Skip to main content

They knew it could happen, but after crunching the numbers, the men Ayn Rand devotees would call society's producers decided that profit maximization required letting it happen:

On May 28, 1972, Mrs. Gray, accompanied by 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, set out in the Pinto from Anaheim for Barstow to meet Mr. Gray. The Pinto was then 6 months old and had been driven approximately 3,000 miles. Mrs. Gray stopped in San Bernardino for gasoline, got back onto the freeway (Interstate 15) and proceeded toward her destination at 60-65 miles per hour. As she approached the Route 30 off-ramp where traffic was congested, she moved from the outer fast lane to the middle lane of the freeway. Shortly after this lane change, the Pinto suddenly stalled and coasted to a halt in the middle lane. It was later established that the carburetor float had become so saturated with gasoline that it suddenly sank, opening the float chamber and causing the engine to flood and stall. A car traveling immediately behind the Pinto was able to swerve and pass it but the driver of a 1962 Ford Galaxie was unable to avoid colliding with the Pinto. The Galaxie had been traveling from 50 to 55 miles per hour but before the impact had been braked to a speed of from 28 to 37 miles per hour.

At the moment of impact, the Pinto caught fire and its interior was engulfed in flames. According to plaintiffs' expert, the impact of the Galaxie had driven the Pinto's gas tank forward and caused it to be punctured by the flange or one of the bolts on the differential housing so that fuel sprayed from the punctured tank and entered the passenger compartment through gaps resulting from the separation of the rear wheel well sections from the floor pan. By the time the Pinto came to rest after the collision, both occupants had sustained serious burns. When they emerged from the vehicle, their clothing was almost completely burned off. Mrs. Gray died a few days later of congestive heart failure as a result of the burns. Grimshaw managed to survive but only through heroic medical measures.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., (1981) 119 Cal. App. 3d 757.  In 1978, the jury in Grimshaw's case slapped Ford with a $125 million punitive damages award, which was later reduced to $3.1 million.  On appeal, the punitive damages were affirmed because:
the conduct of Ford's management was reprehensible in the extreme. It exhibited a conscious and callous disregard of public safety in order to maximize corporate profits. Ford's self-evaluation of its conduct is based on a review of the evidence most favorable to it instead of on the basis of the evidence most favorable to the judgment. Unlike malicious conduct directed toward a single specific individual, Ford's tortious conduct endangered the lives of thousands of Pinto purchasers.
The story of the Ford Pinto is much more than an historical anecdote about a dangerous product.  It is an illustration of just how flawed the Randian approach to society's "producers" is and a prediction of what the GOP generally, and a Romney/Ryan administration in particular, would inflict on the rest of us for the sake of corporate interests.

(More below.)

Lee Iacocca, then an executive vice president with Ford, came up with the idea for the Pinto in 1968 to compete with small cars like the Volkswagon Beetle and the increasingly popular Japanese imports.  Iacocca mandated that the Pinto exceed neither $2,000 nor 2,000 pounds. In addition, according to a 1977 investigative piece by Mother Jones:

Lee Iococca wanted that little car in the showrooms of America with the 1971 models. So he ordered his engineering vice president, Bob Alexander, to oversee what was probably the shortest production planning period in modern automotive history. The normal time span from conception to production of a new car model is about 43 months. The Pinto schedule was set at just under 25.
The drastic reduction in that timeframe meant that Ford would be testing the Pinto while retooling its factories to build the car.  When Ford conducted crash tests on the Pinto, as the Grimshaw court tells us, it learned that the Pinto had serious problems:
The crash tests revealed that the Pinto's fuel system as designed could not meet the 20-mile-per-hour proposed standard. Mechanical prototypes struck from the rear with a moving barrier at 21 miles per hour caused the fuel tank to be driven forward and to be punctured, causing fuel leakage in excess of the standard prescribed by the proposed regulation. A production Pinto crash tested at 21 miles per hour into a fixed barrier caused the fuel neck to be torn from the gas tank and the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing. In at least one test, spilled fuel entered the driver's compartment through gaps resulting from the separation of the seams joining the rear wheel wells to the floor pan. The seam separation was occasioned by the lack of reinforcement in the rear structure and insufficient welds of the wheel wells to the floor pan.

(At about 0:50 of the video above you can see the fuel bursting from the rear of the Pinto.)

