I don’t want to go off on an economics rant about the broken window fallacy called Cash for Clunkers, so I’ll just post a few videos of the program in action and let you draw your own conclusions.

Update: In case you’re unaware what these videos are all about… the dealerships that accept the “clunkers” in a Cash for Clunkers deal are required to destroy the motor by replacing the oil with a sand/water mixture. That’s what these videos are documenting, the purposeful destruction of automobile engines as was required by the Cash for Clunkers law.

“Society loses the value of objects unnecessarily destroyed,” and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: “To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment,” or more briefly: “Destruction is not profitable.”
- Frédéric Bastiat

More pain:

Suzanne, this one’s for you:

There are plenty of reasons to hate/fear/be disgusted by the Cash for Clunkers program (now called Car Allowance Rebate System – CARS)… but this isn’t one of them. So as much as I enjoy Glenn Beck’s anti-government ravings, I’m going to have to call him out on this one.

The jist of the above video is this: When you log on to CARS.gov, the government can gain control of all your files and everything in your house and your firstborn son, simply because of a loosely worded security statement. This is erroneous, on all counts. Read on:

The particular statement that Beck talks about was (not is, because the wording has since been changed) actually located in the Dealer section of the website, not the consumer section. The only people who would have legitimately had to click through that “security statement” would have been auto dealers who have been authorized and registered to participate in the CARS program.

And even if some regular folk happened to fumble their way onto that bit of silly governmentese… it’s not like just clicking “ok” would spontaneously cause consumers to lose all of their constitutional rights. Check out a relevant excerpt from the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s take on the Beck video:

“Clicking “continue” on a poorly worded Terms of Service on a government site will not give the government the ability to “tap into your system… any time they want.” The seizure of the personal and private information stored on your computer through a one-sided click-through terms of service is not “conscionable” as lawyers say, and would not be enforceable even if the cars.gov website was capable of doing it, which we seriously doubt. Moreover, the law has long forbidden the government from requiring you to give up unrelated constitutional rights (here the 4th Amendment right to be free from search and seizure) as a condition of receiving discretionary government benefits like participation in the Cars for Clunkers program.”

Word. So, as much as I hate the government and the CARS program… I have to admit that it’s not a front for a domestic spying network. It’s not going to give you AIDS. It doesn’t want your firstborn son. The government has many other websites devoted solely to those things.

Superclass watchmaker TAG Heuer recently took some footage of Steve McQueen from his 1971 classic film Le Mans and awkwardly stuffed it into a commercial so they could pit him against the current F1 champ, Lewis Hamilton. It was interesting to see McQueen go head-to-head with Hamilton, but all the ad really did was make me want to watch the original film.

So keeping with the Ridelust tradition of bringing you the finest automotive cinema (The Italian Machine and C’était un Rendez-Vous), here’s the 1971 Steve McQueen classic in it’s entirety… Le Mans:

A few days ago, at around 4pm on June 25th, Chevrolet Volt chief engineer Andrew Farah took some time out to answer questions about the car via a live webchat hosted at the official GM FastLane blog.

Farah has been involved in the development of the Volt since around early 2007, and he’s apparently the first person to drive the brand new “production intent” Volt. I was looking forward to getting some juicy news about the electrojesus car, but it turned out to be a little more like a PR stunt with none of my questions slipping past. So I added an addendum at the bottom of the transcript which includes a couple of my questions and simulated answers. Enjoy, Ridelusters.

