GM, Bailout, Obama....

[kronus]

You're an embarrassment to people who actually know what they're talking about.

[Leaf]

You're an embarrassment to people who actually know what they're talking about.

Hey thanks for letting me know! :wgaf:

[mrsleeve]

Man you really sux at writing out your thoughts...
Remember dude, think about what your going to write then try to imagine your fingers typing it. Next actually execute what you thought out... I lol'd pretty good after reading what you wrote above...

Obama is still fucking great, and your still a fucking tool... thus, you sux shit.

LOL


1) I broke it all up in short bits so your short attention span could grasp each part of my post, without confusing you. Maybe if I number them it will help???

2) I see that the engrish language and reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

3) You need to shut up, adults are talking in the thread, and discussing different view points.

4) You are a troll

5) Glad you found my post amusing

6) GTFO

[Hallen]

Economy isn't everything. There are also social issues, justice issues, etc. etc. I am a libertarian in the sense that I do not believe the government should have any control over whom people marry, what they put into their bodies, what they do to their bodies, etc.

Capitalism is evil because it shows no regard for people, animals or the environment. Without regulation, people are worked long hours with little to no pay, in dangerous conditions and without benefits. Without regulation, entire species are hunted to or near extinction and natural ecosystems are destroyed. This is all in the name of money and it is plain immoral.

The economy is everything. It is society. There has always been economy, even if it was a simple barter system. The original family unit was economy. It is the division of labor for the benefit of all, in essence. Some would think that a reference to marxism, but it really isn't. It is an admission that we cannot survive at a civilized level without an economy. Society drives the economy.

You make wide, wide sweeping assumptions in your assertions that simply don't hold water. Society drives some (not all, but some) irresponsible behavior in businesses. It is the short term gain vs the long term impact. But that is not to say that every company will always seek to destroy the world in order to get rich (which is basically what you are saying). These arguments tend to ignore the fact that people run companies. Capitalism is not evil. Capitalism does not do all the bad things that you talk about. People do. Capitalism is simply the freest and least controlled form of economy. Your assumption that capitalism is bad implies that your preferred alternative is some form of marxism or socialism. Both of those systems require large amounts of government control over the economy which is in itself, control over society.

Your view of society, letting everybody do what they want, is all fanciful and nice sounding, just like marxism, but in reality, it leads to nothing but true anarchy with no control. True anarchy leads to nothing but the dominance of the most evil and vicious people. Society requires a certain level of order. It allows for those who produce to keep what they produce. In true anarchy, there are no repercussions for taking what you want from those who produce it. Conversely, pure marxism and socialism, takes from those who produce and give to those who don't with no repercussions. Neither is sustainable as a society. It will breakdown for a number of reasons.

The rule of law is important. Government should do little but protect property rights and enforce the law of contract. The natural result of this is a capitalist economic system which is nothing more than trading your skills or produce for what you can get for them.

However, there is also the factor of people needing to be able to live together. The real problematic and "fuzzy" areas of society have to do with what is determined to be property rights and the law of contracts. For example, lets assume there is no government (I know this is hard to do since it is ingrained in us, but try). You buy a house from a person in a neighborhood with many houses. The contract that you agree to with the seller states that you will be afforded privacy in your home and that that privacy will not be disturbed. Great, right? There is no government, you can do whatever you want in your home.

OK, so then the person sells a house near yours and that person has the same contract that you do. But this person likes really, really loud music. He is granted total privacy and can do whatever he wants in his own house. So, he plays really loud music all day and all night. He's happy.
However, our first home buyer is not happy. His contract is being violated because his privacy has been invaded by really, really loud music.

Our first buyer was a choice, get his money back from the seller because the contract has been broken or force the seller to enforce the contract.

You see the problem here, right? The seller can't really enforce the contract because home buyer 2 isn't really breaking the contract. He doesn't want to give home buyer 1 his money back because he knows he won't sell house 1 again because of the privacy invading habits of home buyer 2. What does he do?

The natural result of this is clauses to the contract that state that certain things that you consider to be your personal choice have to be restricted. For example, home buyer 2 would not be allowed to play music as loud as he wants because it invades the privacy of other home buyers.

