PDA

View Full Version : Economics This is not communism. Do not click here. I repeat, this is not communism...


Taco John
03-30-2009, 05:45 PM
ROFL


Bankruptcy Leads Possible Plans for GM, Chrysler

WASHINGTON -- The Obama's administration's leading plan to fix General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC would use bankruptcy filings to purge the ailing companies of their biggest problems, including bondholder debt and retiree health-care costs, according to people familiar with the matter.

The move would in essence split both companies into their "good" and "bad" components. The government would like to see the "good" GM to be a standalone company, according to an administration official. The "good" Chrysler would be sold to Fiat SpA, assuming that deal is completed, this person said.

GM and Chrysler have had bankruptcy attorneys devising plans for such a move in recent months.

President Barack Obama's task force has told both companies that the administration prefers this route as a way to reorganize the two auto makers, rather than the prolonged out-of-court process that has thus far frustrated administration officials.

GM looks increasingly like it will be forced into filing for bankruptcy protection, sometime in mid-to-late May, in a plan where the automaker breaks into two companies, the surviving entity a "new GM" that maintains key brands such as Chevy and Cadillac and some international units, say several people familiar with the situation.

Stakes in this new GM could be given to creditors and UAW members. It is also possible the new company could be sold whole or in parts to investors.

The auto makers could avoid bankruptcy in the next two months. And there is some brinksmanship still going on in GM's high-level talks with bondholders, union members and creditors.

A key ingredient is getting the UAW to agree to an entirely new labor contract, including major reductions in health-care benefits, according to several people involved in the matter. "That's the No.1 wildcard here," one of these people said Monday.

Under this plan, the "good" GM would not be expected to hold the tens of billions of dollars in retiree and health care obligations that hurt the auto maker in recent decades. Instead, those obligations would be transferred to an "old GM," made up of less-desirable brands like Hummer and Saturn, and underperforming plants and other assets. This part of GM would likely sit in bankruptcy much longer while a buyer is sought for the parts or it is wound down. Proceeds from the sale of old GM would go to pay claims to various creditors, including GM retirees.

"That is the plan, to the extent it comports with the bankruptcy laws," said one person familiar with the matter.

Some of the New GM-Old GM is laid out in the GM viability plan the company sent to the federal government last month. In it, GM estimates that it would shrink from 22% of the U.S. market to about 19%.

At Chrysler, bankruptcy would be used to force new labor contracts and rework debt deals with secured creditors. People working on Chrysler's behalf say the deal is risky, because the company is still not convinced that it could survive even a short-term bankruptcy. It could be done in order to meet the Obama administration's demand that Chrysler's creditors agree to huge reductions in their expected recoveries on Chrysler debt.

Also Monday, new GM Chief Executive Frederick "Fritz" Henderson told employees and dealers that the company will end up in bankruptcy court if it does not significantly accelerate its restructuring efforts in the next 60 days, according to a dealer who watched a broadcast of a meeting with Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Henderson said "we'll be in bankruptcy" if the company cannot meet the U.S. government's demands for faster progress on its turnaround plan, this dealer said.

Mr. Henderson told employees that the Obama administration was disappointed with the company's viability plan, feeling it didn't move fast enough or cut deeply enough into the company's debt. GM was told it didn't leave enough money in the company's pockets to get it through a full business cycle, either, according to the dealer.

GM was also told in no uncertain terms that it must learn to make money on smaller cars–not just trucks and sport-utility vehicles, the dealer said.

Warning that they can't depend on unending taxpayer dollars, President Obama on Monday gave GM and Chrysler a brief window to craft plans that would justify fresh government loans.

"We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish," President Obama said at the White House.

"What we are asking is difficult," he said. "It will require hard choices by companies. It will require unions and workers who have already made painful concessions to make even more. It will require creditors to recognize that they cannot hold out for the prospect of endless government bailouts."

The remarks came a day after the administration ousted GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner and rejected the restructuring plans that GM and Chrysler had hoped would lead to another infusion of government cash. Instead, the White House is giving GM 60 days to come up with a strategy for viability. Chrysler has a month to wrap up a partnership with Italy's Fiat.

Under the revised terms of a proposed alliance between Chrysler and Fiat, the Italian company would take an initial 20% stake in the U.S. auto maker, down from a 35% stake under its January pact, a person familiar with the transaction said Monday.

