Of course, while that’s often a good thing, it’s not good if you allow your principles to distract you from the reality on the ground. It’s all well and good to have principles, but reality is usually more complicated. Take this diary posted on RedState where she complains that the government takeover of GM is destroying the American dream:
Right now in Washington, D.C., we are seeing nothing short of the deconstruction of America’s free-market system. To be blunt, the strong arm tactics of the Obama Administration’s Auto Task Force are crushing the dreams of many American business owners – and simultaneously putting our future prosperity in jeopardy.
…
Simply put, politics and business operate in different ways and are vulnerable to different influences as they strive to reach very different goals. Each Member of Congress in Washington is looking out for his or her own state or district’s interests and sometimes that works against the interest of the company they are now essentially running. When Congress stepped into the Board Room, it set itself up to try to achieve two sometimes contradictory goals – protect their constituents and save this company. Government is simply ill-equipped to try to be both the governor and the governed – and it surely can’t do both well.
I agree with much of what Bachmann says in the second paragraph quoted here. Government should not be running the auto industry; in fact, Barack Obama himself has often said he agrees with Bachmann as well. There’s just one problem with Bachmann’s complaints — GM was forced to choose between a government takeover or liquidation. It’s not as if the Obama administration forcibly took over; there was no other choice for GM.
So while it’s fine that Bachmann has her principles, do they really apply in this situation? She’s complaining about auto dealers being shut down, but if she had it her way and the government didn’t intervene, every single GM and Chrysler dealer in the country would now be gone.
Bachmann obviously stole the second paragraph; it makes sense, so she couldn’t have written it.
This woman should be institutionalized.
Another flake.
Is she running for president now?
Sanity ends at the 6th CD.
Question, who “forced” GM to choose between liquidation and government takeover? Who put the government takeover option on the table? What did the government takeover of GM (and Chrysler) do to the confidence investors have in lending to risky companies when the UAW gets paid well in advance of lenders that financed them.
Couple the GM and Chrysler takeovers with the negation of valid contracts at AIG (for bonuses that were approved within Obama’s own budget), talk of executive wage and salary caps, cap and trade assuredly raising the cost of energy and therefor business, higher fuel efficiency standards making the vehicles that do business either illegal or cost prohibitive and the prospect of government run healthcare sapping even more money from everyone’s paycheck, then add the promise of massive debt to pay for all the above (without a middle class tax increase) and the massive inflation that will result from all the new money printed to be borrowed then spent and you have yourself a whole mess of uncertainty in the market.
Those are facts (with the possible exception of future inflation to come - though it’s a dead cert to be true eventually). In theory it’s also a fact that the market is “free” to find a way around all of those changes in regulation, cost, method and mode of distribution and legality of contracts but with ever moving goal posts and legislation specifically designed to punish risk takers, it will take a whole lot of time before people that don’t have some in with the powers that be to even attempt something new.
Is that the death of the American dream? Not really, but it sure puts a lot of dreams on hold. (And for what again?)
You know, I don’t think she is “crazy” at all. I think she knows exactly what she is saying, and knows the appetites of her audiences very well.
A cockroach knows how to survive, but it remains a cockroach.
“Right now in Washington, D.C., we are seeing nothing short of the deconstruction of America’s free-market system. To be blunt, the strong arm tactics of the Obama Administration’s Auto Task Force are crushing the dreams of many American business owners – and simultaneously putting our future prosperity in jeopardy.”
Wow, Michele that’s a pretty hardcore takedown of what Jeff rightly called a “forced choice between government takeover and liquidation”… That straw man never saw it coming. Good job, champ!
Who forced the choice between government takeover and liquidation? Please explain how government takeover was even on the list of choices.
Bachmann supported the policy decisions that helped to create the auto and financial industry disasters and now pretends to be an enlightened critic of those who are trying to resolve them. Who among you would want her in charge of handling these tremendously complex problems? Obama is playing the hand he was dealt and I am really not aware of anyone right now who would be likely to be doing a better job of it. Apparently, the electorate came to that conclusion as well.