Ford knew it could have made changes to the Pinto that would have made it much safer, all of which carried a relatively low price tag of about $5.00 to $11.00 per car.  But Ford then compared what it estimated would be the cost of compensating the dead and injured:

Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change.
(Source)  Unfazed by the fact that they were contemplating people being literally burned alive, Iacocca and other Ford executives decided that, on balance, it was cheaper to press on with the Pinto as is.
Harley Copp, a former Ford engineer and executive in charge of the crash testing program, testified that the highest level of Ford's management made the decision to go forward with the production of the Pinto, knowing that the gas tank was vulnerable to puncture and rupture at low rear impact speeds creating a significant risk of death or injury from fire and knowing that "fixes" were feasible at nominal cost. He testified that management's decision was based on the cost savings which would inure from omitting or delaying the "fixes."

See Grimshaw.  Ford issued a recall in 1978 and in 1980 the Pinto was taken out of production. The company paid out millions of dollars in lawsuits and, in Indiana, it was even indicted on homicide charges in the deaths of three teenage girls who burned to death after their Pinto was hit from behind.  The blow to Ford's reputation was as substantial as it was deserved.

So, how is the story of the Ford Pinto, which is older than some Kossacks, bear on today's GOP?  There are three responses to this question.

The first response is that the Pinto reveals the lie that is the "Atlas Shrugged" portrayal of Rand's theory of objectivism.  Rand had the luxury of creating her protagonists and the challenges they confronted, allowing her to imbue them with an immense amount of integrity. Hank Reardon's innovative new steel, for example, was awesome because Rand made it awesome. She didn't allow for the possibility that Reardon would make, and Dagny Taggart would use for new railroad tracks, a defective product that killed innocent people who couldn't have known the risks.  Indeed, the consuming public doesn't factor into "Atlas Shrugged" at all.

Regarding the antagonists in that story, the flaws run even deeper.  Rand didn't create market competitors against whom the integrity of Taggart and Reardon could be compared, but a strange bunch of executives who went along with an equally strange, government sponsored program that was something akin to perverted communism.  In short, Ford's Lee Iacocca did not and would not ever exist in the imagination of Ayn Rand.

The second response, related to the first, is that Paul Ryan is completely full of shit.  Here is a clip of Ryan describing Rand as the person who properly articulates the morality of capitialism.


Says Ryan:

The attack on democratic capitalism, on individualism and freedom in America, is an attack on the moral foundation of America, and Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism.  And this, to me, is what is matters most. It is not enough to  to say that President Obama's taxes are too big, or the health care plan doesn't work for this or that policy reason.  It is the morality of what is occurring right now and how it offends the morality of individuals working toward their own free will to produce, to achieve, to succeed, that is under attack, and it is that what I think Ayn Rand would be commenting on, which we need that kind of comment more and more than ever.
Like Rand, Ryan sees nothing but the "producer," with the critical difference being that Ryan is dealing with real life, not fiction. If policy is driven soley from the perspective of the producers, then the Pinto is the inevitable result. To Ryan's mind, producing a car that is known to be unsafe is not only justified, but doing so is the right of the producer.  Any harm that befalls the consumer, presumably, is subordinate to the producer's freedom to achieve and succeed.

The third and most important response is the extent to which the GOP wants to ensure that a company like Ford might never again suffer the consequences of producing a harmful product. The preamble to the GOP's 2012 platform states:

This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. If we restructure government’s most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse.  If we keep taxation, litigation, and regulation to a minimum.
Emphasis added.  Everyone knows that the GOP wants lower taxes and less regulation on business.  Notably, during the 1970s while concerns about the Pinto's safety were growing, Ford was fighting tooth and nail to kill federal safety regulations about, among other things, fuel tanks that were susceptible to rupturing on impact. The Mother Jones article linked earlier discusses this fight in detail.

Too often overlooked, however, is the party's longstanding desire to stop people like Richard Grimshaw or their heirs, like Mrs. Gray's, from holding the "producers" accountable when they put dangerous products into the stream of commerce.  The platform doesn't get into so-called tort reform as a general concept, preferring to limit the discussion to medical malpractice with some hat tips to "frivolous" lawsuits in other specific areas.

But as Jamie Kitman observed in a March 2011 article at CarTalk, the Republicans are interested in curtailing damages that plaintiffs like Grimshaw could recover, no matter how severe the misconduct of companies like Ford:

However, under tort reform legislation being considered again today by a Republican House, punitive damages in a case like Grimshaw might be capped at $250,000. The total damages awarded to the burned child would today be limited in total amount to less than one percent of the 1970 judgment.

