Where are we headed...? Hopefully, not down the road to socialism.
Here is a sweet clip showing the famous socialist proving grounds of Detroit. All though I believe that some socialists truly have the good of mankind as their end result, you can't deny two things in my opinion: 1-power can't go very far with humans before becoming corrupt, 2-due to human nature, socialist policies kill motivation and drive.
23 comments:
What exactly is your definition of socialism?
The flaw in this video is that he fails to point out that Japanese automobile manufacturers are far more socialist that the UAW, but lead in auto sales and in auto innovation. Hmmm... Socialist-built car industries are doing better?
Another flaw is that he fails to point out that the American car industry had largely shifted from a market-based capitalism to a marketing-based capitalism. Basically, instead of putting their capital into being innovative in trying to build a car that the people want, they put their capital into marketing and propaganda to try to tell the people what they wanted. Furthermore, American automakers also moved to a capitalist model of building products with a short life span that would have to be replaced. Finally, the American auto industry proved over and over again to care more about their profits than providing safe cars, consciously hiding and ignoring dangerous (and fixable) aspects of their autos (remember the Corvair?).
In other words while (much-more socialist) Japanese automakers were putting their capital into innovation and quality to provide a car that the people want, American auto companies were putting their capital into marketing (with an emphasis on big trucks and SUVs) to tell the people what they wanted. When the gas crunch and recession started to hit, the people went to the auto companies that became known for efficiency and quality--the Japanese. Sure, American auto companies had started making cars more fuel-efficient, but they were behind the curve and had lost the people's trust.
A few weeks ago when my Honda's transmission went out, the mechanic told me that he would recommend replacing it with a used transmission because it was a Japanese car, but would never recommend it with an American-built car.
Finally you want to cast the blame on socialism, but you fail to recognize that your last two points fair even worse for capitalism.
1-Power corrupts. Yes, but how does capitalism corrupt any less? If the scriptures are correct and money is the root of all evil, then power+money would certainly corrupt even more. The Corvair is a great example... Driven like a sport car, it kills. Sure it could have been easily fixed, but that would have cut into profit. Best way to sell it? Market it as a sports car. What do the heads at GM do? Do they fix the cars? Nope. Do they market the cars as sports cars? Yep. Result? People dead.
And people wonder why GM started having problems. Don't blame capitalism though. Blame unions who are trying to give workers something closer to what Japanese auto makers give their employees.
2- The same could easily be said about a marketing-based, and semi-quality based system that has developed here in the US, where far more is spent telling people what they want instead trying to build a product people want.
Capitalism requires transparency to work. We don't live in a trade-based village economy where such transparency had a chance at existing.
If that is the video's worst flaw, then it speaks for itself. Let us not get lost in the minutia details of this one potential flaw in the video and lose sight of the fact that Detroit is proof that Socialism is a flawed system.
You don't understand capitalism if you say, "capitalist model of building products with a short life span that would have to be replaced." Capitalism is all about making it better and therefore selling more, that is why Honda and Toyota do so well and yes, why the American companies have fared so poorly.
Power corrupts, and that is why a smaller, more checked government is necessary. Capitalism corrupts as well, but it is easier to provide checks and balances for corruption than it is to create initiative so the best thing to do is ***have a country w/ a small/checked government with a capitalism based economy that is checked and regulated for corruption***. Our ever increasing government has become corrupt enough to make loopholes for large corporations and banks making our capitalism corrupt as well. If we get back to what we know to be best*, we have the overall best result.
I don’t believe the above *’ed item is the best just because I believe the founding fathers were inspired (which I do), but because it has the best track record throughout history and makes the most logical sense.
Loyd, please don’t make egregious comments like the one you did about Cody hating Jesus. That is obviously extremely incorrect, but also low class.
In an effort to keep this blog less contentious I have deleted all but the first posts that each of us has made. I have had a few people that used to comment regularly on this blog tell me that they don't for fear of the Narrator's wrath. I appreciate your thought out contrasting perspective so keep commenting, but I will be more free with the contentious comments delete button this year in an effort to encourage more comments from other people.