Official Transcript

Andrew Farah: I’m here and ready to go. Before we get started, I wanted to quickly address a question I’ve seen already while surfing the net. First, some of the parts that you have seen on the pre-production vehicle may not look as they do on the production show car. This is because these parts are not needed in their production form yet for development…things like head lamps, tail lamps, paint on the spoiler, etc. Now, fire away.
4:02
[Comment From Scott ]
How was the drive and how does it compare to other hybrids such as the insight and prius?
4:04
Andrew Farah: Clearly I enjoyed the significantly longer EV distance that is available with the Volt. I had to drive quite some distance before the engine came on, even though I didn’t start with a full charge. By comparison, our chassis is much more sporty than either of the other vehicles.
4:05
[Comment From Augie Churchill ]
Mr. Farah, Do you have any preliminary projections yet for the “Mean Time Between Failures” of the Volt’s Lithium-ion battery? Will there be a warranty for the battery separate from the car’s basic warranty? Have you thought of leasing the Volt’s battery so customers can swap out batteries as the technology evolves and better batteries become available?
4:06
Andrew Farah: We’re designing for the battery pack to have a 10-year life and there has been discussion of all sorts of battery business models, but we’re working form the perspective that it will be sold with the car.
4:07
[Comment From EricR ]
How goes the software development and GUI for the interior?
4:08
Andrew Farah: Basic controls software architecture is complete. The GUI is one of the areas that we will be refining over the next months. Still, a number of controls areas will continue calibration activities.
4:09
[Comment From Yakov ]
What will be the approximate size of the fuel tank and maximum range?
4:10
Andrew Farah: We’re still balancing the size of the tank with other factors, but the range will be more than 300 miles on a full charge and with a full tank of fuel.
4:10
[Comment From Tom Hayden ]
Are you driving the VOLT solely on battery power so far?
4:11
Andrew Farah: No, we’ve been driving the Volt on battery and generator. However, keep in mind, that when the generator is running, we’re still driving electric and the battery still plays a load leveling role.
4:12
[Comment From alexander ]
What will the volt mean for the long term survival of GM?
4:14
Andrew Farah: The Volt is an emerging technology vehicle and any company that wants to continue to improve/progress has got to be ready to move with the technology quickly. Electrified vehicles will certainly be a significant portion of our future sales, and the Volt is a great next step.
4:14
[Comment From Greg ]
Is the round charging port the design that will be used on production models?
4:16
Andrew Farah: We have adopted the revised SAE J1772 charge port/connector specification. While this is a bit larger than what we have shown previously, it will enable interoperatibility with public charging that is greater than 120V. So yes, this is production intent.
4:17
[Comment From Rick ]
Have you driven the IV in charge sustaining mode yet? If so, what can you tell us about the experience?
4:18
Andrew Farah: Just yesterday, I was driving the latest calibration of charge sustaining mode, and I’m extremely pleased. This is one of the more challenging development activities over the next months.
4:20
[Comment From Bill Secinaro ]
Could you explain how the Volt is different from the current hybrids in that the electric motor is actually powering the vehicle at all times? Is this true?
4:22
Andrew Farah: Hi Bill…you’re correct that the electric motor is always powering the wheels, whereas in a typical hybrid vehicle the electric motor and the gasoline engine can power the wheels. The greatest advantage of an extended-range electric vehicle like the Volt is the increased all electric range and the significant total vehicle range combined.
4:23
[Comment From Aaron Crossen ]
Will the Volt be available in different trim levels?
4:24
Andrew Farah: Yes, and we’ll have more info on that closer to launch, but you should expect more than one trim level as with most other Chevrolets.
4:25
[Comment From Thomas Foxcroft ]
What is the energy output of the traction battery in kilowatts?
4:25
Andrew Farah: We limit the total system to 110 kW.
4:26
[Comment From Jim Rowland ]
Does the volt respond the same in all electric mode as well as when the ICE is running, as far as back wheel power or accelation?
4:26
Andrew Farah: The Volt is front wheel drive and yes, the capabilities of the vehicle are the same in EV and extended range modes.
4:27
[Comment From Carol Samuelson ]
Why has the charging port been relocated to the gas cap feature instead of the location in previous vehicles on the fender?
4:28
Andrew Farah: The SAE connector is a bit larger than would fit under the fender trim, so we moved it down to accomodate.
4:28
[Comment From Kyle ]