...

"Tort reform" seeks to eliminate what is often the only check — and redress — we have against corporate wrongdoing. If the tort reformers have their way, the price of killing innocents with products known to be defective and potentially lethal will fall with inevitably, disastrous consequences.

Punitive damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer and prevent similar wrongful conduct in the future.  The practical effect of a punitive damages cap on industry giants when they are engaging in the sort of cost/benefit analysis that Ford undertook when it determined to unleash the Pinto on an unsuspecting public is nil.  

Without the deterrent effect of punitive damages, company brass can proceed at will with profits, but not safety, in mind.  And that -- a Pinto renaissance, if you will -- is precisely what the "morality of capitalism" hopes to accomplish.  

Originally posted to VetGrl on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 06:23 PM PDT.

Also republished by Anti-Capitalist Chat.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Capitalism (12+ / 0-)

    knows no morality, only profit. It needs regulation like a car needs brakes.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 06:30:52 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this Vetgrl! (8+ / 0-)

    I remember this terrible story only too well.

    Greed Kills.

    Unregulated greed kills more.

    America: welcome to Romney/Ryan world.

    God help us all.

    WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

    by JayRaye on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 06:33:26 PM PDT

    •  And Ford suffered consequences (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LinSea, JeffW, glorificus, bluedust, JayRaye, kurt

      It should be surprising, but it isn't, that the GOP doesn't really even believe in the market.

      Absent proper regulation in the first place, the damage to Ford was what the market dictated.  The GOP wants to protect even that.

      May I add that your statements, "greed kills; unregulated greed kills even more," would make a great sig line.  I might just steal that.

      •  Steal anything you want from me for your sig line! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VetGrl

        I would be honored!

        Good to see you back at DK with another execellent diary.

        WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

        by JayRaye on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:17:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  yep.. your linkage is excellent. (8+ / 0-)

    imagine food, air quality, and all the rest being driven by this kind of analysis. that's the GOP vision of the "Real America".

  •  Not the first automobile... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VetGrl, Brian B, JayRaye, annieli

    ...to be put on the road with such lack of consideration for the possible cost in human lives, to save some money. Consider the early model Chevrolet Corvairs, sporting swing axles instead of fully-independent rear axles off the powerplant. Amongst those lost was television comedy pioneer Ernie Kovacs.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 06:54:31 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I had to leave out quite a lot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, JayRaye, JeffW

      I could have put in a lot more about cars like the Corvair and the Mercury Bobcat, which was recalled along with the Pinto.  Then there are non-auto products like the Dalkon Shield.

      One reassuring aspect of my research is that cars are so much safer now.  Thanks to regulation and lawsuits, of course.

  •  Most of this diary is propaganda (0+ / 0-)

    The Myth of the Ford Pinto

    http://www.pointoflaw.com/...

    From the Rutgers Law Review of 1991

    n a 1991 paper, The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, for the Rutgers Law Review, Gary T. Schwartz[6] said the case against the Pinto was not clear-cut.[22][23]
    According to his study, the number who died in Pinto rear-impact fires was well below the hundreds cited in contemporary news reports and closer to the 27 recorded by a limited National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database. Given the Pinto's production figures (over 2 million built), this was not substantially worse than typical for the time. Schwartz said that the car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time, that its fatality rates were lower than comparably sized imported automobiles, and that the supposed "smoking gun" document that plaintiffs said demonstrated Ford's callousness in designing the Pinto was actually a document based on National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations about the value of a human life — rather than a document containing an assessment of Ford's potential tort liability.
    Schwartz's study said:
    The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study).
    The Pinto's fuel tank location behind the axle, ostensibly its design defect, was "commonplace at the time in American cars" (p. 1027).
    The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).

    ----
    The debate between capitalism and socialism ended when the Berlin Wall fell.
    Most Democrats, include the President , are pro-free market Democrats

    We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works."[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  Concern troll is concerned. n/t (7+ / 0-)

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 07:45:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  so (6+ / 0-)

      punitive damages are socialism now?

      I just genetically engineer them, I don't nominate them for President.

      by happymisanthropy on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:43:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the allegations in the diary (0+ / 0-)

        were false

        •  then why the fuck are you talking about socialism? (5+ / 0-)

          Do you defend limiting punitive damages?  Do you think the $3 million was excessive?

