You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.
Who owns GM and Chrysler right now? Under what bill did the government at one point have some influence/ownership in them? What would have happened to both if the government didn't step in?
A lot of people are in a dream world on this thread.
You can call it whatever you like, but when the national government starts taking over industries and running them long-term they run them into the ground, as the goals of the govt are not the same as the goals of the company (i.e. a simplistic example being milk in Venezuela...private milk farmers and companies made milk and sold it at a profit, incentivizing more production of milk year over year and keeping the people fed. The govt took it over and priced milk less than the cost to produce it to "help" the people, and I'm sure it did short-term but long term fewer people dairy farmed and the milk production went way down.) Hell...look here at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Whenever govts run companies, they end up misallocating capital far worse than (almost) any incompetently run private company could as the goals of the govt are far different than the goals of a company in an industry...there are historical and current examples all over the world of this. In Venezuela, no other industries existed because there was no incentive to diversify (due to the govt running/controlling them either directly through ownership or indirectly through cost controls/other extreme regulations). In China, you see the opposite where the govt is throwing away money hand over fist trying to diversify into areas they have no clue how to run/do, causing all sorts of other problems (and eventually they are going to have a lot of issues).
And if you are now trying to argue true socialism somehow doesn't involve govt ownership of industries have at it...you are just going to have to re-write a lot of history.
Nice rant. But I have a question. Who in America is trying to nationalize businesses?
Hmmmmm, BHO siezed GM. Ordered the firing of the presidents of GM and Chrysler. Where is siezing private companies in the constitution? You tell me who's trying to nationalize business.
What would have happened to both if the government didn't step in?
They would have gone through bankruptcy, the stockholders would have been wiped out, the bondholders would have gotten shares in the new company, and most/all of their contracts (including their Union contracts and retirements) would have been torn up and renegotiated in bankruptcy court.
Obama didn't want that last item to happen (and really the bondholders to take a big shave as well since most of the unions were significant bondholders) so he bailed them out (and re-wrote bankruptcy law which is an entirely different discussion).
I'm sure you had some dumb point but God knows what it was...
Comments
Obama didn't want that last item to happen (and really the bondholders to take a big shave as well since most of the unions were significant bondholders) so he bailed them out (and re-wrote bankruptcy law which is an entirely different discussion).
I'm sure you had some dumb point but God knows what it was...