SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: carranza2 who wrote (304137)5/7/2009 10:00:57 AM
From: skinowski  Respond to of 793671
 
Corporatism is a disease which occurs when the concept of limited government is thrown aside.

Message 25411345

Socialism (and fascism) are ultimate corporatist regimes, and they are the very essence of corruption. Ownership by the government of significant parts of the economy is the definition of socialism. There are degrees of socialism, it is not a black and white phenomenon. When the government uses taxpayers dollars to buy equity it is, in fact, buying more power for itself, and paying for a step towards socialism.



To: carranza2 who wrote (304137)5/7/2009 1:57:19 PM
From: Nadine Carroll10 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793671
 


I defy anyone to suggest a valid substantive distinction between taxpayer bailouts of the banks and O's dealings with Chrysler.


There is a difference in intent and methods. Paulson's bailouts were designed in a panic to inject money to keep the system afloat. Paulson did not act out of a desire to have government own Goldman Sachs at the end of the day, but to keep it alive.

Obama is deliberately picking winners (UAW) and losers (bond holders) from the ruins of Chyrsler, and creating an entity that will be half-owned by government and half by the UAW. He is giving Fiat a 20% stake for the sake of its small car technology with no money down, which means that he intends to tell Chrysler what to build and sell.

Obama is using the TARP money as leverage to force recipients to take deals they would otherwise refuse. Can you show me where Paulson did that?