I accidentally deleted Cody's first post so I'll repost that next.
From Cody
Loyd, your whole argument about comparing the Japanese auto industry has no legs to stand on. The Japanese auto industry may be more socialized, but their workers don't receive anywhere near the same compensation as the UAW provided/provides their employees. Because of that, the Japanese auto industry is actually able to make a profit, unlike the American auto industry where workers are guaranteed astronomical benefits and pay for very menial jobs that don't even require a high school diploma. You can try and argue and twist this story, but how is it right that an employee a few years ago on the assembly line in Detroit was caught smoking marijuana on the job (not only against company policy but also is illegal and a crime) but instead of being fired, the UAW came to his rescue and allowed him to be relocated to a job bank and earn over $65 an hour to do nothing? How is that right? It isn't. There is a reason the foreign auto makers are able to manufacture cars inside the USA for cheaper than GM can.
Also, the biggest problem with socialism (government guaranteeing hand-outs to people, companies and organizations) is that human nature takes over and people have no motivation to work hard, put forth their best effort and excel. They will get paid and compensated regardless of their performance. People need to have a fear of failure. If they don't treat their customers well, they need to fear that the customers will go elsewhere. An organization needs to fear that if it doesn't provide a top-notch product or service, they will be irrelevant and out of a job. This is essential for a society to not only survive, but excel as well. That is the attitude that made this nation great and powerful at the beginning of the 20th century.
So Loyd, what in your opinion is the reason that Detroit has failed, suffers from so much crime, poverty, unemployment, and waste? Is it because there wasn't enough control from the unions? Should we have given the Unions more power? Is it because there wasn't enough government intervention? Should we have allowed the govt. to dictate more of what the auto industry did? Is it because of those darn greedy CEO's again? The CEO excuse is so lame by the way. It is in their best interest to make the companies excel so that they can make more money and maintain their job longer. They are not the scapegoat in this problem. I argue that the excessive union power and government intervention is what killed Detroit
So because of one line in one comment--which I immediately corrected--you erase all of my comments? Your rather harsh censorship of replies to your poor argumentation would make it appear that all of those posts were derogatory.
Or was deleting my comments easier than attempting to reply to criticisms of your rather simplistic notion of socialism?
Could you at least repost those without that one line? Cuz frankly I don't care to rewrite all of my comments again.
To be clear of what you are censoring me for, can you please at least let me know so that I don't make the mistake again? Since I immediately fixed my mistakenly written comment, I'm assuming that you are castigating me for the revision. Was it because I referred to (1) Jesus' social activism and socialist teachings or (2) because I asked why Cody had such a strong dislike (aka hatred) of that activism and teachings? Neither of the above seem to be false suppositions, so I'm a bit confused on how this is defined as wrath.
I'm a bit baffled. I actually thought I was providing good replies to your claims. Perhaps any good response to your arguments is simply wrath in your eyes and worthy of censorship.
If you choose not to repost them because they go against your initial claims, could you at least forward me the e-mailed comments so that I may post them on my blog?
Let me just add that in response to Cody's claim that I am regurgitating Michael Moore (or drinking his Kool-aid), NOTHING I wrote in my comments came from Michael Moore. NOTHING. ZIP. ZERO. ZILCH. My figures about the Detroit auto companies and CEO pay came from simple Google searches. My comments on Adam Smith and capitalism came from my readings of Smith as well as a few Smith scholars, as well as a couple economists--one of which was on both Bush's administrations.
Again I ask you Carson, what is your definition of socialism that you are using here?
Loyd
Basically, I don't want a contentious back and forth between anyone going on. I felt that was getting too contentious. If our levels of acceptable contention vary too much, I'm sorry, but too many old commenters say that they don't want to comment anymore because of the contention. I'd like to get back to the good old days =)
I really don't want to do drawn out political discussions with you either BTW. I love doctrinal discussions with you, but we are way too polar and way too convinced of our own schools of thought to really do each other any good. That doesn't mean you can't comment, just that I'd prefer not to laser in on any issues.
Post a Comment