          I just genetically engineer them, I don't nominate them for President.

          by happymisanthropy on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 10:10:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  how so? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VetGrl, tarminian, NoMoreLies, JayRaye

          just because one particular document was not used internally does not nullify the fact that the corporation did indeed use a cost/benefit analysis in its decision making, as numerous other internal documents attest.

          I just genetically engineer them, I don't nominate them for President.

          by happymisanthropy on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 10:50:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, the diary isn't false (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tarminian, NoMoreLies, JayRaye, JeffW

          I'm well aware of what Schwartz wrote.  Most of the diary is premised on a court decision.  The trial in the case lasted for six months and the jury's verdict was premised on more than that memo.

          Moreover, the California precident referred to goes to a court decision by Judge Learned Hand that does go to cost/benefit analysis.  But that's of no moment.  The court in this case plainly said that you can't use the BPL forumula as an excuse to disregard public safety.

          Perhaps you need to take a more critical look at Schwartz before accusing me of posting false information.

          •  If you read the law review article (0+ / 0-)

            which you didn't you would have read this]

            :
            The Pinto Memo wasn't used or consulted internally by Ford, but rather was attached to a letter written to NHTSA about proposed regulation. When plaintiffs tried to use the memo in support of punitive damages, the trial judge ruled it inadmissible for that purpose (p. 1021, Schwartz study)

            The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037).

            •  Although I generally don't feed trolls... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JayRaye, IreGyre

              Your contiued reliance on a single memo reveals the shallowness of the point you want to make.  As to this:

              The precedent of the California Supreme Court at the time not only tolerated manufacturers trading off safety for cost, but apparently encouraged manufacturers to consider such trade-offs (p. 1037)
              If that carried the weight you pretend it does, then California's Supreme Court would have reversed the decision in the Grimshaw appeal.

              Finally (and I do mean "finally" because I tend to trust the spinning vase of doom), because that one guy said so isn't really much of an argument. That the Schwartz piece is so uncritically touted in various corners of the tubes as the final word on the Pinto says a lot more about the touters than it does about Ford.

              •  This isn't a memo (0+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Hidden by:
                doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers

                It's a law review article that is submitted in a peer-reviewed settings. You haven't been able to dispute any of the assertions in it so you resort to attacking the messenger.

                And your theoretical argument, that if the argument was valid, the california supreme court would have accepted the appeal is false.

                The California Supreme Court was out of control in the 70's and early 80's and was notorious for it's disregard of precedent and uncontrolled ideological bias.

                No less than the people of California agreed when they took the unprecedented action of ejecting 3 of the 7 members of the California Supreme Court through public referendum by a 2 to 1 margin.

                You can go look up Rose Bird for starters.

            •  Block quote Wikipedia citations, please. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VetGrl

              Your citation is a direct lift from Wikipedia and should be block quoted and include the link/citation.  

              "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

              by Uncle Moji on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:18:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Socialism has ended? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, VetGrl, IreGyre

      Oh, my,

      Quick, better tell the voters of France, the voters of Vermont,  and all the health care consumers of Great Britain.

      Socialism existed long before the Soviet Union, and Socialist continue to be elected in countries around the world today, including to the US Senate.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your Libertarian Ideology.

      I smell a troll.

      WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

      by JayRaye on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 09:34:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i don't think (0+ / 0-)

        anyone is looking at the eu, greece, ireland, etc as the model way to run an economy and a society.

        •  speak for yourself (2+ / 0-)

          Many European countries out rank us in education, longevity, social and economic mobility, health care outcomes, infrastructure, # of vacation days, time off with pay for newborn or adoption.

          And we outrank many of them in infant mortality, % of population in prison, % of population homeless, % of children in poverty, etc, etc, etc.

          But then, by all means, "don't think."

          We wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

          WE NEVER FORGET Our Labor Martyrs: a project to honor the men, women and children who lost their lives in Freedom's Cause. For May: Martyrs of the San Diego Free Speech Fight, Spring 1912.

          by JayRaye on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 02:35:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ireland is not Greece. But banks did the damage (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VetGrl

          more than anything else in both and elsewhere. Poor management in the Greek Govt... falsifying debt details are not inherent in Socialism or any other economic setup... Banks were only to glad to keep lending and while aware that they were loading up the country with debt (which they can then use to leverage huge concessions and sell offs at rock bottom prices). There are those in the financial world who manipulate currencies and they have been out to take down the Euro for some time...