This is where we get laws and government intervention into our lives in such a way that restrict what we can and cannot do, even in our own homes. Society, for the protection of the economy, must enforce certain laws and restrictions so that people can live together. There are many, many gray areas here and many things that seem unfair or intrusive. These are things that will never go away and all we can do is try to understand the basis for these restrictions and try to make the restrictions as minimal as possible but still allow us to function as a society.

I understand this, although I do not completely like it. It is a nod to understanding that people will not always placidly get along and that we must put constraints on things in order to insure that society can survive. People will disagree about what to do. For example, home buyer 2 will strive to change the contract back to no restrictions to how loud he can play his music, while home buyer 1 will fight the removal of that restriction.
Home buyer 2 will feel like his rights are infringed upon and that it isn't fair. He ignores the fact that he is invading other peoples privacy and that he is now breaking his contract. The seller has no choice but to remove buyer 2 from the house for breach of contract. So what has the seller now become? In our terms, he has now become the government. So, in a way, the government is nothing but the extension of our will and that is where the whole protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts comes in to play. It is better for society as a whole to enforce contracts than it is for individuals to do so.

So, you see, the libertarian concept that we should be allowed to do whatever we want in our private lives simply does not work. It does not support the greater good and it does not support society. And since the economy is the society, it does not support the economy either.

We have to be so very careful about this kind of thing though because it is a very fine line between protecting property rights and enforcing contracts to "social engineering" and entitlement mentality. It's why we have a constitution. It is a contract between the government and the people. The problem is, people have started viewing it as a malleable thing that should be used for social engineering. It should never be used for that. It is a contract and should only be changed it if is proven without a doubt that a particular clause or word does not benefit the long term commitment to freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Keep those things in mind when you think about this kind of thing. You really should base your decisions about this kind of thing on the rights of the individual vs the rights of all other individuals and how that decision will affect society (and therefore economy).

A free market society is necessary for us to rise above the basic hand to mouth existence. If you want to label it as capitalism, fine. But don't lay the blame for evil actions at the foot of the free market. It is misplaced there. Lay the blame at the foot of bad people and recognize that the reason we have government and law is to have a way to control bad people. Also, quit being so damned naive as to believe that all people behave reasonably at all times (and that especially applies to the power mongers who end up in our government). They don't and probably never will. You can't base society off of the idea that people will always behave reasonably.

[Leaf]

LOL


1) I broke it all up in short bits so your short attention span could grasp each part of my post, without confusing you. Maybe if I number them it will help???

2) I see that the engrish language and reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

3) You need to shut up, adults are talking in the thread, and discussing different view points.

4) You are a troll

5) Glad you found my post amusing

6) GTFO

1) The only thing you've been "discussing" is how we don't get along.
2) The only thing that is "troll" in this thread are those nasty ass boobs in your avatar.
3) Fuck you :finger:

[mrsleeve]

1) The only thing you've been "discussing" is how we don't get along.
2) The only thing that is "troll" in this thread are those nasty ass boobs in your avatar.
3) Fuck you :finger:

No you must have missed the 1st 4 pages of this thread then.

I guess you dont know what the Real ones are like then, save for tiny ones.


I am done with you, in this thread. I bid you farewell till then next thread you stick your head up your ass in.

[Scarlet_Pimpernel]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124342448629658299.html


And the Government may end up owning everything we have...

fixed.....:curse:

[JasonC]

So they paid it back?

[LBJefferies]

So they paid it back?

Looks like it. And the banks have been paying back their loans too! Think about all the jobs that were saved. And people say Obama hasn't done anything for jobs.

[87e30]

The carmaker received a total of $61bn in aid from the US and Canada, but the bulk was converted into equity as part of last year's court-supervised restructuring. The US government has a 61 per cent stake and Canada owns 11 per cent.

GM has not set a timetable for a return to public ownership beyond saying that it will happen when the company is on a secure financial footing.

I got excited at first, technically they have paid what is a loan back. But the government still owns 61 percent of them, aka has a large ability to make decisions for the company.