Is their a considerable difference between the handling of the iver and the mule/cruze body?
4:30
Andrew Farah: We had a few mule vehicles that had chassis set-ups exactly the way that we want the vehicle in production. The pre-production vehicles are meeting this same level of performance, however, we still have some work to do on ride height, spring rates, etc.
4:33
[Comment From Norma ]
I know GM has targeted a range, on battery alone, “up tp 40 mile”. Can you shed some light: is this based on “optimal” best case scenario? Would such claim actually let customers down?
4:37
Andrew Farah: The 40 mile number is based on the EPA Federal test protocol (FTP) for city driving. We say “up to 40 miles” because some people will drive harder or more aggressive than this test cycle. This is the same cycle that is used for regular vehicles and as with those, actual mileage varies based on driving behavior, terrain, and accessory usage. The best thing about the Volt is even when the battery is depleted, you can still keep going.
4:38
[Comment From Bob M. ]
In charge sustaining mode, when stopped for a trafic light, is engine noise annoying?
4:39
Andrew Farah: Our plan is to stop the engine when the vehicle comes to rest, so that the experience is very similar to when the Volt is in EV mode.
4:40
[Comment From Nancy D ]
Andrew, what are the chances that you can reduce the price of the Volt by 25% and extend the life of the battery over the next 6-8 years?
4:42
Andrew Farah: In short, very good. Six to eight years is a long time when working with emerging technologies that are being used in the electrification of the automobile. What helps this move faster is early public acceptance that drives commercialization. What’s important is that EVs need to be seen as clearly relevant by the average consumer, so it is a bit of a chicken and egg issue. But we think the Volt is on the right track.
4:43
[Comment From Rick ]
What work has happened yet at the Detroit/Hamtramck facility to be able to start producing Volts there in early 2010?
4:44
Andrew Farah: The real question is, what are you doing as you build the pre-production properties that get you ready for plant production? We are actually using tools that will be moved to the plant when we are done building the pre-production vehicles later this year.
4:46
[Comment From Neal Riley ]
You say your plan is to stop the engine when the car comes to a stop. I hope you also will reduce engine rpm as the speed of the car decreases to keep it sounding like it is trying to run away. Incidentally, thanks to all of the GM team for this vehicle.
4:48
Andrew Farah: Neal, clearly you have put some thought into this, as have we. Your suggestion clearly makes sense. People don’t want the car to act significantly different than what they are used to today. My goal is that anyone should be able to get into a Volt and drive it with very little preparation…and should not surpise them unnecessarily, but should excite them.
4:50
[Comment From Stephan P. ]
How much of the driving experience is a feature of software tuning rather than the mechanical consequences?
4:52
Andrew Farah: Even in a typical car today, software plays an extensive role particularly in the powertrain. The Volt is no exception, and many other systems such as brakes are significantly software based. In the end, the software can affect almost everything except spring rates.
4:53
Andrew Farah: I have time for a couple more, great questions so far.
4:54
[Comment From Bob "Sweets" Peters ]
When I was in the process of purchasing a car a couple of years ago I considered a hybrid vehicle but was told by many people that although it was enviromentally friendly it wasn’t economically friendly to someone who drives short distances…what’s your opinion of this with the Volt?
4:55
Andrew Farah: Hey Sweets. For short distances, less than about 40 miles, the Volt will be very economical from a cost of electricity per mile vs. gasoline per mile. Of course, this changes as fuel prices fluctuate. How far is it from Flat Rock to Ann Arbor? Wink
4:56
[Comment From GaryCB ]
have you tested the volt A/C under symulated conditiones for extremely hot weather? I live in the Lower Rio Grand Valley where the temp gets over 100 degrees F.
4:57
Andrew Farah: Yes, and we’ll be doing actual testing out west this summer. Btw, it was 90+ degrees here in Michigan during my driving the past couple days. We plan to give drivers some unique options when it comes to controlling there cabin comfort.
4:58
Andrew Farah: Final question, let me find a good one…
4:59
[Comment From Dan Toomes ]
What affect does extreme cold have on the ability of the batteries to provide power to the vehicle? Might this require the engine to run to provide power?
5:01
Andrew Farah: As most people know, cold batteries cannot deliver as much power as warm batteries. The Volt is equipped with an automatic battery thermal management system that will keep them within an optimal temperature range. However, in extremely cold situations we will have to use the engine to supplement the battery.