Really? Please explain this. What would those policy decisions have been? Refusal to locate and develop untapped domestic oil reserves so gas didn’t hit $5 a gallon? Ever increasing CAFE and safety standards that made the cars that people most demanded (and were the most profitable) difficult if not impossible to build profitably? Did she negotiate the union contracts 40 years ago when the US was the only automaker and the world was GM’s oyster? Did she design all the ugly cars they built until Wagoner took over, or prevent them from building efficient hybrids and diesels in Europe?
Just what policies did she support that led to GM’s demise? Obama may very well be playing the hand he was dealt but dont blame Bachman for that hand or use her as an excuse for how he plays it.
Lloyd,
No amount of new exploration or drilling would have prevented the recent spike in oil prices. It was all speculative. Oil is a finite resource which can’t be depended on forever and fossil fuels need to be priced more in line with the real cost burdens they impose. CAFE standards need to be more stringent, not less. The cars that people most demanded and were most profitable were not efficient and therefore did not constitute a sustainable market.
My comments about Bachmann’s contribution to our current financial crisis relate to her general anti tax position and her support of deregulation, limited government, and tax relief for the most wealthy among us. These are the policies of the far right that lead to the creation of bogus markets and unstable financial instruments and the eventual breakdown of the investment banking system which has had negative effects globally. Our domestic auto industry suffered the most for some of the reasons you mentioned but all auto manufacturers and indeed most of our states and most other nations are suffering from the sequalae of these actions.
You never answered my question. Do you think Bachmann, as a critic of Obama, would be better equipped to handle the problems we face?
Yes, I do believe she would because I’m afraid that Obama has a greater faith in his ability to manage an economy than he has in the economy’s ability to regulate itself.
You’ve made some pretty good assumptions there though that I wonder if you could explain.
You are right that speculation drove oil prices up but why were people speculating that there would be an oil shortage? What have we done to ensure that there wont be oil shortages in the future? Have we looked for more or purposely not looked for more to force a change on the country that technology isn’t ready for?
Why do CAFE standards need to be more stringent? You just threw that out there but offered nothing to explain your absolute unwavering certainty that this is the case.
You say: “The cars that people most demanded and were most profitable were not efficient and therefore did not constitute a sustainable market.” What right does the government have to determine “a sustainable market” and smother the unsustainable ones in their crib? Wouldn’t pulling the plug on SUV production be GM’s decision to make?
Finally, please explain what a bogus market is, who determines that and how higher taxes and bigger government can grow an economy better than the free men and women working in the economy can.
I believe you’re sincere in everything you say Ron but ultimately what you’re advocating is a command economy and while they may have a rich and long history, it hasn’t been a good one.
There will absolutely be oil shortages in the future. Nothing we can do will change that. All we can do is ensure that we decrease our reliance upon oil to the greatest extent possible. That way when oil truly does become short, we will be less greatly effected by the change in circumstances.
I have never understood the short term thinking that the Right uses about oil. The fact is if we follow their drill baby drill in America policy, when this finite resource becomes ever more scarce we will be left completely at the mercy of the Arab world. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to slowly use up our domestic oil supply while conserving, investigate alternative energy sources, increase car efficiency and well look towards the next 100 years or so?
So far there has been no major oil find in the last 20 years or at least since the technology became available to drill in the Northern seas of Europe. Even the most fundamentalist religious whack-job who has Adam riding dinosaurs realize that oil is a finite resource and that big gas guzzlers are unsustainable. Yet to bow to this supposed free market, we are supposed to eat our proverbial energy seed corn so a fill-up for a Sunday drive is a nickel cheaper at the pump. It makes absolutely no sense and is good example of a “free market” not working sensibly. That is unless you want 2070 America to be on its’ knees to Russia, Saudi Arabia and any other tinpot dictator with an oil supply.
“Yes, I do believe she would because” (would WHAT?)
Lloyd, you really haven’t supported a thing you said. Why are you asking other people to do so?
You must own an oil company or something, to ask why CAFE standards need to change. Do you really need that explained?
Do you really need that explained?
Yes he does. The penny will drop eventually though. Meanwhile though, there will be the wildly entertaining quotes about an economy regulating itself. I nearly spit coffee all over the keyboard when I read that. Great stuff.
Yeah, that was a doozy. I wanted to, but couldn’t bring myself to engage that particular bit of idiocy.