Fiat has been in negotiations with the Obama administration's task force, and the government said on Monday that Fiat is viewed as the only route to survival for Chrysler.

"We believe we will arrive at a result that will establish a credible future for this crucial industrial sector," Fiat Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in a statement.

GM on Monday said it will address "the tough issues to improve the long-term viability of the company," including the restructuring of its financial obligations, as it responded to Washington's calls for stronger plans to stay afloat.

The administration says a "surgical" structured bankruptcy may be the only way forward for GM and Chrysler, and President Obama held out that prospect Monday.

"I know that when people even hear the word 'bankruptcy,' it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean," he said. "What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold."

GM said it prefers to complete its restructuring out of court, saying it would complete a more accelerated and aggressive restructuring to put the company on sound long-term financial footing.

"We have significant challenges ahead of us, and a very tight timeline," said new GM CEO, Mr. Henderson. "I am confident that the GM team will succeed and that a stronger, healthier GM will play an important role in revitalizing America's economy and re-establishing its technology leadership and energy independence."

The auto makers, hobbled by the economic downturn and years of reliance on sport-utility vehicles, will receive an unspecified amount of working capital from the government while they hone their new plans.

Without a Fiat deal, the administration said Chrysler won't receive any more taxpayer dollars. The administration expressed confidence GM can survive with more drastic action.

GM and Chrysler received a total of $17.4 billion in government loans in December and have requested roughly another $22 billion to keep them going through this year. President Obama's auto task force combed through the firms' restructuring plans to judge if they merit the additional funds. The verdict released Sunday is that in their current form, the plans don't justify any new taxpayer resources.

If Fiat and Chrysler reach a definitive alliance agreement, the government would consider investing as much as $6 billion more in Chrysler.

Despite the grim view of Chrysler, the administration's task force said it had no intention of replacing CEO Robert Nardelli. Unlike Mr. Wagoner, who had been at the helm of GM since 2000, Mr. Nardelli is considered an auto-industry outsider who has only been in charge at Chrysler since the company was acquired by Cerberus Capital Management LP in 2007.

In addition to pushing out Mr. Wagoner, the task force said GM is in the process of replacing the majority of its directors. Kent Kresa, a longtime director, will serve as interim chairman. Mr. Wagoner will be replaced as CEO by Mr. Henderson, who has been serving as chief operating officer.

Administration officials on Sunday made it clear that an expedited and heavily supervised bankruptcy reorganization was still very much a possibility for both companies. One official, speaking of GM, compared such a proceeding with a "quick rinse" that could rid the company of much of its debt and contractual obligations.

The clearest losers appear to be the thousands of bondholders and lenders to both GM and Chrysler. In both cases, administration officials said that the companies were burdened by inordinate amounts of debt that would have to be scrubbed. Chrysler's survival, the administration said, would require "extinguishing the vast majority" of the company's secured debt and all of its unsecured debt and equity.

To assure consumers reluctant to buy GM or Chrysler cars, the government plans to take the unusual step of guaranteeing all warrantees on new cars from either company. These guarantees would lapse back to the companies once they return to health.

Mr. Wagoner had managed GM through some of its most difficult moments. The company hasn't logged a profit since 2004, reporting losses since then of $82 billion. It nearly ran out of money at the end of 2008 before the Treasury Department provided emergency loans. GM's stock was trading above $70 when Mr. Wagoner took over as CEO in June of 2000. The shares closed last week at $3.62, placing the company's market capitalization at $2.21 billion. In Monday trading on the New York Stock Exchange, GM shares were down 76 cents, or 21%, to $2.86.

Mr. Wagoner's tenure came amid challenges that weren't entirely of his own making--including costly retiree benefits and union contracts that predate him, and the recent deep recession. Yet GM by most measures performed worse than other auto companies. Among the key decisions that hurt the company: a huge bet on trucks and SUVs that piled up on dealers' lots unsold as high gasoline prices drove Americans to look for more fuel economy offered by rival companies.

Mr. Wagoner was asked to step down on Friday by Steven Rattner, the investment banker picked last month by the administration to lead the Treasury Department's auto-industry task force. Mr. Rattner broke the news to Mr. Wagoner in person at his office at the Treasury, according to an administration official. Afterward, Mr. Rattner met one-on-one with Mr. Henderson, who will fill in as GM's CEO.

