Originally Posted by postman
@AirRabbit
Quote:
Best response to this thread by far... Thank you for taking a logical stance to what seems to me to be an illogical arguement.
Not so fast Tommojonm.
Fact is that the majority of our infrastructure was financed by taxpayers money, years ago I must admit (unless you are Italian ).
When the automobile industries went tits up, when the banks started collapsing, where agriculture is concerned, where steel comes into play, where the arms industry is at stake, yes even at Boeing and Airbus, the government steps in.
AirRabbit's argument has value IF and only IF you reject all of the financial support in the mentioned and additional examples. In which case the government apparatus starts to become obsolete, i.e. it is no longer governing. What do you present as an alternative, surely not free market. That was the inital trigger of the ongoing downhill slide of the airline business and therewith the definite trigger for pay-for-training, crap salaries and the likes, ultimatly degrading safety to an extent that US Congress is looking into Colgan 3407. By my knowledge the first time ever that politicians cared for an accident in the transport sector.
Kindly awaiting response.
I would submit that the “free market” is the ONLY method that would be acceptable – because it is the only mechanism that can function, continuously. Where that free-market function is interrupted by government intervention is exactly where (and when) the trouble starts. To believe differently is to believe that government has the responsibility for ensuring the success of any business; and, I would ask that if the government is responsible for ensuring the success of any business, why would it not be a responsibility for the government to ensure the success of every business?
A good many Americans forget what the US Declaration of Independence actually says. The rights of all Americans are, what the framers called “unalienable Rights,” limited to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” No where in that short list is found the right to be successful in any business.
You make the statement that
When the automobile industries went tits up, when the banks started collapsing, where agriculture is concerned, where steel comes into play, where the arms industry is at stake, yes even at Boeing and Airbus, the government steps in.
Let’s look individually:
Automobile industry – in history, only once did the government provide assistance for an automobile manufacturer – It was Chrysler Corporation and the government made a Load to that corporation – that was paid back, in full, with interest, prior to the note coming due. Recently, the current Administration decided it would step in and provide “stimulus” funds – and, as far as I know, Ford declined any of the money. The jury is still out on what the result will be.
Agriculture – there are some farmers today who are paid NOT to plant, grow, harvest, and sell specific crops. Why? Because lobbyists have convinced the legislature that too many farmers growing the same crop will cause some farmers to go bankrupt because of the decline in the salable price of those crops (more supply = less demand = less money it will draw). As a result, we have some farmers breaking their necks to “till the soil,” while others drink mint juleps on the porch? What’s fair about that?
The banking industry – while everyone says the banking industry fell onto hard times – it wasn’t because of bad management or substandard risk taking on their own. What happened? The government REQUIRED banks to make sub-prime loans to persons who would not normally qualify for that loan. Some – likely a majority– of those loans were interest only loans – requiring the client to pay only on the interest for the first part of the loan. Unfortunately, they were still not able to make the required monthly payment – so whatever what not paid was added as debt to the principle. When the loan reverted to payments including both interest AND principle payments … the borrower still couldn’t make the payments. So it was necessary for the bank to foreclose. Unfortunately, where the bank could normally foreclose, take possession, and sell the home for at least the equity the bank had invested, but not now. Now, the outstanding principle was so high the home was not worth what was due on it. However, banks were given the opportunity to “sell” these “upside-down” loans to the Federally supported Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie May”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”). Note that both of these organizations are chartered by the US Congress – sort of an underhanded way to have the government pay for housing that the home “owner” couldn’t pay for. That is why the banking industry fell on its face. A good share of the loans that were out were secured by less and less valuable real estate holdings … pretty soon, the bubble burst! Guess what … well, you know the story.
Sorry, I know very little about the steel industry nor the arms industry.
My point is that things were going well for most businesses until the government got involved - and they got involved to help those who had less “stuff” – so that they would be able to have more “stuff” – whether or not they were able to afford that “stuff.” Who paid for it? I’ll give you a guess – yep – the tax payers. My concern is whether we, as a country, are going to continue to throw good money down that same rat hole in the attempt to buy “stuff” for those who cannot otherwise afford that “stuff.” The Declaration of Independence says an unalienable Right is the
pursuit of happiness – NOT that everyone is guaranteed happiness of their own choosing. That is simply NOT the role of government, it’s probably against the law, and it certainly isn’t provided for in the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, and I doubt that the US government is officially going out on a limb to help out Airbus – unless it is a reciprocal agreement for aircraft certification (something like … the US accepts French certification of Airbus Aircraft and France accepts US certification of Boeing aircraft). And as you probably are aware, Boeing just recently moved its corporate headquarters from Washington State to Illinois … why – because the tax structure in Illinois was better for Boeing’s concerns. Government enticement is a lot different than government regulation. The US aviation industry, in my non-so-humble opinion, doesn’t need government intervention into the running of airlines – salaries, salary caps, personnel decisions, markets, market shares – unless they can provide an equal distribution of the revenue dollars – and can you imagine the cost to the taxpayer to support such a burgeoning bureaucracy? Only to have the government restrict who can go into that business, have the government tell you what you can fly, where you can fly, how much you can/must pay the crewmembers. Shoot, they can’t even control the price of jet fuel.
No thanks. I’ll take my chances on the free market methodology.