—End of Official Transcript—

Now, I was in that webchat from 4pm to 5pm, pumping it full of thoughtful and delicately crafted questions. Unfortunately, not a single one was answered. I say “unfortunately” because now I have to make up my own answers:

[Fake comment From Vito@Ridelust]
Aside from the Volt being an electric vehicle, what other eco-bells and enviro-whistles will the Volt have? More specifically, did you integrate any eco-friendly extras like solar panels on the roof or a power generating system using the brake friction; or use any environmentally friendly design materials; coconut husks or recycled plastics or reclaimed rubber for example?

Fake Andrew Farah: Well Vito, that’s an excellent question, and the answer is no. Emphatically NO. In fact, we at GM have gone to great lengths to use the most environmentally damaging materials we could find. For instance, much of the interior trim comes from old growth forest timber; and as for the exterior, a great deal of that trim comes from the horn of the majestic Black Rhino, which really is an amazingly beautiful creature I must say. And delicious too.

[Fake comment From Vito@Ridelust]
Does GM plan on being involved in the creation of an electric fuel station infrastructure? And if so, do they plan on trying to lobby for government funds to aid in building it?

Fake Andrew Farah: Another excellent question, Vito. I’m not entirely certain about the specifics, but what I can tell you is that GM’s long term goal is to collect the majority of the nation’s gasoline and stockpile it, much like Lord Humongous and his minions from the Australian post-apocalyptic action film Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. After the said collection of gasoline, the high level managers of GM will cruise the Midwest on makeshift creep-mobiles terrorizing the general populace while dressed in bizarre leather outfits. This is all outlined explicitly in the company mission statement and reprinted regularly in their quarterly shareholder pamphlets.

—End of Fake Portion of Official Transcript—

On December 3rd of 2008, we published an article entitled “9 Detroit Auto Brands We’d Miss the Least” encouraging the Detroit automakers to slim down and get rid of some of their brands. The argument was, that just like Aron Ralston cutting off his own arm to survive, the major US car manufacturers needed to take drastic action and cut off some major portions of their business in order to keep the business alive as a whole.

Almost 7 months later, we’re back with a follow-up to see which of our original 9 brands survived and which ones went the way of Oldsmobile and Geo. Check it:

1. Opel & 2. Vauxhall: SOLD & SOLD

In my original post, I said that Opel is like the Chevy of Europe… huge, with a massive place in the mindshare of the European people. But the big cashmoneys that GM could get from an Opel/Vauxhall sale would be too good to pass up, since it’d give them some much needed breathing room to focus on the more profitable US brands.

A few months after the post, on May 30th, 2009, GM announced it’s deal to sell New GM Europe (Opel and Vauxhall, but not Saab) to a holding company led by the Canadian company Magna International. However, GM has a 35% minority stake in that holding company, so they’re not completely out of the Euromarket.

3. Buick: KEPT

When I wrote the original post, I was focusing on GM’s positions in the United States. That parameter, combined with the fact that Buick is one of the best selling brands in China, led me to conclude that GM would be best served by selling off Buick to a Chinese automaker like Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp, then re-investing that money in profitable brands in the US.