"On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials," Mr. Wagoner said in a statement released by GM. "In the course of that meeting, they requested that I 'step aside' as CEO of GM, and so I have."

GM spokesman Steve Harris declined to comment.

In a statement released by GM Sunday night, Mr. Kresa said: "The Board has recognized for some time that the Company's restructuring will likely cause a significant change in the stockholders of the Company and create the need for new directors with additional skills and experience."

Mr. Wagoner's removal shows that the sacrifices could cut deep. The departure of the company's top executive promises to further shake up a company that has already been through considerable change over the past six months. The 56-year-old executive had been scrambling to craft a strategy aimed at maintaining leadership in the global sales chase with Toyota Motor Corp. and making big profits in emerging markets.

But Mr. Wagoner's plans came crashing down in the second half of 2008 as the company ran short of cash and was forced to ask the government for billions of dollars in aid. At the same time, his executive team started dismantling several parts of the company, including a plan to shed several brands, slow the pace of new-product introductions and sell stakes in international operations.

Industry's Outlook
The president's auto task force has spent more than a month digging into the restructuring plans that GM and Chrysler submitted last month. The team has struggled to make two determinations: when will the steep plunge in car sales end and what will the market look like once it revives.

GM has based its revival plans on the U.S. market rebounding to sales of 14.3 million vehicles a year in 2011, up from a rate of about nine million vehicles so far this year. Many analysts now consider GM's short-term forecasts to be overly optimistic.

Of the $21.6 billion in additional funding that the auto makers have requested, GM is seeking $16.6 billion more, while Chrysler has asked for $5 billion more.

Among challenges the administration faced leading up to this weekend's decision, foremost were the efforts to draw steep concessions from the United Auto Workers union and from the bondholders.

Attempts to solidify deals with the UAW and bondholders were slowed by disagreements by both parties over how exactly the other party needed to budge. The UAW, for instance, insists it already made health-care concessions in 2005 and 2007, and argues that the bondholders have never been asked to concede anything.

"I don't see how the UAW will do anything until they see what the bondholders will give up," one person involved in the negotiations on behalf of the UAW said Sunday.

Bondholder Factor
The bondholders have said that they are willing to make concessions, but they have wanted to see the union make further cuts. The fact GM raised most of the unsecured debt to fund union health-care and pension costs is also seen as a reason why the union needs to take bigger steps.

With Mr. Obama potentially holding off on new loans until concessions are made, analysts said GM likely has enough cash on hand to weather at least another month before its need for more government aid becomes urgent. Chrysler may need another infusion of cash sooner. Ford Motor Co. hasn't sought federal assistance.

Both GM and Chrysler are negotiating with the UAW to accept a range of cost-cutting measures, including greatly reduced work forces, lower wages and a revamped health-care fund for retirees.

The U.S. auto industry has been reeling from a plunge in car sales over the last six months. Sales in February were down about 40% over the same month last year. The drop has sent shock waves through the hundreds of smaller parts companies that supply the big auto makers. To keep the sector afloat, the administration recently announced a $5 billion financing facility to help suppliers cover their expenses.

The original December loans were given under the agreement that all sides would strike a compromise deal by March 31, but the administration is taking advantage of a clause allowing all sides another month to negotiate. "It was unrealistic to renegotiate a new labor agreement and the unsecured debt in so short a time," said Sean McAlinden, chief economist with the Center for Automotive Research, in Ann Arbor, Mich. "That has never happened before."

GM and Chrysler are meant to submit by Tuesday assessments of where their restructuring efforts are heading. In February, both companies put forward plans for paring their operations, reducing their work forces and eliminating vehicle models.

GM and representatives for its bondholders remained in talks over the weekend about a deal that would force these investors to turn in at least two-thirds of the value of the debt they hold in exchange for equity and new debt.

This arrangement would force GM to issue significantly more stock than what is currently being traded in the market. In addition, the government is being asked to guarantee the new debt with federal default insurance in order to entice bondholders who otherwise wouldn't be interested in participating in the swap.

If GM can't eventually forge a deal with the ad hoc committee representing the bondholders, the company may be forced to issue a debt-for-equity swap without the blessing of some of its biggest and most influential unsecured investors. This would heighten the possibility of the company eventually needing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The group representing GM bondholders was reviewing the White House documents and plans to make a formal response later Monday, according to a person familiar with the situation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123841609048669495.html

Taco John
03-30-2009, 05:46 PM
Ok... SO it's central economic planning, which actually is communism. But everybody has good intentions, so it shouldn't count as communism!

Baby Lee
03-30-2009, 05:49 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tAQu8PMZSSk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tAQu8PMZSSk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
03-30-2009, 05:50 PM
Ok... SO it's central economic planning, which actually is communism. But everybody has good intentions, so it shouldn't count as communism!

Careful now you'll be the topic of a call-out thread by the speech/thought nazis to punish dissenters from the Party Line that it's not communism, or socialism or facism.

BucEyedPea
03-30-2009, 05:51 PM
"Not with my body" we hear ...should be "Not with my money!"

Simplex3
03-30-2009, 06:27 PM
The woman in that video definitely drives like a girl.

BucEyedPea
03-30-2009, 06:29 PM
The woman in that video definitely drives like a girl.

Well, it's good that you didn't say like a woman. :)

Simplex3
03-30-2009, 06:36 PM
Well, it's good that you didn't say like a woman. :)

Not even close. A woman would have smashed the front fender into a yellow pole in the parking garage and tried to tell her husband she didn't know how it happened.

banyon
03-30-2009, 07:12 PM
You're now against letting them go bankrupt? :spock:

Rain Man
03-30-2009, 08:10 PM
The cool thing about this type of bankruptcy is that it helps failing companies hang on, and drives the well-run companies that they owe money to out of business.

Direckshun
03-30-2009, 08:23 PM
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach here, but I have no idea how we're supposed to fix these auto companies.

Taco John
03-30-2009, 09:43 PM
You're now against letting them go bankrupt? :spock:

No. I'm against the government picking and choosing who goes bankrupt and who doesn't. And I'm against the government involving themselves with industry to the point that GOVERNMENT is doing the restructuring of industry - that is THE VERY ESSENCE of communism.

Taco John
03-30-2009, 09:45 PM
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach here, but I have no idea how we're supposed to fix these auto companies.

Neither does government. That's not going to stop them from trying.

In the end, it's the American Auto Industry that will pay for the mistakes that government is making. Companies like Saturn aren't being allowed to naturally find their way to the top because government will prop up these defunt organizations, and keep the true innovators down.

Taco John
03-30-2009, 09:46 PM
This whole "it's not communism if it happens in America" line of reasoning is about as deluded and delusional as it gets.

Direckshun
03-30-2009, 10:17 PM
Neither does government. That's not going to stop them from trying.
Nor should it.

In the end, it's the American Auto Industry that will pay for the mistakes that government is making. Companies like Saturn aren't being allowed to naturally find their way to the top because government will prop up these defunt organizations, and keep the true innovators down.

Far as I know, Saturn's never made money, and that's for a reason.

Taco John
03-30-2009, 11:27 PM
Nor should it.

ROFL

Of course you'd say that.



Far as I know, Saturn's never made money, and that's for a reason.

What do you think Obama should do to fix that? Anything?

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 12:13 AM
What do you think Obama should do to fix that? Anything?

Hey there's a difference between resurrecting dying brands that can reform themselves and inventing profit where it never existed.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 01:20 AM
Hey there's a difference between resurrecting dying brands that can reform themselves and inventing profit where it never existed.

Yeah? What's that difference? What's the principle that allows the government to intervene for one but not the other?

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 01:24 AM
Yeah? What's that difference? What's the principle that allows the government to intervene for one but not the other?

I'd say this country has too much of a vested interest in furthering the production and development of the automobile. When an entire industry that important is on the brink, I think you do need to look into securing it and reforming the parts that demand reform, CAN be reformed, and HAVE PROVEN to be profitable when they do.

But brands like Saturn... that's just a dead product. We're not resurrecting Lazarus, here. We're jumpstarting development.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 03:12 AM
That wasn't an answer to my question. That was just some high-minded bloviating. I'm sure it felt good to say, but care to answer the actual question posed? What's the principle that allows the government to intervene for one but not the other?

Taco John
03-31-2009, 03:15 AM
But brands like Saturn... that's just a dead product. We're not resurrecting Lazarus, here. We're jumpstarting development.


