The wellspring of youth and the great debate

There’s big crosswebsite debate between proponents of a bailout for the auto industry and those opposed on Takimag and Chronicles (unfortunately yours truly is caught in the middle).  Here’s the links: 1, 2, 3, 4, . Feel free readers and editors to chime in with your thoughts.

Speaking of TAC editor Dan McCarthy just wrote an article for a new conservative youth movement akin to the old YAF that helped get Barry Goldwater nominated in 1964.

Included in the article is a link to the paleoliberal blog Left Check it out.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

13 thoughts on “The wellspring of youth and the great debate

  1. Weaver

    I’m protectionist in the ideal, but I dunno what to say on this bailout. The car companies aren’t entirely American, and they’re poorly managed.

  2. Weaver

    Nah, I just don’t overgeneralise every issue.

    Were I to support every bailout, I’d be no better than those conservatives who vote for every war, any war.

    Anyway, this isn’t a tariff. A bailout is not same as a tariff, even if libertarians overgeneralise and say it is.

  3. roho

    Why is “BAILOUTS” Conservative?…….They wern’t very trendy when the Steel Industry was being destroyed by Japan in the early eighties?….Nor, were they even considered when the Textile Industry of the Carolinas and Furniture Industry was being destroyed by imports? How about when the Aluminum workers were being destroyed by Russia?…………..Was it a big deal when the Poultry Farmers, or Boeing was being destroyed by French Subsidized Airbus or their poultry industry?………….But autoworkers are like Wallstreet Brokers? Their Special?………………Bullshit!……..Detroit(Motown)is the “Heartbeat” of African/American labor in this country!…….Without a “Life Preserver” they will all wind up back in public housing adding to the “Mortgage Debacle”………………..It is the “KATRINA” of work environments demanding success to prove the “Great Society” of LBJ has worked!………….It is the “Metroplex Of Affirmative Action” and can not fail!………………………..Let them die!……..Honda and Hyundai is doing great in Alabama with Alabama workers. (And we just received one of only 2 steel mills built in a long time?)…………..Why?

    Southern workers deliver a fair return for investers!…………Seccesion!!

  4. Andrew T.

    A bailout is as economically destructive as a tariff, which is still more destructive than a tax, even an income tax (well, as tariff technically IS a tax, but that’s not my point).

    I don’t overgeneralize. Instead, I have a simple roadmap for all of my political involvement that begins with my belief in God, and understand that the only way to defeat the empire and resurrect freedom in this country or elsewhere is a way that is unabashedly principled and willing to view evil as just that, not a thing to be niggled at and gradually repaired. This motivates me to support pretty extreme decentralization and free, peaceful markets. But by attempting to minutely dissect every issue and make too many choices among lesser evils, you’ll have a tough time not losing your soul in the process.

    Become crazy with me, Weaver. :)

  5. Weaver

    Tariffs are barriers thus decentralising ;) Keep in mind, I like Chesterton’s proposed idea of local tariffs.

    The auto industry has been dear to conservatives since WWII when it became obvious that America’s auto capacity was a major strength capable of producing tanks.

    So, as with many things, the special desire to protect the auto industry above other industries is self sufficiency in a time of war.

    However, as roho points out: many “foreign” auto companies produce in the US.

    Here’s something on Toyota:

    In the U.S., Toyota has set up non-union plants in the South – far from the unionized auto industry stronghold of the Midwest. Blunting support for unionization is Toyota’s practice of paying wages nearly on par with the U.S. auto companies (around $25 an hour in comparison with G.M.’s $26 to $28) – although with much lower benefits.

    source. I googled it, but it goes with what I’ve read elsewhere.

    I’m all for high wages, I want America to be sparsely populated and middle class and (an environmentally friendly) hog of world resources, but the proper way to create them is via immigration reduction, trade protections, spending cuts, and (either with or without government involvement) research and investment.

  6. Weaver

    Bailouts like this one however are too direct, and as we can all agree here: this is why socialism fails. High wages are desired but not in this manner.

    Bad management must be punished and thus corrected, and artificially high wage pressures (due to unions) cannot compete with actual lower wage pressures. Real wage pressures must be raised.

    The unions in the US often seem to support mass immigration… and they wonder why their wages are low…

  7. Andrew T.

    Socialism ultimately fails because government cannot calculate the correct division of labor and resources.

  8. roho

    Something that is often overlooked is the cost of retired employees? This is a cost that interferes with competition, and causes U.S. Corporations to be at a profit disadvantage. When Globalists move offshore, or even allow foreign manufacturers to come ashore they emmedietly gain the upperhand with no existing pension fund outlay.(The new factory is looking at 30 years before that employee walks with a pension.)…………….On the otherhand, very old factories maintain a constant stream of retirees still ineffect on the payroll. (My 11 years in the steel mills between 1972-1983 gaurentees me a vested pension of $222. a month starting in 2020)……………..With America on the auction block, purchasing an older, established, yet floundering factory, can sometimes be less profitable than starting from scratch?

    Factories have in their history “Expantion Periods” where the labor cost was growing with that decade. Many were in the early to mid sixties, with 30 years later being the early to mid ninties. (At the same time, OSHA went crazy with polution standards that required “High Tech” polution handling systems to be mandated at rediculous costs!……Affirmative Action hit as well with mandated court decrees mandating that unskilled employees be given skilled trade and craft jobs that they could not handle, causing the labor cost to be doubled by having to have 2 employees to do what one did in the past.

    So, investers went offshore where the Chinese could create major profits with no safety, child labor laws, or polution standards!……….But, liberal Americans believe that “If we sign every Kyoto treaty, and environmental treaty” they will follow suite?………Ha-Ha!…….Both they and the American Elitist Investers will laugh all the way to the bank as we finish off American Manufacturing while singing Kum-by-ya. (In some steel mills in South America they gave welders “sun glasses” to weld with, knowing that they would be blind in 4 years. (Stockholders don’t care!)

    I believe in FAIR trade and tarrifs vs a slow non-competitive death.

  9. Weaver

    It’s amazing someone would knowingly blind his workers, wow.

    You’d think with higher wages, affirmative action wouldn’t be too harmful because there’d be enough applicants – though I’ve heard of what you say: two workers per job…

    I wonder if in 30 years the Chinese factories will just hop to another location, abandoning their workers. Though I guess, they wouldn’t offer retirement anyway, heh.

    I don’t like fair trade – I’m just an America Firster: trade that’s in America’s best interests. Ultimately, America should strive to be back where it was after WWII: at the top of the world, albeit after ridding itself of this ridiculous desire to conquer and bomb everyone lol…

  10. Andrew T.

    How do you purport to know exactly what is in America’s “best interests”? Every autocrat claims that mantle for his own country, after all.

    I think that people who trade freely can decide much more ably what is in their “best interests”, not central planners.

    Sure, my own vision of free trade is just one part of a greater, very overt agenda, not just something that can be voted in, but it isn’t unlike your vision of protectionism in that context.

  11. Weaver

    How do you purport to know exactly what is in America’s “best interests”?

    This isn’t rocket science. A bailout is complicated, and I’m leaning against it; a tariff far less complicated.

    I think that people who trade freely can decide much more ably what is in their “best interests”, not central planners.

    And we might as well open the borders and let in whomever wishes to enter. Why centrally plan the borders after all?

    And why centrally plan the police? People should know whether they want a law or not.

  12. Weaver

    The two most important globalist policies: trade and immigration.

    Libertarians who want both are nearly the same as neocons in my book: globalists.

    Barriers are what prevent globalism, and you’re seeking to tear some of them down albeit while leaving others up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>