We'll have to stay tuned.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f3df252-4da5-11df-9560-00144feab49a.html

[Kansas]

Whitacre has said that they'll do a public stock offering by the end of the year. GM, of course, expects that selling off the US and Canadian gov't shares will more than cover the bailout. We'll have to wait and see, but personally I'm not very hopeful.

[Vedubin01]

Looks like it. And the banks have been paying back their loans too! Think about all the jobs that were saved. And people say Obama hasn't done anything for jobs.

Not so, only $6.8 billion paid back of the close to $50 billion borrowed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gm-to-repay-government-lo_n_543816.html

EDIT for more info on the not so paid off debt.

http://www.qando.net/?p=8059

[Wiglaf]

Not so, only $6.8 billion paid back of the close to $50 billion borrowed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/19/gm-to-repay-government-lo_n_543816.html

EDIT for more info on the not so paid off debt.

http://www.qando.net/?p=8059

from your article:

The company has received a total of $52 billion in U.S. government aid, with the $6.7 billion considered a loan. The rest would be repaid when the company sells stock to the public, perhaps later this year.

a trick on words there. I suspect that they are waiting because the stock price is still too low.

This might be a slight derail, but honestly there are a lot of things RIGHT with the Volt. It cannot get here fast enough, particularly with Nissans's Leaf about to take a huge bite out of the market by getting there first. Electrics are the future and GM seems like the only US company not still stepping on it's own dick.

[mrsleeve]

from your article:


a trick on words there. I suspect that they are waiting because the stock price is still too low.

This might be a slight derail, but honestly there are a lot of things RIGHT with the Volt. It cannot get here fast enough, particularly with Nissans's Leaf about to take a huge bite out of the market by getting there first. Electrics are the future and GM seems like the only US company not still stepping on it's own dick.

I guess you missed the part where the GOVT decides when GM is on good enough Financial footing to sell off its holdings ( ) . Till then they can force the #2 auto maker in the world to do what they want. IE the electric crap and all the "green" shit boxes ("The borrower is the slave to the lender"- Thomas Jefferson)

Ummmmm No electric is not the way of the future, Getting the EPA outta the way and letting the engineers build the shit they know will get great mileage make good power and allow . The EPA has regulated Ultra Efficient engines out of the USA. Electric dose nothing but move all the emissions form the tail pipe to the Power plant, taxes an aging power grid, Create more environmental issues with highly toxic batteries and their construction and disposal, Makes it impossible to make a trip longer than a few hours unless you have days to get there. Small shit boxs with no cargo room or hauling capacity (less than a E30), Not some thing I want to get into a wreck with, at all. Sould I continue.

Now for the record its not that something needs to be developed to replace gas, but thats in the long run because we will run out at some point, Not that the earth is getting hot. You nor I or will see the day where gas in not in use, our grand kids might though. You need to look past the all the govt knows whats best propaganda and look at how the world works, as the Austrians how blindly believing in the govt worked out for them in about 1937.

[Wiglaf]

Ummmmm No electric is not the way of the future, Getting the EPA outta the way and letting the engineers build the shit they know will get great mileage make good power and allow . The EPA has regulated Ultra Efficient engines out of the USA. Electric dose nothing but move all the emissions form the tail pipe to the Power plant, taxes an aging power grid, Create more environmental issues with highly toxic batteries and their construction and disposal, Makes it impossible to make a trip longer than a few hours unless you have days to get there. Small shit boxs with no cargo room or hauling capacity (less than a E30), Not some thing I want to get into a wreck with, at all. Sould I continue.

what an astoundingly narrow-minded view.

true that the EPA is a pain in the ass, and that electrics won't be any help for roadtrips.. but this is about the daily grind. 100 mile range is PLENTY. For most people, DD use is 90%+ of the energy they use. If you have to drive 3k miles to grandma's every weekend then don't sell the minivan.. People act like having a separate electric for DD use isn't even an option or something with these arguments.

Power plants are over twice as efficient as the theoretical maximum an otto cycle engine can achieve, and can do it cleanly. Offloading our energy use to the grid is the best possible step we can take. Honestly there are so many advantages to electric when it comes to torque control, reduced maintenance, etc that I'm amazed we haven't pushed it just from the performance perspective. You don't have to give a flying fuck about "being green" to realize what a superior car it would be.