GM: The Shriveld Fruit of Central Planning

"The market, that means the buyers; the consumers, that means all the people...[U]nder planning or socialism the goals of production are determined by the supreme planning authority. The individual gets what the authority thinks he ought to get."~~Ludwig von Mises, The Elite Under Capitalism, an essay in Economic Freedom and Intervention

Via Hotair, General Motors "decides" to spend $40 million on a carbon emissions program.

I put the word, decides, in quotation marks because General Motors is no longer in a position to make decisions according to what consumers in the market desire.  They are not interested in supplying what consumers in the market demand and, since the government is the shareholder with the the endless flow of taxpayer funds (the carrot) and holds the power of regulation (the stick), it is likely GM simply is not permitted to decide matters for itself.

Would a majority of private shareholder, if GM had all private shareholders, support $40 million spent on a program neither desired by consumers nor mandated by regulations?

Worse yet, the convoluted anti-free market partnership of government and a major corporation--wrought by bailouts, initiated by Bush and finished by Obama--places the federal government in a position to plan a major sector of what is supposed to be our economy.  It makes cover for the age-old authoritarian impulse to control how people supply for the wants and needs of other people in society. (What is a free market capitalist economy other than one existing for and driven by the desires of individuals?) 

GM's "decisions" therefore political, not economical.  They act at the behest of government command, therefore ignore consumer demand.

Can we demand no more bailouts, please.

Ludwig von Mises and The Digital Revolution

"Human society is an association of persons for cooperative action."  

 ~~Ludwig von Mises 

"The so-called leftist parties...all look upon progressing material improvement as upon a self-acting process."

~~The same


Watch this video and consider: How can society exist and progress without the free and uncoordinated action of millions of individuals?  (That's my reaction to the question at the end of the video.)

Video: First and Secondary Consequences of Taxes

"Economics, as we have now seen again and again, is a science of recognizing secondary consequences."~~~Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson

What would happen if the current income and estate tax rates stayed the same?  That is, what first and second consequences would ensue from not raising taxes?

Americans would do one of three things with their un-confiscated property.  Any of these would be a first consequence of not raising taxes:

1. Spend it
2. Save it
3. Invest it

And then there are the secondary consequences of not raising taxes:

1. If spent, un-confiscated property contributes to economic activity.   That's good in a recession
2. If saved, un-confiscated property adds to capital accumulation which makes more capital available for lending, thus increasing credit availability.   That's good in a recession.
3. If invested, un-confiscated property contributes to capital investment without which broad economic expansion cannot take place.  That's good in a recession.

If government decreases the amount of property it allows Americans to keep, all three of these opportunities expire. That's a consequence of raising taxes and that's not good in a recession.