• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Moore expresses Joy at GM Demise!

technoextreme said:
Maybe read isn't the word Im thinking off. Thinking would probably be best. I don't know how you can advocate getting rid of the car without getting involved with Ford and Chrysler so it isn't really that much of a straw man. Also, why do I get the distinct impression that Moore wants us to move back into cities like what was suggested in another discussion.
Click to expand...

Watch your head - goalposts coming through.

He doesn't advocate getting rid of the car. He advocates getting rid of the internal combustion engine. There is a difference.

Why do you get any impression about what Moore wants? So far you've demonstrated a need to flail him for any reason you see fit to grant him. Perhaps that's where your answer lies.
 
Kotatsu said:
If you use your trailer for commercial purposes, can you not just add some kind of charge equivalent to the two dollar increase to the person or company whose loads you carry? My father is an electrician in a semi-rural area, and when the petrol prizes increase here (and they are already much higher than in the US, I am told), they don't go demanding that the petrol stations either lower their prizes again or they will be forced out of work. Instead, they just add this to the over all costs of whatever work he is doing, and have the customer pay for this increase.
Click to expand...

One could but America tends to be more densely packed than Australia (By a lot IIRC) thus it's much more likely that bids will get undercut solely due to the gas price increase. My dad was a brick mason and would have to tow heavy equipment (backhoe, lift, etc...) to job sites.

In my case I'm pulling a travel trailer because my wife and I are theatre folk and we travel to where the work is. Because of our cats it's hard to find places to rent for 4-5-6 months so we take our house with us so to speak. Would it cut us totally out of work? No. but it would greatly reduce our choices.

When I mentioned rual areas I was thinking more of the walnut, almond, cattle famers in the area of California I'm in right now. Of course there's wheat, corn, rice, etc. in other areas. What would be the increase in food prices based a $2 gas increase? (For the record that last bit is an honest question. I don't know what factors would go into an equation to figure that out.)

ETA: Whoops. Missed Megalodon's post.

Megalodon said:
I'm not sure how it works in other places where gas is heavily taxed, but in Portugal people who depend on vehicles as tools have access to either significantly lower priced fuel or the possibility of deducting the gas expense (and the other car expenses) from taxes.
Click to expand...

Ah! Ok that would be fine. I only brought up the original post because when someone brings up ideas like Moore did I rarely see the vehicles as tools issue addressed.

So no, you wouldn't necessarily have to dump your Silverado. You actually might make some extra money from it.
Click to expand...
Cool.

As for people who own a huge truck because they need to tow something once a year, I recommend trading in for a small car and renting a truck for your one week vacation. It pays off (specially with a 2$/gallon tax).
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Last edited:
boloboffin said:
Watch your head - goalposts coming through.

He doesn't advocate getting rid of the car. He advocates getting rid of the internal combustion engine. There is a difference.

Why do you get any impression about what Moore wants? So far you've demonstrated a need to flail him for any reason you see fit to grant him. Perhaps that's where your answer lies.
Click to expand...

Again, I do understand where you're coming from here. When it comes to Moore, since Moore himself tends to attempt to elicit extreme responses from readers/watchers/listeners, he's usually getting as good as he's giving. Still, it makes for a 'conversation' (word used loosely) that is typically filled with exaggerations, hyperbole, and ideological rhetoric.

Moore does seem to be advocating getting rid of personal automobiles to a very large degree (in other words, not completely). Honestly, in most metropolitan areas I very seriously support that concept (even though I doubt I'll live to see it happen). What he suggests in that article has no basis in the reality of the government's actual scope of influence on GM, let alone the rest of the auto industry. The whole kit and kaboodle (of his article/blog) is pie-in-the-sky, so I don't see why being so invested in whether he's talking about just GM or the entire industry is useful in any way. In the case of his article/blog, Moore is wrong simply on the basis that he doesn't seem to understand the nature of the government's 60% stake in GM to begin with.

