• 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.

The Stimulus didn't work?!

novice skeptic said:
Because he didn't. As Robert Reich so brilliantly explained it, GM is worth more today because of the cost cutting measures they took. They eliminated 80 billion in debt and cut thousands of jobs and got major union concessions.
Click to expand...

As part of the deal Obama gave them as part of the bailout...Also, this is actually going to gain a net profit for tax-payers, as GM is going to pay back the money, with interest.

If you think bankruptcy doesn't cost taxpayers money, maybe you need to look into that assumption further.
 
thaiboxerken said:
And the UAW is made up of taxpayers from which country?
Click to expand...

Holy crap that has got to be about the most pathetically laughable argument I've read on this forum, ever.

I guess Tom Delay should get a deferred sentence for his multiple corruption convictions; he is, after all, an American taxpayer!
 
thaiboxerken said:
As part of the deal Obama gave them as part of the bailout...Also, this is actually going to gain a net profit for tax-payers, as GM is going to pay back the money, with interest.

If you think bankruptcy doesn't cost taxpayers money, maybe you need to look into that assumption further.
Click to expand...

Please point out to me a bankruptcy reorganization that cost the tax payers $49.5 billion. I"ll just wait here sipping my non-fat, double shot, soy milk moccachino. If you can't, maybe you need to look into your argument further.

Oh and some of the cost cutting, union givebacks and other moves were agreed to under the Bush initial bailout.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/gmchrysler-bailout-was-it_n_732729.html
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
The whole town only has 48,000 people...

At any rate, I thought the claim was Obama saved the auto industry?

If GM and Chrysler went bankrupt, do you think any other auto company would have bought many of those assets? Do you think Americans would stop buying automobiles? Do you think component parts for other auto manufacturers are made in a replicator somewhere?
Click to expand...

Jeep, and Chrysler's minivan line (which still has > 50% market share) would be hot properties for sale.

"Saving" them was more about hemorrhaging cash so as to not be the politicians in office when Great American Iconic Companies went out of business.

From the companies' side, they get to cast off a bunch of union crap. BTW, Obama countered by giving a big chunk of the company to the unions, something unprecedented and of questionable legality. As the companies started hurting, loans to them became difficult to get, so they borrowed from people who they promised to be first in line for assets should they go under. Obama's actions eviscerated this longstanding contractual standard, but who cares about contract law and what it will do for thousands of other companies, who might find getting such loans in the future far more difficult, as the loanrs can no longer rely on the contract to do what it says?

Not on my watch! :rolleyes:



ETA: The US auto companies don't make money on tiny cars -- they make money on huge cars Americans love to buy in good times. Bad times are just to be weathered, and only token efforts at tiny cars are made to placate the idiots in office, full of meaningless hot air and fury, signifying nothing.
 
Last edited:
novice skeptic said:
Please point out to me a bankruptcy reorganization that cost the tax payers $49.5 billion. I"ll just wait here sipping my non-fat, double shot, soy milk moccachino. If you can't, maybe you need to look into your argument further.
Click to expand...

Point out to me where this bailout is costing tax payers $49.5 billion. GM was LENT money, they are going to pay it all back with interest. They've already paid back a substantial amount.

Oh and some of the cost cutting, union givebacks and other moves were agreed to under the Bush initial bailout.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/gmchrysler-bailout-was-it_n_732729.html
Click to expand...

Yes, SOME of those agreements were made by the Bush administration.
 
MikeMangum said:
Holy crap that has got to be about the most pathetically laughable argument I've read on this forum, ever.

I guess Tom Delay should get a deferred sentence for his multiple corruption convictions; he is, after all, an American taxpayer!
Click to expand...

Did the UAW break any laws? Of course they are going to try what they can to keep american people employed building cars.
 
novice skeptic said:
Is not buying stock an investment in services, products, jobs, families, America, children and everything good? Why do you hate innovation and growth for everyone? Do you own a 401k? Stock investment allows companies to get needed capital to improve, innovate, grow, create jobs, give dividends to widows and retirees. You dismiss it far too lightly.
Click to expand...

I don't dismiss stock investments as being useless to society. I accept their importance in the current system. I simply reject the premise that someone who inherits $50 million, invests $30 million and makes $100 million has somehow put in more labour personally, and therefore rightfully earned more money than someone who works 40 hours a week in a factory.
 
stokes234 said:
I don't dismiss stock investments as being useless to society. I accept their importance in the current system. I simply reject the premise that someone who inherits $50 million, invests $30 million and makes $100 million has somehow put in more labour personally, and therefore rightfully earned more money than someone who works 40 hours a week in a factory.
Click to expand...

Rightfully earned? If it's legal, it's rightful. Period. Good for them, and good for their ancestors for being successful enough to be able to pass the money down to them. That's the American dream.

You seem to be of the opinion that it is more noble to earn money by using your back than by using your mind. I would disagree.

I know members of the United Steel Workers (local 1010) who made more money from their stock investments than they made from their steel mill paychecks. Did they only rightfully earn a portion of their money?
 
stokes234 said:
I don't dismiss stock investments as being useless to society. I accept their importance in the current system. I simply reject the premise that someone who inherits $50 million, invests $30 million and makes $100 million has somehow put in more labour personally, and therefore rightfully earned more money than someone who works 40 hours a week in a factory.
Click to expand...

Labor is not the sole input in wealth creation. Without tools, raw materials, etc. there isn't anything for a laborer to do. Capital plus labor equals wealth creation. If someone invests $30 million, he has provided a very large amount of capital, he has risked a very large amount of wealth, with which to create new wealth. Of that newly created wealth, the investor only gets a fraction.
 
Region Rat said:
Rightfully earned? If it's legal, it's rightful. Period. Good for them, and good for their ancestors for being successful enough to be able to pass the money down to them. That's the American dream.
Click to expand...

I have no respect for the american dream, and don't consider the law to be a perfect judge of what is morally right or wrong. The law tells me it would be illegal to rescue someone who had fallen onto a train track, since walking onto the train track is illegal trespassing, but the morally correct choice would clearly be to rescue them.

Similarly, in a hypothetical country where the law allowed for murder, assault and similar crimes, would that make them right? Does the law dictate what is morally correct?

Region Rat said:
You seem to be of the opinion that it is more noble to earn money by using your back than by using your mind. I would disagree.
Click to expand...

I don't consider "being born into money" to be a cunning use of your mind. I consider it to be luck, and I don't like that the system that dictates the quality of life of most of the world is so largely dictated by luck.

Similiarly, gambling on shares with money and coming out with millions I would consider getting rich through luck, and I would prefer a system that rewarded people based on effort and skill. As we saw when the recession hit, banking investors are not highly skilled technical geniuses that cleverly move money into the right places to keep the economy going, they are gamblers. I would rather see doctors, scientists, engineers, skilled craftsmen etc rewarded the highest, and see large investments of large amount of capital dictated by elected bodies.

Region Rat said:
I know members of the United Steel Workers (local 1010) who made more money from their stock investments than they made from their steel mill paychecks. Did they only rightfully earn a portion of their money?
Click to expand...

Well, there's the question of scale. My main gripe with becoming rich through investments is the process of becoming much richer than the society average through pure luck. Chances are I would consider the wages paid to united steel workers to be lower than deserved, and therefore wouldn't begrudge them whatever they earned on the side through luck, but if their total earnings were disproportionate to the society average compared to the effort they put in in their job, I would consider it unjust.
 
MikeMangum said:
Labor is not the sole input in wealth creation. Without tools, raw materials, etc. there isn't anything for a laborer to do. Capital plus labor equals wealth creation. If someone invests $30 million, he has provided a very large amount of capital, he has risked a very large amount of wealth, with which to create new wealth. Of that newly created wealth, the investor only gets a fraction.
Click to expand...

If someone invests $30 million, but holds $20 million back, they aren't risking anything in real terms. Even if they lose all $30 million, they're still going to spend the rest of their life with a much higher than average standard of living.

Labour is the only factor in wealth creation, since the other parts all consist of labour as well. The production of the tools, the mining of raw materials, the transport of each, the construction of the methods of transport, the acquisition of the raw materials to construct the method of transport, they all boil down to a result of labour. I can accept that directing the labour of others is an important form of labour in itself, but I disagree that acquiring money through luck and then using the money to nominally direct the labour of others is a rightful method of earning vast amounts of money.
 
stokes234 said:
I have no respect for the american dream, and don't consider the law to be a perfect judge of what is morally right or wrong. The law tells me it would be illegal to rescue someone who had fallen onto a train track, since walking onto the train track is illegal trespassing, but the morally correct choice would clearly be to rescue them.

Similarly, in a hypothetical country where the law allowed for murder, assault and similar crimes, would that make them right? Does the law dictate what is morally correct?



I don't consider "being born into money" to be a cunning use of your mind. I consider it to be luck, and I don't like that the system that dictates the quality of life of most of the world is so largely dictated by luck.

Similiarly, gambling on shares with money and coming out with millions I would consider getting rich through luck, and I would prefer a system that rewarded people based on effort and skill. As we saw when the recession hit, banking investors are not highly skilled technical geniuses that cleverly move money into the right places to keep the economy going, they are gamblers. I would rather see doctors, scientists, engineers, skilled craftsmen etc rewarded the highest, and see large investments of large amount of capital dictated by elected bodies.



Well, there's the question of scale. My main gripe with becoming rich through investments is the process of becoming much richer than the society average through pure luck. Chances are I would consider the wages paid to united steel workers to be lower than deserved, and therefore wouldn't begrudge them whatever they earned on the side through luck, but if their total earnings were disproportionate to the society average compared to the effort they put in in their job, I would consider it unjust.
Click to expand...

It would seem that you have a life of poverty ahead of you, unless you are a hypocrite.
 
Region Rat said:
It would seem that you have a life of poverty ahead of you, unless you are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

In my field I can expect to stay slightly above the national average for the UK. But as per the rules, address the arguement, not the arguer.
 
stokes234 said:
In my field I can expect to stay slightly above the national average for the UK. But as per the rules, address the arguement, not the arguer.
Click to expand...

1) I did not attack the arguer

2) You have no argument. If all you say is its morally wrong to inherit money or make (too much) money in the market, there is nothing else to say to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom