been criticized on this very site for clinging too closely to ideology for expressing that opposition.

The “corporatists” are people like you who advocate giving private companies taxpayer money (unless one really believes that the “loans” will be repaid – such persons were probably also waiting for the Easter Bunny this past Sunday).

The rationale may be to “save jobs” or “prevent economic catastrophe” or “make sure grandpa can buy a brand-new Buick,” but the bottom line is that this is not an action supported by libertarians.

Soooo…by your own defintion, you are now a right winger? Who knew!

It’s the same mistake you made in a prior post, when you equated militarism, meat consumption, flag waving, loyalty to the state and industrialization with “conservative” behaviors. As history has shown, both sides of the ideological spectrum have been happy to adopt those tactics to gain and hold power. Unless Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot are now right wingers. That should certainly make for an interesting discussion.

As I said, read Postrel’s writings to get a better handle on more meaningful ways of determining ideological divisions.

They were the same steps being taken by France and Britain and Canada and virtually every other western democracy during the depression. Again, do you eat sugar? Well, you know who else ate sugar? HITLER!

Hitler was firmly on the right. His allies in coming to power were big industrialists, monarchists, conservatives, Junkers (big land owners) and others on the right. His principal opponents were centrists, Social Democrats, and Communists. There was no opposition to him from the right. They were all too happy to go along with him as long as he would bust the Unions and the left and increase military spending. Any pretense he made towards the “socialist” in the name of his party was dropped once he was in power, where his policies favored big corporations and industrialists (just look at the Krupps).

Only problem is that militarism, meat consumption, flag waving, loyalty to the state and industrialization are not necessarily “conservative” behaviors.

Anyone who believes this to be so needs to review the actions of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in the early 20th century, particularly in the years leading up to World War I (it was the progressives who agitated for U.S. involvement).

In the early 20th century, it was the progressives who led many efforts to ban prostitution.

(Incidentally, go to New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston or San Francisco, and see how many middle and upper-class liberals want prostitutes openly soliciting where they live, or a brothel operating next to their home. They will probably sound just like…the late Jerry Falwell, only without the southern accent or references to Biblical verses.)

Virtually everyone was against legalizing homosexuality in the early 20th century.

I find it amusing that anyone believes that Hitler was a right winger. When I was in college, one of my history professors – an avowed socialist, by the way, and a very good professor – made us compare the actions of Hitler and Roosevelt during the 1930s. The similarities in their domestic programs were quite illuminating.

Which isn’t to say that Roosevelt was a fascist. He wasn’t. It just shows that both fell to the left side of the ideological spectrum.

A more relevant division has been suggested by author Virginia Postrel – those who embrace the future, and those who are desperately trying to preserve the status quoe. On this site, the former would advocate letting the free market run its course with GM and Chrysler, while the latter would be those who want to pour taxpayer money into two sinking ships, oops, I mean GM and Chrysler.

moedaman: While I disagree with McCarthy’s methods, he was right. Just read the Venona Papers and what was released out of the former Soviet Union. There were plenty of US government employees working for the Kremlin.

Those papers were quite interesting. It showed that many of those mean, old anti-communists were right after all.

McCarthy’s problem – aside from his tactics – was that he was about five years too late. Steps had already been taken to rid the government of communist spies before he began his crusade.

That’s exactly what McCarthy did, which is why I raised his ghost. He used the “C” word to create panic and division when neither was helpful, and all to advance his questionable political career. It’s an ugly chapter of US history, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let it repeat itself without a fight.

While I disagree with McCarthy’s methods, he was right. Just read the Venona Papers and what was released out of the former Soviet Union. There were plenty of US government employees working for the Kremlin.

The “New GM” will be a private entity.

My take on the whole “Good GM” vs. “Bad GM” thing is that the latter will act simply as a vehicle for disposing what plagues GM in it’s current form. “Bad GM” has a very limited shelf life, it exists only to be thrown under the bus. Here’s the way I see it shaking down…

1. Current GM files for bankruptcy. Right now, the only asset they really have is the intrisitic salvage value of what they own.

2. The parts of GM worth salvaging go into “Good GM”. This will include likely any intellectual property rights, patents and all design drawings and details for both models produced under the banners held by “Good GM” and “Bad GM”.

