Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /var/www/html/fr/freeliberal.com/textpattern/lib/constants.php on line 136
Free Liberal: Coordinating towards higher values

Free Liberal

Coordinating towards higher values

GM, Amtrak and an Increasingly Fascist America

by Ron Paul

Last week, General Motors finally declared bankruptcy. Many in government thought $20 billion in taxpayer dollars would save the company, but as predicted, it only postponed the inevitable. The government will dump another $30 billion into GM and take a 60 percent controlling interest for it. Public officials are now involving themselves in tactical business decisions such as where GM’s headquarters should move and what kind of cars it will build.

The promise that this is temporary and will eventually be profitable is supposed to ease the American people into accepting this arrangement, but it is of little comfort to those who remember similar promises when the American taxpayers bought Amtrak. After three years, government was supposed to be out of the passenger rail business. 40 years and billions of dollars later, the government is still operating Amtrak at a loss, despite the fact that they have created a monopoly by making it illegal to compete with Amtrak. Imagine what they can now do to what is left of the great American auto industry!

In a truly free market, GM would get your money one way and one way only – by selling you a car you want, at a price you are willing to pay. Instead, the government is giving public money to a private company in spite of the market signals it has been sending. Throwing money at GM does not stop it from being an engine of wealth destruction; on the contrary, it simply gives it more wealth to destroy.

Had it been allowed to fail naturally, the profitable pieces of GM would have been bought up and put to good use by now. The laid off employees would likely have found new jobs and all that capital would be in private hands, reinvested in companies that produce products demanded by consumers. Instead, we are all poorer now.

Political pressure, rather than the rule of law, is deciding how to divide up the remains of GM. The bondholders had billions in retirement savings invested in the company, and though they were entitled to nearly three times as much as the United Auto Workers, the bondholders were left with just a 10 percent stake compared to the union’s 17.5 percent stake. For their 60 percent stake, taxpayers have a future of constant bailouts to look forward to.

Comingling public control of private business is known as fascism. While today’s politicians may feel emboldened with all their new power, history will only repeat itself as all this collapses on itself. It is the height of hubris for bureaucrats and politicians to attempt to control the market and the freewill of the American people. In the end, the market always wins out. Maybe one day future generations will wise up and allow free markets to function and thrive without the albatross of government around its neck. For now, it looks like those in charge have not learned the lessons of the past, and have doomed us to repeat those mistakes once again.

Dr. Paul is a Republican congressman from Texas.


« Federal Government Continues Its Money Monopoly | Main | I'll Clink to That »

Comments

Dr Paul, despite being a very intelligent and passionate man, is wrong on a number of levels. For one thing, American fascism is more likely realized by corporate control of government through the weakening of regulatory powers and the growth of the private sector. Extreme libertarian laissez faire is more likely to lead to fascism.

Second, government control and management of Amtrak has maintained the long-distance passenger rail lines that no state or local government could afford to support and that do not turn the kind of profit that would lead the private sector to continue them. In essence, thanks to our modest appropriations to Amtrak we have saved much of the infrastructure upon which we will build our high-speed rail network to take cars off the road and airplanes out of the sky.

Finally, government management of the post office has kept the price of letter shipment affordable to every American for a relatively small subsidy, making sure we citizens are able to communicate with each other and our government and pay our bills for decades.

There are essential functions that free market private enterprise is incapable of performing, and that we taxpayers must subsidize unless we want our fellow citizens-and our communities- to do without.

# posted at by lexslamman

Seriously? It is good that the government runs a rail system that looses money at the tax payers expense? The fact is that the demand for for passenger trains in this country does not exist. Perpetuating the existence of Amtrak perpetuates a fantasy shared only by fanatical idealists. Where are the plans and time lines for this fictitious high-speed rail system you refer to?

Since djindetroit has decided to throw down with his: "perpetuates a fantasy shared only by fanatical idealists", I'm going to respond, not quite in kind, but with a pale echo of his own disdain because frankly I'm sick to death of lame, weakass sloganeering from mindless ideologues posing as acceptable rational argument.

Djindetroit is attempting to pose this issue as a battle between government subsidized train transportation versus private automobile transportation and concluding that the market has spoken in favor of the automobile.

How does djindetroit know that the market prefers the automobile? Because his ideology told him so in some kind of personal vision or revelation. This is exactly how most economics are argued these days, from conclusion to whatever premise and argument works.

How would a person who took economics as a serious scientific discipline rather than as a rhetorical exercise answer the same question?

How can one know which product or service is preferred by a given population? The correct answer, given our technology, is through a well regulated free market independent of government interference.

Any other process is essentially meaningless. When someone puts a gun to your head and asks you for your money or your life, the act of giving your money to the mugger is not indicitive of your preference to independently transfer your cash to this individual, it is merely an expression of the choices currently before you.

There is no industry as universally subsidized both directly and indirectly as automobile transportation is in this country. The statement "... the demand for for passenger trains in this country does not exist." is a silly meaningless statement that only would have meaning if explicitly comparing one heavily subsidized industry to a second heavily subsidized industry under the assumption that the government SHOULD interfere in the marketplace.

That djindetroit is clearly ridiculing the concept of government interference in the marketplace precludes the charitable interpretation, leaving only intellectual laziness and blind ideological zeal, such as that often exhibited by "fanatical idealists".

I don't want this to be interpreted as a personal attack on djindetroit but rather a shot at an intellectully bankrupt libertarian movement that currently exhibits zero intellectual integrity and instead has confused the art of rhetoric with the discipline of economics.

