John Gorentz ([info]johngorentz) wrote in [info]conservatism,

Regime change at GM

I see that President Obama has decided to impose regime change on General Motors. He is overthrowing the government of GM and is going to replace it, with, well, who knows?

I hope he is better at picking people to head a giant multinational corporation than he is at picking people to run the Treasury Department. Like maybe he’ll be able to find somebody who can at least do TurboTax.

Unless he proves to be very good at running an auto company, I presume this move will cool the ardor of people for a bailout of our health care system. (It’s the concept usually referred to as universal health care.) Our President seems to take the position that by providing money he gets to call the shots. Actually, most people who provide money in any context will take that position, but he’s considerably less subtle about it than most. Will he insist on regime change in unhealthy households. Will he pick replacement spouses where needed? Will he insist on picking the fetuses that are allowed to come off the production line?

I presume he’s not going to be a completely hands-on executive at GM, and that he will let others call the day-to-day shots except in cases where there is some political advantage to be had by intervening directly. But how is he going to decide who gets to make these day-to-day decisions. Aside from TurboTax skills, what will he look for in a job applicant? Is he likely to allow a critic of the administration to run the company? Will loyalty to the administration be a factor?

There are the same dangers as when the United States helped overthrow the governments of Vietnam, or Iran, or any other country. The guys he puts in place are then his responsibility. If he allows a tinhorn dictator to come to power, that person becomes Obama’s tinhorn dictator.

And what are the other auto companies going to do now that one of their main competitors is now the United States government? Where do they go to find a government that will ensure that they all play by the same rules, now that Obama administration has a vested interest in the success of its protege?

(also posted at The Reticulator)

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 16 comments

[info]meredith_mae

March 31 2009, 06:00:01 UTC 3 years ago

It's gotten to the point where I don't care, because no one appears to be that good at running GM.

But I'm advocating what I've said from the beginning: call a spade a spade. We're nationalizing the auto industry? Ok, fine. Can I get back to something important now.

I'm also really sick of the whole "restructuring" thing. You know where they can restructure really efficiently? In Chapter 11. I thought the whole "government bailout" was to keep them afloat because no one wants to buy a car from a bankrupt company. Excuse me? Have they looked at their stock prices lately?

At least the government is guaranteeing my car warranty! But I am never buying an American car again.

[info]johngorentz

March 31 2009, 06:07:14 UTC 3 years ago

because no one appears to be that good at running GM.

Maybe that's not the problem -- no more here than in those countries where we've tossed out a thug only to have him replaced by a thug who fills the vacuum and gets along with us -- one that we're then responsible for.

[info]melvin_udall

March 31 2009, 15:21:53 UTC 3 years ago

But I'm advocating what I've said from the beginning: call a spade a spade. We're nationalizing the auto industry? Ok, fine.

It would be nice if these lying scumbags would at least be honest, yes.

I'm also really sick of the whole "restructuring" thing. You know where they can restructure really efficiently? In Chapter 11. I thought the whole "government bailout" was to keep them afloat because no one wants to buy a car from a bankrupt company.

From the point of view of Obama the bailout was to keep spending us into further tragedy so we have to follow his radical agenda.

They won't put them in Chapter 11 because that would mean a fair evaluation, which means union Democrat donors and their loyal Democrat union thugs might lose something. That's not an option for the community organizer in chief.

But I am never buying an American car again.

While unions rule and government is backing the warranty, seconded.

[info]madoverlord

March 31 2009, 11:40:01 UTC 3 years ago

....nationalizing a major industry, huh?

Ok, that's it... SOCIALIST sticks. Want to know WHY everyone calls him one? THIS is the final proof, right here.

[info]johngorentz

March 31 2009, 15:25:13 UTC 3 years ago

You can say "socialism" and "socialist" all day long and nobody is going to care. What we need to do is show why it's bad policy.

So do we all agree that this move by Obama is the death-knell for universal health care?

[info]madoverlord

March 31 2009, 16:23:54 UTC 3 years ago

....I dont follow... what does this have to do with universal health care... aside from degrading how well it will work (which will be poorly anyway) even further?

[info]johngorentz

April 1 2009, 01:13:24 UTC 3 years ago

Because it demonstrates what happens when govt pays the bill. It means govt calls the shots, too.

[info]madoverlord

March 31 2009, 16:27:28 UTC 3 years ago

What I see this as, is the government has declared it's ready to exert direct control over PRIVATE companies and industries. This is a direct threat to any company that (right now) wants to enter the auto-industry (the government can ALWAYS hurt competition by changing rules in it's favor) and in the future, any industry they decide they want in on.

[info]writerspleasure

March 31 2009, 17:26:28 UTC 3 years ago

to the extent that socialism takes root, it has bad economic effects.

[info]johngorentz

April 1 2009, 01:11:59 UTC 3 years ago

You can say socialism and socialist all day long and nobody is going to care. We have to show why his policies have bad economic (and social) effects.

Getting hung up on the word "socialist" is to get caught up in a game for suckers. It gives people a chance to dismiss the concerns by saying, "Socialism is X; Obama is not socialist because he is (X-A+B)." And then you never get around to discussing the bad economic and social effects.

[info]kimaginethis

March 31 2009, 15:35:22 UTC 3 years ago

Next I expect they'll be in my house, telling me what to feed my kids, how to discipline them, and how to dress them. Then we can get into whatever car they tell me is ok for me to drive and go to the school they best think will serve The People.

[info]countrymember

April 1 2009, 10:54:14 UTC 3 years ago

Get ready for the GM Obamamobile.

[info]debergerac

April 1 2009, 23:17:27 UTC 3 years ago

and when fiat absorbs chrysler, here's a preview of the 2010 viper...

[info]countrymember

April 1 2009, 23:23:14 UTC 3 years ago

LOL!

[info]kharmii

April 2 2009, 22:15:21 UTC 3 years ago

Is that a bogan car carrying one of those caravan things? Awesome! X-D

[info]countrymember

April 2 2009, 23:02:13 UTC 3 years ago

Nah, it's a Trabbant. Before the Berlin Wall came down, West Germans were driving BMWs, Mercedes, Audis and Porsches, while the East German government made their own version of the "peoples' car", called a Trabbant. It had a 2-stroke aircooled lawnmower engine, spewed out great clouds of toxic exhaust fumes, and the only option was a heater, which worked by blowing hot air from the engine mixed with exhaust fumes inside the car instead of outside. It was the only kind of car people could buy in East Germany.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…