Despite the fact that Buick accounts for less than 5% of all GM’s sales, they’ve decided to hold on to the brand, a decision most likely impacted by the huge interest in China. See how pretty the Riviera looks in Chinatalk…

4. Pontiac: GONE

Pontiac is a painful subject for most auto enthusiasts. I really wanted it to work out, really; but I knew it couldn’t. Like when your really cool girlfriend gets too fat. GM even did some studies and tried to work out a way to keep Pontiac by cutting down the number of models to 4 or so, and then focusing on the youth sector of the market. However, on April 27, 2009, they decided to just scrap the brand as a whole… and presumably bury the body in the NJ pinelands somewhere.

However, in an interesting turn of events, in May of 2009, a Michigan Pontiac dealer named Jim Waldron announced that he was interested in buying up the Pontiac brand, logos, and some of the soon-to-be closed GM plants in order to build cars. Plus he said he found financing via some private investors. Initially, GM said that, unlike Saturn, the brand wasn’t for sale. But that statement was made before the official GM bankruptcy. As of mid June, Waldron indicated that he’s currently in talks with GM about buying the brand. We’ll see what happens.

5. Hummer: GONE/SOLD?

This one was fairly obvious to most of the spectators of the automotive world. It was also one of the first brands GM openly talked about getting rid of. On top of the shitty image that the Hummer brand developed among eco-freaks and tree-sexers, the brand was only responsible for 1.5% of all GM sales. It was sort of a no-brainer to lose this one.

Instead of just discontinuing the brand like they originally planned, GM is apparently trying to sell it off to the Chinese company Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery. If the deal goes through, Tengzhong will supposedly keep Hummer based in the US, which is an important thing to remember. Unfortunately for both parties, it looks like the almighty Chinese government is attempting to block the deal under the pretense of an “environmental objection”. The word coming out of China is that the government parasites are blocking the deal because “Hummer is at odds with China’s attempts to decrease pollution” and because “Tengzhong lacks the expertise to produce cars”. Now, why do they care if the company pollutes if it’ll still be based in the US? You can be certain the official reason is not the real reason and that there are some political machinations going on underneath this weirdo business deal.

It’s a scary world we’re living in when politicians dictate financial deals that should be made on the free market, where the people would decide the merits of the business, instead of a few parasitic politicians looking for the most profitable course of action for themselves and their government. Anyway.

6. Saab: SOLD

Another apparent no-brainier and an even more irrelevant brand than Hummer from GM’s point of view. Saab was GM’s single worst selling brand, accounting for less than 1% of all the company’s sales. They were one of the first on GM’s get-gone list. Saab is, however, one of those “big in Europe” brands, and the company has had some of the most intense interest from outside investors.

Twenty-seven different parties were reportedly interested in buying the company, including BMW, Renault, Hyundai, Renco Group, Tata Motors, Koenigsegg, Geely Automotive, Fiat, Merbanco (a group of Wyoming-based private investors), and Magna International (the same company that bought Opel and Vauxhall). It looks like they’re the belle of the ball.

The future of Saab was up in the air for a while, but as of June 16th, 2009, it looks like supercar manufacturer Koenigsegg will be acquiring it, with the help of some Norwegian investors. Interesting, to say the least… I mean, why would a small supercar manufacturer want Saab? (Leave your speculation in the comment section.)

7. GMC: KEPT

Given that GMC is GM’s second best seller, this one may have been a hasty addition to my original list. However, hindsight is always 20/20, and even GM considered getting rid of the GMC brand for while. As of April 16 of this year, there were rumors that GM was going to dump the brand along with Pontiac and even Buick. So far, these have turned out to be nothing but rumors, and GMC still has a place in the GM lineup. It stands to reason that if they were going to drop this brand, they would have gone public with that information by now. So it seems like GMC is in the clear.

8. Mercury: KEPT

Moving on to Ford: This one is a goddamn mind-boggler. Mercury is probably the least valuable, most redundantly pointless brand on this list… and yet they survive. How?

