What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads?

Business, Democracy, Humor, Immigration, Nanny Statism
Share

“Whatever the State saith is a lie; whatever it hath is a theft.”
~ Nietzsche

There is no shortage of reporting about GM CEO Ed Whitacre’s recent series of TV ads touting GM’s ostensible early repayment of federal loan money.  Fox News, or as I like to refer to it, Faux News, is all over it.  A website known as Video Café – Crooks and Liars has posted a very good review of the coverage, along with a YouTube video of the actual ad, for those who have not seen it.

Here’s what shocks me about the ad:  Nothing.

It strikes me as pretty obvious that GM had to expect that someone would find out about their using loan money to repay loan money at some point.  Did Whiteacre, clearly a man with intelligence, credentials, and connections, think nobody would put 2-and-2 together?  Of course not.  He didn’t care.  He knows it doesn’t matter.

Indulge me as I recount one of my favorite jokes to begin illustrating why.

A burned-out executive moves to the hills to escape the rat race.  He moves into an old cabin in what he believes to be sparsely-populated woods and starts his new life.  He hopes to decompress and recharge and maybe re-connect with the fast-paced life he once knew at some later point.

One day, he hears a knock on his door.  In walks a man wearing nothing but a pair of tattered overalls, some old work boots, and a broad smile.  “Hey there, neighbor!” exclaims the man.  “My name is Enoch and I’m your neighbor!”

Initially taken aback, the executive-turned-hillbilly gathers himself and extends his hand.  “Pleased to meet you, Enoch.  My name is, Bill Exeter.  I just moved here from the Big City.”  Bill figures it is about time he got more acquainted with his new environment anyway.

Enoch begins, “Well, Bill, I just wanted to invite you to a little gathering at my house on Friday.”  What great timing!  Bill can relax a little and meet some of his neighbors too.  Sensing Bill might be a little uneasy about coming to a strange neighbor’s house, Enoch begins to pitch the party.

“Listen Bill, I need to warn you.  My parties tend to get a little wild.”  Bill smiles, feeling better about his new neighborhood.  Enoch continues, “I can almost guarantee that there will be massive consumption of homebrew alcohol.”

Bill thinks, “Sounds good!” and responds, “Enoch, I can hold my liquor!”

Enoch continues, “Well then, I should probably also mention that this consumption of alcohol tends to make my guests a little bawdy.  As a matter of fact, things got bad enough last time that there was wild sex during the party!  I expect this one to be more of the same.”

Bill has been away from the rat race for long enough that the possibility of sex sounds good.  “Well, Enoch, I’m no virgin, if I must say so myself.”

Enoch continues, “OK.  I should also probably mention that fights tend to break out in the aftermath of many of my gatherings, especially after the sex.”

Bill, still happily pondering the possibility of sex, confidently says, “Hey Enoch, I can handle myself.”

Enoch ends with, “Excellent!  I’ll look for you around 8:00 this Friday then.”  Enoch turns to leave the house.

Just before Enoch closes the door behind himself, Bill yells, “Hey Enoch!  What should I wear?”

Enoch shrugs his shoulders and says, “It don’t much matter.  It’s just going to be the two of us.

<Rim Shot>

The key point—the understanding that is manifested over and over in U.S. politics—is contained in that punch line:  It doesn’t much matter anyway.  GM received the TARP money, even though it is not a financial firm.  One might argue that since GM used to own GMAC—its erstwhile lending mechanism—it qualifies as a financial firm.  That strikes me as a stretch, but that does appear to be the partial mechanism GM used to get the cash.  Certainly, the TARP money was specifically for financial firms.  According to Wiki:

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector. It is the largest component of the government’s measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

GM mismanaged and underperformed its way into a deep financial hole.  It didn’t much matter.  The responsibility for GM’s problems rested with GM.  It didn’t much matter.  In the aftermath of all that underperforming, GM had the gall to ask the government for some cash, a huge wad of cash, and acquired that money for both GM and GMAC.

The overwhelming majority of Americans did not think any firm should be bailed out.  It didn’t much matter.  Congress gave money ostensibly aimed at saving the financial sector from the subprime mortgage crisis to a troubled automobile manufacturer with a management and sales crisis.

The American taxpayer was under no obligation to GM, its shareholders, or its employees. It didn’t much matter.  GM got the cash.  They have now paid back some of the early money with some of the later money, and have gone on TV to brag about it, despite the fact that such an obvious ruse should be found out.  It didn’t much matter.

While some of this behavior initially upset me, looking back on it—particularly in context with the normal behavior of the State—I see that my anger was misplaced.  The State generally and its agents in particular spew forth all manner of unmitigated, easily-identifiable equine feces on a routine basis.  Think not?   Here’s a recent sampling of talking points that have, inexplicably yet inexorably, fallen from the mouths of our leaders:

They hate us for our freedoms.”  (This phrase is generally uttered in regard to Islamic terrorists wanting to attack the U.S.  Somehow the fact that other equally-free countries are not being similarly attacked gets obscured.  Some have argued, persuasively, that such a designation as “free” for the U.S. is a little dicey anyway.)

too big to fail.”  (What does this even mean?  Can a firm be too small to fail as well?  Can a firm be too big to succeed?  Can a firm be too small to succeed?  What does size have to do with the economic realities of losing money at business?)

You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.”  (That a reasonably-intelligent representative of the species Homo sapiens could say something this insipid and not be placed in a padded room—wearing a straitjacket and a mouth guard—speaks to the awesome power of patriotism, and stupidity, but maybe not in that order.)

Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.”  (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952.  The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms.  Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway.  Here’s my question:  When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”  (C’mon.  Does anyone think the U.S. was in danger of being invaded by terrorists?  Really?  The truth of the matter is this:  The U.S. military murders innocents abroad.  Call me touchy, but that might upset me too.)

So Ed Whiteacre went on television, in an ad ironically entitled “Trust” and bragged about GM “putting people back to work” and how GM had “repaid their loan in full, 5 years ahead of schedule.”  Don’t hate the playa!  He was only doing what politicians do to the American public on a regular schedule:  lie for specific gains, to an audience who wants to hear the lies, while knowing that even if the lie is found out, it won’t matter that much anyway.  Consider:  Since anyone who was seriously considering buying a GM car probably didn’t care about the bailout, what’s the downside of trying to rope in a few other suckers via bogus advertising?  Moral hazard epitomized.

Is GM going to stop getting government bail-out money?  Nope.  Will any subsequent event preclude the next chronically mismanaged firm from getting a boatload of statist cash?  Not likely. Will the skilled propagandists who do their best to lead rank-and-file Americans around by the nose change their tactics?  Absolutely not.

It doesn’t much matter.  It’s just them and our money—taken at gunpoint—anyway.

(Cross-posted at LRC.)

What’s the Real Message from Those GM Ads? Read Post »

Corporate Leftism: Questions About the University of Michigan’s Smoking Ban

Corporatism, Education, Nanny Statism, The Left
Share

Just less than one year ago, it was announced that the University of Michigan would institute a “smoke free” policy on all three of its campuses, finally banning smoking on all university property after incrementally banning it first indoors and then within fifteen feet of all entrances and exits to university buildings. The new policy is set to take effect on July 1st, 2011.

However, this proposed policy has caused significant and vocal opposition from members of the campus community. In particular, members of the University of Michigan College Libertarians, including myself, have led the efforts to reverse this decision.

Criticisms, up to this point, have focused heavily on the fact that this decision was made entirely from on high by President Mary Sue Coleman without the involvement of students, faculty, or staff. There have also been significant concerns regarding the justifications for the ban: representatives of the “Smoke Free University Initiative” have stated, interestingly, that the ban is not in response to concerns regarding second-hand smoke (the usual excuse for such measures), but rather for the purpose of creating a “culture of health.” This, it seemed, was particularly ridiculous: the university was engaging in blatant paternalism and trying to make personal health decisions for students, faculty, and staff. One of the most vocal opponents of the ban, Alex Biles, had a modest proposal of his own for promoting a “culture of health.” There were a variety of other concerns, of course, including the issue of enforcement, the costs of this policy to the university, the additional cigarette butt littering after the removal of butt huts across campus, and so on.