The first step in any scientific discipline is to constantly question one's assumptions and premises and their relevence to current reality. Defining one's assumptions as reality provides absolute certainty at the cost of relevence to reality. Unfortunately, way too many in the Libertarian movement would rather be certain than right.

# posted at by Morgan

>>>It is good that the government runs a rail system that looses money at the tax payers expense?<<<

Is it good that the government runs a road system which is nearly 100% funded at the taxpayers expense?

Rail users pay a usage fee, which helps to offset the taxpayer expense.

How often do you pay a road toll? Roads are funded by just about every tax imaginable, gas tax, local sales tax, state sales tax, vehicle-license-fees, federal income tax, etc. etc.

Why is it that most so-called "conservatives" scream about subsidized rail service, and complain when the government doesn't cover the pothole in their neighborhood?

A double standard, this is.

# posted at by Gigglesworth

"Rail users pay a usage fee, which helps to offset the taxpayer expense."

Actually, if they weren't riding the rails, there would be no taxpayer expense. Imagine that someone robs you, but then gives you a portion of the money back as a "robbery usage fee;" have the helped offset the expense, or would you nonetheless rather that they hadn't robbed you?

"How often do you pay a road toll?"

This is an argument in favor of privatizing roads, not of nationalizing railroads.

"Why is it that most so-called "conservatives" scream about subsidized rail service, and complain when the government doesn't cover the pothole in their neighborhood?"

Because conservatives are idiots. More to the point, why bring up this question on a blog called The Free Liberal?

"A double standard, this is."

Incidentally, your argument is based on the same double standard, in the opposite direction.

# posted at by Miko

Um, highways are paid for primarily by taxes on fuels. They are user fees just as postage stamps are user fees for mail.

Local streets may be paid for by property taxes and developers, but those streets are not in competition with Amtrack in any way shape or form. (They could conceivably be in competition with some urban train systems.)

Gasoline taxes taxes also subsidize laying rail for urban transit.

Unless you count peacekeeping in the Middle East as automobile subsidy, it's fair to say that most people prefer driving over mass transit.

Yes, you don't have to concentrate on driving, and you can read in public transportation. But a car goes where you want to go, when you want to go, and has substantial cargo capacity.

Plus, overreliance on public transportation could lead us to an 1984ish surveillance society as has arisen in Britain.

It's not just your car; it's your freedom.

# posted at by Carl

Car = Freedom. It's nice to see that all those marketing dollars from the car companies haven't gone to waste. Did you know that Maxwell is Good to the Last Drop!

Seriously, the fact that local streets and county roads are paid for by property, income and sales taxes, not gasoline taxes is hardly trivial. Tell me, what good would the highways be if every single place in America didn't have road access to them?

The vast, overwhelming majority of miles are driven on streets not paid for by gasoline taxes. Everyone who doesn't own a car pays for these roads, whether they want to or not. Does that sound like freedom to you?

To say that these roads, built specifically to standards to support automobile traffic, aren't part of the road system is ridiculous.

But there's more. The roads, including highways, are all built using the power of eminient domain to seize private property. The freedom to be forced to sell your land. Does that sound like freedom to you?

Then we have pollution from cars which I am forced to breathe in, which my baby is forced to breathe in, when we are sitting in our own bedroom on our own property. That doesn't even count the pollution that is released into the atmosphere and the dirty oil dropped into the groundwater. The freedom to be forced to breathe in other people's pollution. Does that sound like freedom to you?

It might have escaped your notice that our tax dollars are currently going to bailout two of the three automakers in America. Every car company in the world is subsidized to one degree or another. That is why they are all such weak companies incapable of technological innovation. They are bloated bureaucratic government-private partnerships, too big to fail, and with too much cash to not own the government. Do they sound like free market firms to you?

I'm not even going to delve into the gasoline market more than to say it starts with OPEC and goes from there. Oil and gasoline are not by any stretch of the imagination supplied in a free and open market. There is probably no other commodity that has more government influences on its supply and price than oil.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of whether people would prefer driving to mass transit because there is only one way to tell in a free society, through a free market. Since both of these options lack true costs and a true free market, it is meaningless to have the discussion. I can say I prefer one to the other given the current state of subsidies for each, but unless there is a correspondence to my cost and benefit with the actual costs and benefits of the options in a free market than not even I really know which I prefer beyond to say that I would prefer my benefits were paid for by other people.

In short, car = freedom in the same sense that freedom = slavery. Your freedom to drive anywhere you want is paid for by freedom to pay taxes for benefits not received, freedom to be forced to sell private property, freedom to have the air and groundwater polluted, freedom to subsidize corporate-government 'partnerships' that corrupt our government, freedom to have the price of oil manipulated by various colluding governments, and the freedom for me and my family to get run over by cars.

Does that sound like freedom to you?

The problem is that Libertarians like to pick and choose what exactly they are libertarian about. They can't be taken seriously because they are all for the application of free market principles when it benefits them, and then turn around and support the exact opposite when it is convenient.

How would transportation today work if not for government intervention? We don't know, but if we believe in the power of the free market we should suspect that it would be a better, constantly innovating, less intrusive solution.

One can't claim to be for freedom and then turn around and say they are for the current state of the transportation industry. They are mutually exclusive. The problem is that too many libertarians believe in cars instead of freedom. They don't really want to be free. They just want the government to subsidize the things they want and not the things that other people want.

That government shouldn't subsidize at all is merely a rhetorical device used to selectively target their personal preferences for government intervention, a device strangely silent when they are busy demanding government intervention for themselves.

# posted at by Morgan

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /var/www/html/fr/freeliberal.com/textpattern/lib/constants.php on line 136