Which, by the way, is yet another example of how I can agree with some of what Moore might say in principle, but can't give any credit to his arguments as having been well-thought-out in any practical sense. While I think an auto industry that moved in those directions would be fabulous-- if only because I think it could bring us closer to my selfish desire of flying cars in my lifetime-- the actual nature of what's happening in the auto industry isn't even close to reflective of the opportunity Moore is suggesting the government take.
 
tyr_13 said:
Travis made no such strawman and asked a valid question, the start of which you highlighted. Moore misused history if the answer to that question is 'no' and is right on if the answer is 'yes'.
Click to expand...
I don't want to bitch about this... I merely disagree (note: I ain't pretending I'm right here... I'm jus' tryin' to think :))

tyr_13 said:
Moore wants massive public transport systems and the end of private cars. This isn't straw, and it is the argument he put forth.
Click to expand...
Again, I humbly disagree... My use of the term straw was prompted by the statement "So he wants history to think of GM as something that, while misunderstood, worked but might not have existed at all"... I think (ok, guess) that this is NOT what Moore wants

tyr_13 said:
Honestly I'd personally like to see more debate on this and less about if Moore was 'working class' or is really from Flint, as ultimately it matters little.
Click to expand...
On this, we agree :)
 
tyr_13 said:
That's a good point too. Moore is talking as if we 'own' GM. The US government has 60% of GM's stock, that's true, but 'the US government' isn't some person. It's many people. So even only within GM, it's unreasonable to do such massive and sweeping changes.

Again, it isn't that I don't think some of these goals aren't good, and that steps shouldn't be take towards them, but that it's silly to 'just do it'.
Click to expand...
I readily admit (sorta feel like I'm on the defensive, here) that Moore is prone to hyperbole... but... I reckon there's an element of truth (and relevance) in the cliché that it takes extremists to move the middle ground

Please note that I ain't knocking Uncle Sam here when I say that I can see (for a country widely regarded as a lumbering giant) that nothing but good will come from an increased incidence of considered thought

I get the impression that what Moore is really talking about is that you guys 'own' your government... and with ownership comes responsibility
 
Last edited:
six7s said:
I readily admit (sorta feel like I'm on the defensive, here) that Moore is prone to hyperbole... but... I reckon there's an element of truth (and relevance) in the cliché that it takes extremists to move the middle ground
Click to expand...

I think that has some merit to it, but I still do a face-palm when these guys start shooting off about things I'd otherwise find reasonable when placed in less extreme arguments.
 
And I think you just do not want to admit how radical Moore is.
Get this straight: Moore is not mainstream liberal. He is much,much further to the left then that.
Click to expand...

He's a little to the left of Mao.

Without following all of the suggestions, I have a hunch that no credible sites contend that the fiasco has been orchestrated by an uber-socialist cabal - simply because this is a case of unchecked capitalist greed gone wrong
Click to expand...

Evidently you don't understand capitalism.

If the government weren't part of the equation, and GM were allowed to go bankrupt as it should have been a year ago, then their failure would have been an example of capitalism working. An important part of capatilism is failure. If a company gets too greedy, or too slow, or too stupid, it fails. The failure frees up capital and workers that can be used more productively. It only fails when Big Brother steps in an screws everything up by preventing that failure.
 
Hittman said:
He's a little to the left of Mao.



Evidently you don't understand capitalism.

<snip/>


It only fails when Big Brother steps in an screws everything up by preventing that failure.
Click to expand...
Evidently you don't understand politics
 
Lenin is much cooler!!! (much better than McCartney).


picture.php
 
I like 'car less' cities. Sure, you still need roads for emergency vehicles and trucks, but if it is well designed most stuff you want is within walking distance or a short train ride away. This is a desirable and admirable goal. But, it isn't something that everywhere can just do. It certainly isn't going to happen in rural areas of this country.
 
Hittman said:
He's a little to the left of Mao.
Click to expand...
I think you might need to get out more. Your horizons seem somewhat limited.


Hittman said:
Evidently you don't understand capitalism.

If the government weren't part of the equation, and GM were allowed to go bankrupt as it should have been a year ago, then their failure would have been an example of capitalism working. An important part of capatilism is failure. If a company gets too greedy, or too slow, or too stupid, it fails. The failure frees up capital and workers that can be used more productively. It only fails when Big Brother steps in an screws everything up by preventing that failure.
Click to expand...
How do the efforts of business to manipulate the actions of government ("Big Brother") to its advantage and thus resist failure affect this equation.

Is this an example of the capitalists not understanding capitalism.

I guess in true capitalism a business would realize its self-interest by throwing itself on its own sword (so to speak) rather than transgressing the boundaries of appropriate economic behavior and engaging in politics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom