or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Auto Industry Bailout
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Auto Industry Bailout - Page 8

post #281 of 616
the market will distribute capital better than congress/ government, because government is about growing and preserving themselves. if big three get this it will be the continued slide into more failure. its not just wages its also the rules that preserve union jobs, and influence like the dual fleet rule, it costs less and takes less time to bring in cars from other countries, europe has many fuel efficient safe cars but these can't come here.
we will regret this, the smart one of the three seems to be ford, only a credit line, but they had to face hard issues several years ago and are well on their way.....they could use this to place them at a competitive advantage over gm and chrysler.....also the bailout does nothing to improve product and quality
maybe we only need one "detroit auto company" and not three.
regardless of the outcome, we will have more expensive cars, and higher inflation, higher taxes
and for what ????
and bush is a boob for doing anything with the bailout money, what absolutely needs to be done now that can't wait till obama is in, let it come during his watch and maybe in a month info will change....hope
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #282 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Republicans want them to fail on their faces. And they're not even trying to hide that fact. In fact, they want to help the country dive-bomb into an abyss on Obama's watch simply for the right to say, "I told you so. Vote for me."

That's insane (which is true for many of the left's talking points.)

Nobody wants them to fail, it's just that some of us can see the reality that the auto sector has been badly managed and is terribly inefficient. Coupled with that is an overabundance of production facilities, a declining market, an aging population, global warming concerns and the reversion to better planning for our cities (the last is seriously overdue.)

The auto sector is going to be drastically reduced no matter what. All the management and union posturing is about trying to grab as much as they can from taxpayers before the gravy train ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Oh, so are you saying they're just faking for the sake of faking?

Seriously funny stuff there.

Seriously.

Yeah, didn't you bring Iraq into this a few posts back? You would think that the side that called out Bush & Powell's pr blitz for the Iraq war would be wise to this kind of play.

There is no crisis. They are faking. They are masking the fact that the industry is undergoing a serious reduction in size. Nothing will prevent that. A bailout now will simply delay the inevitable.

We didn't bail out Kodak and every 1-hour photo mart when digital cameras ate their lunch. We didn't bail out VHS makers when DVDs hit the market.

Almost everyone on this board has lamented the reign of the SUV and the dependence of the U.S. on foreign oil. Those on the left have lamented the auto industry's link to global warming and the drastically lower price for oil & gas products here compared to Europe.

So when things finally start to change and our economy start to respond to these changes, why would we sabotage progress by using tax dollars to fight it? It makes no sense.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #283 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And you called me a bigot.

for future reference, these statements are not bigotry, because they are true:

"If Obama ends Cuba sanctions, the democrats will lose a big chunk of the Cuban-American vote"
"If Obama ends Israel subsidies, the democrats will lose a big chunk of the Jewish-American vote"

This is your paraphrased statement, both bigotry and not true:

"Southerners are stupid"

--- back on topic

I agree that they will probably get a $14 billion bailout, which will keep the crippled crappy companies coping until Obama gets into office. The question is how many more payments will Obama be willing to make before he forces them into chapter 11... If he makes too many payments in this new welfare state it will be a serious issue with him in the next election (particularly with people who earn less/have worse benefits than the union workers at GM).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #284 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

for future reference, these statements are not bigotry, because they are true

I'm very curious now to hear what your definition of bigotry is.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #285 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm very curious now to hear what your definition of bigotry is.

A false generalization about a group. Do you think my statements above are false? My Cuban-American friends and Jewish friends are the ones that convinced me that they are true - it isn't something I just made up. If you could convince me that I am wrong I would gladly change my mind, but I don't think I am wrong.

How is what I said any different from talking about any other group (Republicans, for example)? I'm not saying that every Cuban-American would change their vote, just a big lot of them would.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #286 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

A false generalization about a group. Do you think my statements above are false? My Cuban-American friends and Jewish friends are the ones that convinced me that they are true - it isn't something I just made up. If you could convince me that I am wrong I would gladly change my mind, but I don't think I am wrong.

Um. That's not what "bigotry" means.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #287 of 616
Thread Starter 
oh. "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own".

I had the definition wrong, but that still makes his statements bigotry, and not mine. Actually, we are all bigots, but "Southerners are stupid" is a pretty extreme example. Or maybe he is classist, or regionist or something. Anyway, what I said was fine.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #288 of 616
I think "nevermind. I was high" would suffice.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #289 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I think "nevermind. I was high" would suffice.

Whatever - he is still something vile, even it if it may or may not exactly match the definition of bigotry. What would you call it?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #290 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Whatever - he is still something vile, even it if it may or may not exactly match the definition of bigotry. What would you call it?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but your determination to prove that you're not wrong about a word that you didn't seem to understand makes me chuckle.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #291 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I have no idea what you're talking about, but your determination to prove that you're not wrong about a word that you didn't seem to understand makes me chuckle.

I can tell you are a school teacher, because the meta discussion on semantics and word choice takes precedence over the actual discussion.
And even though had the definition wrong, I maintain that his comments were bigotry and mine were not. He is obviously intolerant of southern culture and people - nothing in my statement showed any kind of intolerance.

And BTW - any more info on how the unions agreed to wage cuts?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #292 of 616
OH! SNAP! I was totally schooled by your whatever you did there! Ouch! That stings! With the snapping!!! How dare I be concerned that we all use the, um, words, correctly.

I ain't a "school teacher."

Please, for the love of Christ, just say "You know what? I have been using that word incorrectly for my entire life, and I apologize for any confusion I might have caused."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #293 of 616
Thread Starter 
I have been using that word incorrectly for my entire life, and I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. I was sure you were a school teacher, maybe I mixed you up with somebody else that starts with m, I get frank777 and franskagent confused all the time.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #294 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I have been using that word incorrectly for my entire life, and I apologize for any confusion I might have caused.

There you go! Doesn't that feel better? Now we can continue the discussion. Technically, what you're talking about is a "hasty generalization," which is when you say something like "That black guy is bad. Therefore, all black guys are bad." The examples you provided were actually pretty classic examples of "slippery slope" arguments (e.g. "If X happens, then Y is inevitable"). While they are sometimes true, they are not always.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #295 of 616
Thread Starter 
Anyone know what happened in England when the auto industry died there? It seems like we are going through exactly what happened to them a while back. Unending bailouts of billions, until Thatcher finally said "Enough!" and let Layland go bankrupt.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #296 of 616
Google is your friend, try a search before you ask silly questions.
Here's one result,
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&client=safari
post #297 of 616
Thread Starter 
I found stuff like that, but it wasn't the detail I was looking for. When British Leyland went belly up, what were the consequences for the economy? I was looking for somebody who lived through it maybe, not a sarcastic punter with a google search fetish.

I am a big Obama supporter, but I worry that on this one issue we need somebody more like Thatcher.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #298 of 616
slightly off topic, but not worth a thread on its own,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7782422.stm

Wouldn't you just have loved for that first shoe to connect and given that cunt a fat lip and a migrane.

I hope the guy lives, he's now an international hero.
post #299 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I found stuff like that, but it wasn't the detail I was looking for. When British Leyland went belly up, what were the consequences for the economy? I was looking for somebody who lived through it maybe, not a sarcastic punter with a google search fetish.

I am a big Obama supporter, but I worry that on this one issue we need somebody more like Thatcher.

Here.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #300 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

not a sarcastic punter with a google search fetish.

Try being specific when asking questions, after you've done your homework.

eg. I can't find this information, did anyone live through this or have information about it?
post #301 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Try being specific when asking questions, after you've done your homework.

eg. I can't find this information, did anyone live through this or have information about it?

Honestly, I don't think anyone wants to relive that again.
post #302 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Honestly, I don't think anyone wants to relive that again.

Really?
Just like some in the States hope for another Reagan, I'm sure some in the UK wish for another Thatcher don't you think?

Now I have to go up on the roof to shovel off some more snow, this global warming shit is killing me.
post #303 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Really?
Just like some in the States hope for another Reagan, I'm sure some in the UK wish for another Thatcher don't you think?

You never watched The Power of Nightmares, did you?
post #304 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Honestly, I don't think anyone wants to relive that again.

I think that we might be setting ourselves up for a Thatcher like candidate if Obama gives too many bailouts to the auto industry next year. Eventually he will have to say no, or people will get fed up and vote in somebody who will say no. If he gets lucky, the economy will improve next year to the point where he can let the auto makers fall into bankruptcy.

60% of the public opposes an auto bailout right now, and I suspect that will be 80% or 90% this time next year if the bailouts continue.

This Thatcher-like candidate couldn't be anti-regulation though - I think that anti-regulation policies, particularly in the financial markets, will be out of fashion for a decade or two.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #305 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

You never watched The Power of Nightmares, did you?

So?
How does that refute that some in the US and some in the UK miss their heroes?

Hell, their are some in this country that miss Trudeau and some miss the Mulroney years.

You said you honestly believed no one wants to go their again, there is always someone.

I know I'm being a dick about it, so what.
post #306 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

So?
How does that refute that some in the US and some in the UK miss their heroes?

Hell, their are some in this country that miss Trudeau and some miss the Mulroney years.

You said you honestly believed no one wants to go their again, there is always someone.

I know I'm being a dick about it, so what.

No, you're not being a dick. You just haven't shown anything as to what Thatcher did to be remembered by. I believe that most British would want to forget her too.
post #307 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

No, you're not being a dick. You just haven't shown anything as to what Thatcher did to be remembered by. I believe that most British would want to forget her too.

She crushed the labor unions, and sold off state run businesses - paving the way for a more prosperous Britain.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #308 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I have been using that word incorrectly for my entire life, and I apologize for any confusion I might have caused. I was sure you were a school teacher, maybe I mixed you up with somebody else that starts with m, I get frank777 and franskagent confused all the time.

franksargent will now majorly backpeddle, to serve other people's purposes. I guess, sort of.

All southerners are not dumb or stupid or whatever.
Most southerners are not dumb or stupid or whatever.
The majority of southerners are not dumb or stupid or whatever.
The vast majority of southerners are not dumb or stupid or whatever.

There are certain clear objective demographic trends of southerners that are undeniable, unmitagated, and incontrovertable relative to the entire American population.

One of those is level of education of the totality of the general southeastern population.
One of those is the level of income of the totality of the general southeastern population.
One of those is the general level of intolerance of the totality of the general southeastern population. As exhibited by the number of documented hate groups and their geographical center of mass as shown at the SLPC.

SPLC Wins $2.5 Million Verdict Against Imperial Klans of America (11/14/2008)

Quote:
The Southern Poverty Law Center today won a crushing jury verdict against one of the nation's largest Klan groups for its role in the brutal beating of a teenager at a county fair in rural Kentucky.

Now let's get back to the topic-du-jour, bashing the UAW and the Big Three.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #309 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

She crushed the labor unions, and sold off state run businesses - paving the way for a more prosperous Britain.

Let me know when that prosperity happens.
post #310 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

No, you're not being a dick. You just haven't shown anything as to what Thatcher did to be remembered by. I believe that most British would want to forget her too.

Not to belabor this, you first said you didn't think anyone would want to go back, and now minus most, leaves some who would.

Like I said, there's always some contrarians out there.
post #311 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Let me know when that prosperity happens.

"UK standard of living higher than US"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece

Would not have happened if the unions had not been cracked like a dry twig by Thatcher. They were 34% below the US in 1990, and have caught up since.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #312 of 616
post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #313 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I don't think it is a logical error - the UK was stagnating before Thatcher. Your logical fallacy does not apply because there is both a before and after condition, with Thatcher in charge when things changed. Without Thatcher, the auto industry there would still be sucking up public money, and so would the mining industry.

In any case, he asked me to tell him when prosperity showed up, and I showed him it showed up 18 years ago.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #314 of 616
Declines in the US standard of living coupled with huge increases in wealth disparity actually track with the decline in percentages of unionized labor, so I guess in the US, at least, unions mean higher standards of living, right?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #315 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Declines in the US standard of living coupled with huge increases in wealth disparity actually track with the decline in percentages of unionized labor, so I guess in the US, at least, unions mean higher standards of living, right?

Link? That can't be true, because the standard of living rose from 1980 to 2000, while union membership dropped.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #316 of 616
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I don't think it is a logical error - the UK was stagnating before Thatcher. Your logical fallacy does not apply because there is both a before and after condition, with Thatcher in charge when things changed. Without Thatcher, the auto industry there would still be sucking up public money, and so would the mining industry.

You have just perfectly described post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

The UK economy was stagnating. Thatcher was elected. The UK economy picked up. To assume that her policies led directly to this picking up isn't safe, since there seems to be correlation, but not causation. We simply do not know what would have happened to the British economy had other policies been in place. Or if Thatcher had had a different hairdo. Or if Pink Floyd had never released The Final Cut.

Don't get me wrong. I have no dog in this race. I'm just saying that it is a logical fallacy to say that Thatcher busting the unions led to the UK's economic recovery. Or to the expansion of Pret a Manger to every streetcorner not occupied by a Starbucks or a Waterstones.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #317 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

You have just perfectly described post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

By that logic you can't know anything about politics, the economy, or the climate (and neither can anyone else - too many variables to be sure of anything). You seem to have opinions, though - how do you justify them when you have no basis in fact for anything you say here?

What do you base your vote on? Nothing you can possibly think about a candidate can pass your post hoc test?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #318 of 616
And that is a fine example of reductio ad absurdum.

I didn't say we couldn't know anything (although I might, if you asked me to). I said that we cannot be sure that Thatcher's policies led to the economic recovery and it is a logical fallacy to conclude that her policies did. I didn't say that they didn't lead to it. But it is also possible that the UK economy recovered in spite of Thatcher's policies.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #319 of 616
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

The greedy bastards agreed to cut their wages.

So what logical fallacy was this? nofactus oprerandum? Pulldit OuttaMyAssium?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #320 of 616
That wasn't a logical fallacy. They agreed to cut their wages. They just didn't agree to a "date certain." I'm not sure why this is such a horrible issue.

Back on topic, though, I just saw Barney Frank on one of the evening news shows and he explained why the bailout, rather than Chapter 11, is the way to go. I hadn't thought about it before, but Frank's point was that Chapter 11 will allow the auto industry to fuck over large numbers of people by simply saying "We're not gonna pay you." And that, I hope we can all agree, would be very not good.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Auto Industry Bailout