Instead of Mercury just continuing to be a bizzaro version of the Ford lineup, Ford’s new plan is to phase out the larger Mercury models in favor of Lincoln ones. The Milan will supposedly be the largest Mercury in the new scheme. The brand will then focus on being almost like the Lincoln of small cars, offering “upscale” versions of the smaller Ford models that don’t fit into the Lincoln lineup. Sort of like a buffer between Ford and Lincoln, keeping the Lincoln brand from moving downmarket. It actually sounds like a valid business plan and might turn Mercury into a useful marque. Good luck with that, Ford.

9. Volvo: ???

Ford has been toying with the idea of selling Volvo for a long time now. Just recently, a Chinese newspaper reported that China based Geely Automotive has signed a letter of intent to purchase Volvo from Ford. Both Ford and Volvo denied it, and that particular newspaper was the only source, meaning it’s highly unlikely. Still, we know Ford’s been looking, and if anyone has the money, the Chinese automakers do.

So out of our original list of 9 proposed brands, five are gone from Detroit’s grasp, three are saved, and one is a possible either way. Fairly accurate, I’d say. GM also sold Saturn to Penske Automotive Group and decided to focus on just four brands: Chevy, Buick, Cadilliac, and GMC. Ford is still considering it’s options. By the end of 2010, when all these decisions are finalized, we’ll hopefully see a leaner and more productive Detroit.

Last month, an earthquake caused major damage and claimed nearly 300 lives in the Abruzzo region of Italy. Ferrari has decided to help the cause by auctioning off one of their vehicles.

Later this year, the very last F430 will roll off the line at Maranello. So Ferrari has announced it will be fitting that particular car with two-tone silver and gold, the official colors of Aquila (the city worst hit by the earthquake); some extra equipment from Ferrari’s Carrozzeria Scaglietti customization catalog; and a letter of authenticity from the company’s president, Luca di Montezemolo. Nice.

The car will go up for auction in a few days at the Leggenda e Passione. Considering that a brand new, non-special Ferrari F430 goes for more than $200,000 dollars, and taking into account the fact that this money is going to charity (a charity very big in Italy right now)… this special edition, final F430 could go into the 7 figures.

Check out the press release below:

Official Press Release:
Ferrari contributes to rebuilding the Abruzzo region after the devastating earthquake

* European market version
** For reasons of homogeneity, engine power is expressed in kW, in accordance with the International System of Units (SI). The brake horse power (bhp) can be calculated as follows: 1 kW = 1.34 bhp

I have a special place my heart for scrap yards, having worked at one for a few years. So I’m a fan of anything salvage-related. The carnage of ripping things apart can only be topped by putting those bits back together in a strange way, and making them work.

The artists of Transmutant are definitely salvage-related. They’re like a bizarre Euro version of a Burning Man version of Junkyard Wars. That’s a triple combination I can get into.

According to their website, they are “a collective of multi-skilled professional artists, performers, event organisers, sculptors, musicians and technicians who have joined forces to offer your event a whole sphere of services to take it beyond your wildest dreams.”

via Don’t Panic

I love auto show girls. Actually, I love all girls, but still… there is something especially appealing about the auto show girl. Maybe it’s because we see them next to a car and automatically assume they have some automotive knowledge? Or that they’re at least interested in the cars? We love girls who love things we love. Which is also why we love lesbians. It’s a complicated and bizarre thought process going on inside the male brain. Actually, I take that back, it’s not complicated at all.

Either way, the fact remains that men love auto show girls, and last month, the 13th biennial (it’s a word, look it up, it means “every two years”) Auto Shanghai was held at the Shanghai New International Expo Center. Classy digs, apparently, and the girls were equally classy. Those Chinamen really know how to throw a party. So we snagged a few pictures of the scenery for you, loyal Ridelusters. Enjoy!

most pictures via auto.qq

There are people who watch NASCAR and Formula 1 and WRC just for the crashes, and then there are well-adjusted people who just want to see a clean, quality, high speed race. There are people who enjoy high speed races, and there are people who enjoy high speed races and death. And fireballs.

