The idea of nationalizing some industries that are competing in the world market is interesting. If American cars are competing with foreign cars, why not have the U.S. government behind them?
They weren’t socialized losses per se. Those corporations paid the government back. It was a loan. Granted, it was a loan that you and I would not have gotten if we were in the same situation. But we also have less ability to pay such things back.
In any case, loaning capital is still capitalist, not socialist. The government didn’t socialize the industry at all. They gave a large loan with terms on paying it back. I don’t know what would have happened if those companies had defaulted, of course!
So, I’m wondering, what’s the practical difference between the government nationalizing a company and the government just buying it, rehabilitating it, and selling it at a profit? Is that the same thing.
I guess I’m confused because here in Canada being nationalize or being a Crown Corp is basically like training wheels in a lot of industries.
Nationalized means the government owns you straight up. Usually it implies that there’s no intent to sell.
iirc in the Chrysler and GM bailouts shareholders were wiped out and the management was sacked. It wasn’t a bailout in the sense of what the financial industry got.
Oh yeah, you’re right; we got super-senior stock or something too.
That does make a difference, and I’m glad to hear it. The 1980 Chrysler bailout didn’t work that way, though, and neither did the financial industry (as you mentioned).
-
Fuck Hoekstra. Fuck him with a rusty chainsaw up his race-baiting ass.
-
Clint? Eh. I would have appreciated a ad that was more “thank you, Americans, for using your tax dollars to bail our can’t-compete asses out; sorry that only preferred industries get that treatment,” but that’s a bit much to hope for.
So Clint is relegated to the ranks of RiNO? So let that be a lesson to all of you - if you don’t march lock-step with the fanatics, you’re the divisive one!
For the life of me I don’t get why this ad is a Pro-Obama. Much less why Republicans would take issue with one of the most popular Republican entertainers. I swear at times I think Republican like Karl Rove are being paid by the Obama campaign to make the party look stupid and insure his re-election.*
*Ya Ya I know plenty of Republican do stupid shit all by themselves, but Rove is no Rick Perry he actually has a brain.
I thought it was anti-Obama / pro-conservative. Who knew that it was the opposite?
By way of Ontario, Canada and Mexico. I don’t buy much into the political angle but what amused me was the whole ra ra cheerleader baloney. Or what Ken said re point #2.
Iowahawk’s spoof:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2012/02/a-fistful-of-rebates.html
Thats been the lesson for over a decade.