However, a massive break was made last weekend when it was discovered that President Mary Sue Coleman, architect of the policy, also just so happened to sit on the Board of Directors of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, which is the largest producer of smoking cession products in the nation, and received an incredible $229,978 in compensation. The College Libertarians quickly wrote up and sent out a press release regarding this development and the issue has spawned two articles in the most-read campus newspaper, the Michigan Daily, this week. This significant and obvious conflict of interest has never been addressed by Mary Sue Coleman and it was only through independent investigation that this was discovered.

This, of course, does not constitute evidence that the policy was motivated by her affiliation to the corporate giant. But, as Murray Rothbard insisted, we should not shy away from investigating such relationships and always asking, “cui bono?” when examining the genesis of government policies. What appear to be disinterested and benevolent actions by “public servants” are often motivated by far more sinister and self-serving reasons.

Corporate Leftism: Questions About the University of Michigan’s Smoking Ban Read Post »

Lower corporate taxes! (Even for GE.)

Business, Corporatism, Imperialism, Taxation, The Basics
Share

According to Forbes.com, I should be angry that General Electric pays less taxes than I do:

As you work on your taxes this month, here’s something to raise your hackles: Some of the world’s biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do–that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.

Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%.

General ElectricActually I am less than pleased with GE, but that’s because they possess hefty military contracts that allow our brave freedom fighters to slaughter poor brown people overseas, or whoever else refuses to submit to the empire.  They are, in Lew Rockwell’s words, true merchants of death, one of the worst examples of corporatism in the American economy.

Lower corporate taxes! (Even for GE.) Read Post »

Libertarians regressing to unsound, and thus, unfair Economics

(Austrian) Economics, Mercantilism, Protectionism, The Basics
Share

Capitalism (by George Reisman) There is a trend among young and “eternally rebel” types to try and conflate Capitalism and Interventionism and call the mix “Corporatism” at best or just call it “Capitalism.” This of course is not only a conceptual, but also an strategic mistake. …

Libertarians regressing to unsound, and thus, unfair Economics Read Post »

Mandate. You keep using that word.

Corporatism, Health Care
Share

But I’m not sure it means what the Democrats think it means:

The penalty [for not carrying insurance as required by the new health care bill] is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

So the IRS might gaze at you sternly and maybe wag a finger or two, but there’s nothing they can do at this point to collect the non-compliance penalty. Megan McArdle lays out the possible consequences:

It would mean that in practice the mandate would only apply to people who get tax refunds; otherwise, just write the IRS a check for everything except the mandate. And since you don’t have to get a tax refund–you can have your employer change your withholding–anyone who doesn’t want to pay it, wouldn’t have to.

But it’s not clear that this is what’s actually going to happen. If the IRS can reorder the priority of the tax dollars they take from you, then they can simply put any funds towards the mandate first. That way, if you attempt to go without insurance and then pay the IRS everything except the mandate penalty, you’ll end up with a tax liability the exact size of the mandate penalty . . . for which they can now garnish your wages, put tax liens on your house, and otherwise do all the nasty stuff that they are authorized to do under Subtitle F.

Naturally I’m all for not providing government revenue agents with more authority to steal money from me, although I suspect that the enforcement problem will be fixed sooner than later (the personal responsibility clause itself doesn’t begin until 2014).  But just imagine how much revenue the IRS would collect, if it could not threaten taxpayers with imprisonment.  It might just be enough to cover the printing costs on Obama’s health care bill.

In the meantime, to paraphrase Captain Barbossa, consider this rule more like…a guideline.

Mandate. You keep using that word. Read Post »

Scroll to Top