Comment Re:It's not going to crash (Score 1) 106
First, the US government has bailed out the US auto industry repeatedly:
1. 1979, Chrysler bailout, 1.5bn, plus looser credit and trade protections that benefited Ford in particular and helped it avoid formal insolvency
2. 2008/9, GM & Chrysler bailouts, 60bn+, plus regulatory flexibility, Fed credit facilities, and supplier rescue programs that benefited Ford in particular
3. 2020, credit and payroll support, 10s bns+, plus Fed corporate-bond purchasing programs, which kept credit markets open (Ford raised $8 billion through bond sales in April 2020 thanks to that liquidity), payroll tax deferrals, and supplier support programs
Second, I’m not trying to claim the US government *controls* the US auto industry, I’m saying that the US auto industry has been *more dependent* on the US government for bailouts than the Chinese auto industry has been on the Chinese government. These are not equivalent statements, and you’ve just chosen the most fuckwitted interpretation you possibly could, of what I said, to make yourself feel better, instead of engaging with what I said substantively
Third, You’ve actually built not one, but *two* strawmen into that oil wars point.
Firstly, I didn’t say *only* U.S.-made cars used oil. My point was that U.S. geopolitical and military actions to secure Gulf oil flows directly supported the petroleum-based economy as a whole, in which the American auto industry was a core pillar. Keeping global oil plentiful and cheap has been a recurring strategic objective since at least the 1980 Carter Doctrine, which *explicitly stated* that the U.S. would use force if necessary to protect Persian Gulf energy supplies. That policy underpinned decades of intervention, including the 1987 Operation Earnest Will (reflagging Kuwaiti tankers) and the 1991 Gulf War, both designed to ensure oil supply stability.
Secondly, I never said the Gulf War was *only* about oil. Wars are always multi-causal: regional stability, alliances, deterrence, and economic interests. But to deny that oil was a central factor in the Gulf War is to ignore the historical record: policymakers and analysts at the time openly cited the need to protect energy markets and the “free flow of oil at reasonable prices” as a national security priority.
The point stands: the U.S. has repeatedly used military force to secure oil supplies that sustain its economic model — a model built around cheap energy and high automobile dependence. Recognising that link isn’t reductionist; it’s just historically accurate. If you want to challenge it, you’ll need to address the evidence rather than arguments I didn’t actually make.