So, in the interest of bringing the people what they want, here is an hour and half long montage of WRC crashes. Enjoy, you sick freaks. I watched it twice.

I didn’t want any stock in Chrysler, but now I have some. So do you. The government is buying up Chrysler stock with our money, and without our permission. As far as I know, the constitution doesn’t give the president the right to be the forced stockbroker to every citizen in the country. Maybe I missed that part.

Anyway, here are the facts:
Chrysler is going bankrupt, but not normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy, they’re going into “managed bankruptcy“. The US taxpayer is putting up the majority of the cash, at least $12 billion, and we only get 10 percent ownership in the company. I say “at least $12 billion” because the original estimates were always way too low, so there is no logical reason to think this new estimate will be any different. Read on for more:

The UAW (United Auto Workers), the entity who helped destroy Chrysler with it’s insane contracts and shitty work practices, is getting 55 percent ownership; and the Italian company, Fiat, is getting 35 percent of the equity for some strange reason, even though they are putting up ZERO cash. Worst of all, the new directors of the company will be appointed by the Obama administration, leading to the obvious question of “what the fuck?“. It’s a little disconcerting, amirite?

And why Fiat? They are bringing NOTHING to the table, absolutely nothing. They’re not even a well run company. In 2004, Fiat had to be bailed out by GM, which eventually lost $2 billion on the deal. Am I the only one who thinks this whole mess is beyond absurd?

And just what is “managed bankruptcy”?
Well, first, what’s normal bankruptcy? Chapter 11 helps companies with a viable future reduce their debt. It’s done entirely via the courts and requires no involvement of the executive or legislative branches of government. Plus it’s Constitutional.

Now, “managed bankruptcy”… it’s the opposite of all those things. It gets the president and the legislative branch involved; the company doesn’t have to have a viable future; and worst of all, it’s not constitutional. Huzzah!

That means, most likely, Chrysler won’t be a viable company even after reorganization. So why are we paying billions for it? There are so many great, well-run auto companies out there with new technologies waiting for investors and market share. The money spent on Chrysler now is money taken away from Tesla or whomever else. I explained this all in GM’s Broken Window Fallacy.

This is basic economics.

And “managed bankruptcy” is socialism. Actually, it’s fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production and the people have no property rights. Fascism is where the means of production are owned by private parties but where the government controls the actions of the companies, including who is named to run them. Wow, that’s a dictionary definition. Wow, that fits. Wow, Obama is a fucking fascist. I apologize for the curse word. Moving on.

I’m at the point where I can’t really argue anymore, I just don’t have the energy. I’ve talked about these issues before many times (Here and here, for instance), and people just don’t seem to get it. I’m ready to just hop on a seastead and live in a capitalist paradise for the rest of my life, but I’ll give it one more shot…

These auto bailouts and this “managed bankruptcy” of Chrysler should scare you, because it’s dangerously close to both socialism and fascism, and they’ve both been tried before, with disastrous outcomes. Now, if you’re tempted to comment “but real socialism hasn’t been tried“, don’t bother, because you’re an idiot.

The only system that has worked, and has produced freedom and prosperity, is Capitalism. The thing is, capitalism isn’t even an -ism. An -ism is a distinctive system of beliefs, myth, doctrine or theory that guides a society. Capitalism is more like the opposite of that, it’s the lack of any official -isms and the acceptance of all of them. It’s allowing every member of society do what they decide is right for themselves. Smoke and eat what they want, buy what they want, spend their money how they want. In a truly capitalist society, a group of socialists can get together, buy up some land, and build a socialist community complete with all their own laws and systems, including “free” healthcare subsidized by the wealthier members of that group and state run auto companies. Anyone who wants to live in that society can go live there on their own free will. In a socialist state, a group of capitalists cannot do the same thing. Capitalism is freedom, inherently. That’s all there is to the debate.