3. Anything of limited use gets thrown into “Bad GM”. This includes old and obsolete factories and their employees, plus any of the debt obligations will be bought by “Bad GM” at a cheap price, through a US Government loan.

4. “Bad GM” may flounder for a bit, but likely it will simply just enter Chapter 9.

5. Whatever is left of “Bad GM” is simply sold off to whomever would buy it, so likely the Chinese, Indians, Koreans and Russians. Note what I said above though. If you buy an ex GM factory and want to use the existing toolings and have copies of design drawings, you will need to pay licence fees to “Good GM”.

6. The owners of “Bad GM”, aka the US Government, will have their loan paid out by the proceeds of the sale. Since the bondholders already took a haircut when the original GM went bankrupt, the proceeds may actually be close to the value of the money loaned to “Bad GM”.

7. “Good GM” continues on and hopefully prospers, still making money off the poor suckers who bought their old plants.

This situation may seem a bit odd and may not be technically legal, however from what I’ve read this is essentially what happened with the Savings and Loans Resolution Corp. I may be wrong at this, I am not an expert at US bankruptcy law since I live up in Canada, but this may be a possible scenario.

The Chinese bid for the “new GM” and win…

I’m pretty sure the Judge has to take the highest offer..

I spent my diaper-clad years in the good ol’ US of A, but that wouldn’t make me a natural expert on baseball, Ford Pintos or the Federal Reserve by default. Please.

When you earnestly compare a one-party dictatorship complete with block captains and death penalty vans with a small-l liberal democratic republic with an electoral process and a Bill of Rights that most people take seriously, then you will naturally lack credibility because the comparison just isn’t credible.

The US is not a communist country, so stop bleating out that rhetoric as if Mao was on the one dollar bill. Your over-the-top descriptors tell me nothing, other than the fact that you don’t know much about either your home country or the one that you live in now.

If you have a problem with what is going with the US auto industry, that’s fine. (It’s not as if I’m exactly tinkled pink myself.) But you should be able to articulate your views in an intelligent, fact-based way that uses actual data and reasonable metaphors, not some left-field mangled definition of communism because you don’t have any backup.

That’s exactly what McCarthy did, which is why I raised his ghost. He used the “C” word to create panic and division when neither was helpful, and all to advance his questionable political career. It’s an ugly chapter of US history, and I’ll be damned if I’m going to let it repeat itself without a fight.

I did, it’s a joke. I mean, if you take his conclusions at face value, then World War II was a conflict where a Fascist USA is allied with a Fascist Soviet Union fighting a Fascist Germany.

I could write one called “Conservative Communism” and talk about how Stalin was really a right winger because he loved militarism, flag waving, loyalty to the state, industrialization, outlawed prostitution, criminalized homosexuality, and ate meat. Not to mention that Karl Marx himself favored mass gun ownership and free trade.

BTW, Hayek? You mean the Hayek that said this?

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.

Why, he sounds like some kind of Islamoliberalcommiefascist!

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/september/f_a_hayek_on_socia.php

My guess would be that it will just stay with Chevy for now.

If we get into a branding discussion, I would say that ‘Vette should be it’s own brand – functionally it already is. I don’t see a problem selling a high priced car at a Caddy dealership. But I think GM has bigger problems to wrestle with right now.

Does anyone realize Cadillac sells less cars than either Pontiac and Buick.

If I’m not mistaken, Caddy comes in at #5 in sales amongst GM’s pantheon of brands. Buick is #6. Pontiac is #3 with a large part going to fleet sales. Still, a large part goes to individuals too, and while I personally find it perplexing that people buy Pontiacs rather than Chevies, I think the fact that they do so indicates the market wants another brand, above Chevy, but well below Caddy.

Your “actual historian” is a freelance writer. I don’t see that his credentials as a historian exceed those of Goldberg. Neiwert’s a lefty writer who’s upset that a book about commonalities between the progressive and fascist movements doesn’t talk about the KKK and George Lincoln Rockwell, hardly disciples of Hayek.

In any case, I notice you didn’t say that you actually read Liberal Fascism.