Well, it is kind of funny when you measure out as a centrist, and someone calls you a "typical conservatie" or "typical liberal".

I know what you mean. I took one of those Facebook quizzes that said I was Ulysses S. Grant, but nobody believes that either.

It shows where they are standing, right?

Yea, uh, no, not really.

So far over that the center looks like the other side.

The thing is, the political spectrum isn't linear, it's more of a circle, and you're as much on the edge of it as anyone else. Don't let any online quiz tell you otherwise.

First of all, I'll remind you that I'm a measured centrist, via politicalcompass.org

Oh, well in that case....

Well, it is kind of funny when you measure out as a centrist, and someone calls you a "typical conservatie" or "typical liberal".

It shows where they are standing, right? So far over that the center looks like the other side.

To President Obama, it's all in the same. The big G controls everything.

Someone please email this man a copy of the US Constitution.

To a socialist's like President Obama, it's all one in the same.

Stuff what is left of your personal freedom and wealth under your pillow. This ain't going to be pretty.

They could by legislative fiat nationalize the business giving themselves operational control thus usurping the right of owners.

I'm not sure about this. Didn't Truman get slapped down for trying to nationalize the steel industry? The government could declare G.M. insolvent and put it in receivership for an orderly distribution of assets. But I've not read an example of the type of nationalization that seems to be popular.

Huh? What's wrong with making a comparison? Government rather than owners with a direct financial stake of their own money in both cases. Political rather than business considerations at play when making decisions in both cases. The wrong interests, motivations, and consequences in both cases. I can see many ways to rationally compare the two.

If you wanted to form a company to build a canal, you had to lobby a legislature that would give you a limited duration charter. The charter would have a duration of 20-50 years in which the canal would be constructed and the company and its investors would have to make their profits before turning the canal over to the government (or the canal might be sold at auction). The charter laid out a plan of business which had to be strictly followed and delegated state powers in furtherance of it.

The problem with the old corporate forms (and they were not popular) was the public perceived them as cesspools of corruption. Regular people didn't get charters; the connected did. We've replaced that form with general corporations of indefinite term and character. Anybody can form a corporation for any reason, so long as they follow general rules. The corporations don't get delegated state power.

You are addressing a strawman.

You are the one making the strawman argument. Only an idiot would compare naming the board of directors of GM in today's context to state industries in the old Soviet Union. It is the kind of comment that makes clear that you understand neither what Obama is doing today nor have any clue about how the old Soviet system functioned. Pathetic.

I don't even know what this mean.

It is pretty obvious from the context Bernard. I was referencing industries like the one's in the old Soviet Union. Maybe it would have helped your understandig if you had read the next sentence.

Oh, and I wasn't talking about using private industry to achieve government's objectives (e.g. transcontinental railroad, equipment for national defense, etc.) but industries that are outright controlled by the government. Odograph got the part right about political necessity. Decisions are not made on what is going to maximize profits, but what is going to maximize the political returns. I contend that different objectives will yeild different results. Not that shocking really.

Here is an example to help spell out the distinction (using your example Bernard so please don't bitch about it):

Gov't: We want a transcontinental railroad.
Railroads (RR): Sorry, we'd go bankrupt trying to build one.
Gov't: We'll give you some tax breaks and land grants.
RR: Oh, well okay then.

vs.

Gov't: We want a transcontinental railroad.
Railroads (RR): Sorry, we'd go bankrupt trying to build one.
Gov't: Fine, we are taking over your corporations, you are all fired and to Hell with the stockholders.
RR: !

The logic of your argument leads to... I don't know where.

You are not addressing my argument. You are addressing a strawman.

HTH, HAND.

It is okay for the government to shape the business environment, but not under and condition to step in and make any direct decisions -- even when a firm is failing?

That is correct. It is the government's mandate to regulate for the common good and they can even directly invest or encourage through tax laws the development of industries and businesses. But they may not exercise direct control over a lawfully run business in opposition to the owners by mandate. The government could have required they be given a controlling interest in GM in exchange for the bailout. They could by legislative fiat nationalize the business giving themselves operational control thus usurping the right of owners. The government could pass a law or regulation that makes a decision they desire inevitable. But absent some legal exchange of ownership rights, the direct managerial decisions remain with the owners. Of course, the government can use it's powers of bribery (allocation of funds), coercion (threat of regulation or law) or intimidation (punishing taxes or loss of tax incentive as well as legal action) to influence those private individuals tasked with direct managerial decisions.

Thus Obama conditioned further government bailout on the resignation of the CEO rather than firing the CEO. The owners were not consulted as they could have voted to retain the CEO and risk bankruptcy without the government bailout. A decision the government was apparently unwilling to risk. In this case, the CEO bowed to government coercion and made individual decision that he could have taken no matter the desires of the stockholders. Could the stockholders contest the interference by the President, perhaps. But you can't sue the government but should GM become a viable entity again, we may find out.

First of all, I'll remind you that I'm a measured centrist, via politicalcompass.org

Oh, well in that case....

Next, go ahead and say you don't want auto safety requirements "for the children" or lead in gasoline limits "for the children" and see how you do in the next election.

I can rest easy knowing that these things are so completely mainstream that anyone arguing against them is arguing against their own electoral success.

If GM can still say "no thanks" and go through bankruptcy without additional government loans, I don't really have a problem with this. If the government is trying to change directors without the consent of a majority of the stockholders, then that's a problem.

I don't even know what this mean.

If there's anything I'm sure of, it's that.The concept of running anything without governmental control over it, seems to give you the slip each time.

(Maybe you want the auto regulation of say Mexico, that will keep the kids safe.)

I wondered how long it would take for someone to invoke the now hackneyed cry of "It's for the children!".

In almost the words of a famous outlaw: "Liberals is so predictable!"