          And the easiest way to do that would be to target its structural weak points rather than working with the EU to make changes that would avoid problems later. But that does not set up the Multinational financial corporations for windfall profits after a steep recession... that made bailouts unavoidable. No they get their cake and eat it too.

          In the decade before 2007 Irish Banks were all playing catch up and tag a long with the big international banks whose operations sent the message, play by our rules or get consumed. There was only one way that would end up... And currently in Ireland the recovery is hampered by scarcity of normal credit for businesses.

          Ireland was done in mostly by the same kind of housing bubble as the US... with nobody brave enough to pull the plug early enough to ensure a soft landing. the banks would have had a fit but it would have saved them and Ireland from sliding as far as they did. Celtic Tiger anyone? It was not a "Socialist" Tiger... anymore than Germany or France or England. Quality of life is better for people in Germany and most of the rest of Europe than at least half of the struggling people in the USA... and that is in part due to the ability to incorporate some Socialist features into market economies and keep them fairer and better places to live for the bulk of the population.

          Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

          by IreGyre on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:49:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  troll has been here less than 1 week. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VetGrl, JayRaye

        KEEP YOUR MITT OFF MY MEDICARE! (-9.75 / -9.05)

        by doesnotworkorplaywellwithothers on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 06:13:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The end of history? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VetGrl, JayRaye

      Right.

      First of all, there never has been completely "free" markets, except in some theoretical model. There is no magic in the marketplace.

      Secondly, the giddiness in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union produced some silly conclusions, among them the idea that the debate between capitalism and socialism was over. The events of the past decade should have removed any doubts regarding the error of that thinking.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 10:54:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Strawman alert (0+ / 0-)

        No one has said that thee has ever been a 100 percent comletely free market place, but free markets are the most efficient way to run an economy

        What’s the single most important thing to learn from an economics course today?  What I tried to leave my students with is the view that the invisible hand is more powerful than the [un]hidden hand.  Things will happen in well-organized efforts without direction, controls, plans.  That’s the consensus among economists.  
        larry summers

        Secondly, banks have been run with implicit government subsidies, fdic, fed window, that's not the market but crony capitalism, government-directed economy

        •  Larry Summers (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VetGrl, JayRaye

          You're quoting Larry Summers?

          I don't care what Summers thinks. His opinion is just that ... his opinion. It is no more valid than any other opinion. The fact that he was in the President's cabinet simply indicates that the President is more of a neo-liberal than his supporters would like to believe.

          Crony capitalism? Rather proves my point. The so-called free market is a myth.

          A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

          by slatsg on Mon Sep 03, 2012 at 01:34:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Did you actually read the Schwartz (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VetGrl

      article?  

      I suggest you read the footnotes as well as the article to gain a perspective on Mr Schwartz's bias.  Try 1022/29 for one, where he wonders what Ford executives knew, and suggests an answer which exonerates them, then admits that he doesn't really know the answer to the question that he has just asked/answered.

      The rest of the read is equally as interesting for those interested in details or bored with nothing better with which to occupy themselves.

      It is a well-written and accessible article, however, and not a bad read.  But more than just a cut and paste job entirely lifted from Wikipedia - you should really block quote that citation.

      "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

      by Uncle Moji on Sat Sep 01, 2012 at 08:12:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this great diary! (7+ / 0-)

    We can't do enough to tell regular folks who are going to vote for Romney/Ryan about Ayn Rand. I have no doubt whatever that an overwhelming majority of Americans have never heard her name or have no idea what she's about.
    I find it fascinating (in a terrifying way) that Ryan got his  "morality of capitalism" out of reading Rand's work. His definition of morality should scare the hell out of people. Serving the self is the goal-that's his and Ayn Rand's definition of morality. So the converse of that is anything that interferes with serving the self is immoral?! That is against everything America stands for.

    Warning: That light at the end of the tunnel just might be an oncoming train.

    by history first on Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 07:03:58 PM PDT

  •  "Tort Reform" code phrase for no responsibility... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VetGrl

    for evading any costs for criminal negligence and dis-empowering the average person's ability to force changes to the way corporations, rich people and governments do things at t

    And they will pass the "savings" on insurance, design and manufacturing corner cutting and avoiding class action suits and other large ticket decisions against them?

    Right?

    Yeah... sure. No they will probably award themselves even larger bonuses.

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Sun Sep 02, 2012 at 09:33:19 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site