ROFL

Waitaminute - You call the resurrecting of GM "jumpstarting development?" ROFLROFLROFL

Care to explain how government is going to "jumpstart demand?" Or perhaps more mandates are on the way?

So what's the principle here that allows government to intervene for one but not the other? One was once profitable, and the other is an upstart with an unproven vision? The one that was once successful and squandered their success until they demolished an entire American industry gets the nod for what now? "Jumpstarting development?" The funny part is that you are floored, just completely floored when I suggest that you're a communist with this completely communist view on things.

WilliamTheIrish
03-31-2009, 05:40 AM
Terrible decision. This is the company that's only vested interest was being short sighted. Any visionary leader would have brought this company, this entire industry, out of their stone age thinking after the OPEC embargo 30+ years ago.

Instead, we the have new US Gov't approved GM.

WilliamTheIrish
03-31-2009, 05:49 AM
What's the motivation for a company to become better when they can run with their hands out to the gov't? That's NOT the American way. Being on top of trends, creating automobiles people want and brand trust is the American way. And GM has failed this test seven ways from Sunday.

They want help? It's called Chapter 11. I'm in enough debt right now. I, along with the rest of America own 80% of AIG. I can't afford GM right now.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 06:55 AM
I'd say this country has too much of a vested interest in furthering the production and development of the automobile. When an entire industry that important is on the brink, I think you do need to look into securing it and reforming the parts that demand reform, CAN be reformed, and HAVE PROVEN to be profitable when they do.

If entire brands were on the brink then they'll come into existence on their own through the market, the people demanding them....not because of some Soviet 5 year plan introducing them.

Anyhow, what market research do you have access to that indicates this?
Or is it anecdotal? For shame you should be flamed by banyon, sully and hamas now. Better yet is it speculation or wishful thinking?
This is the problem with your ideology, you think you know better than the average American what kind of car they'll like. Your ideas, and the current gov's ideas are not better in this department. I posted months ago that this was merely an opportunity by the left in congress to use the Am auto companies for social engineering for the environment. Where do you think the commies went?

I thought you guys on the left claim to have a monopoly on statistics and empiricism.

Radar Chief
03-31-2009, 08:02 AM
Care to explain how government is going to "jumpstart demand?" Or perhaps more mandates are on the way?

Exactly right. This isn’t just an American manufacturers problem, Japan Inc. is feeling this crunch too. Sales are down across the board. IIRC they’re even talking “bail outs” over there.

patteeu
03-31-2009, 08:40 AM
Well, it's good that you didn't say like a woman. :)

Speaking of women drivers:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wT7zM8XgXQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4wT7zM8XgXQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I'm sure this is a repost, but I don't care.

banyon
03-31-2009, 09:20 AM
No. I'm against the government picking and choosing who goes bankrupt and who doesn't. And I'm against the government involving themselves with industry to the point that GOVERNMENT is doing the restructuring of industry - that is THE VERY ESSENCE of communism.

Was there something in the article about the government taking away the company's decision to file or not file bankruptcy? Maybe i missed it.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 10:04 AM
Was there something in the article about the government taking away the company's decision to file or not file bankruptcy? Maybe i missed it.

ROFL

It's so cute that you think this is some sort of worthwhile point!

You go, buddy!

Simplex3
03-31-2009, 11:11 AM
The cool thing about this type of bankruptcy is that it helps failing companies hang on, and drives the well-run companies that they owe money to out of business.

If the continued existence of your business is based upon getting paid by a company that is bleeding red ink then how well is your business being run?

Simplex3
03-31-2009, 11:14 AM
Hey there's a difference between resurrecting dying brands that can reform themselves and inventing profit where it never existed.

...yet we keep putting money into Amtrak, the USPS, the NEA, government schools, Socialist Insecurity...

Simplex3
03-31-2009, 11:15 AM
ROFL

Waitaminute - You call the resurrecting of GM "jumpstarting development?" ROFLROFLROFL

Care to explain how government is going to "jumpstart demand?" Or perhaps more mandates are on the way?

In the news this morning Comrade Obama is calling for a $5k credit to turn in your old car and buy a new eco-friendly one.

InChiefsHell
03-31-2009, 11:36 AM
In the news this morning Comrade Obama is calling for a $5k credit to turn in your old car and buy a new eco-friendly one.

Seriously? Good Lord...

...so, does this mean that from here on out all government vehicles will be GM products?

Calcountry
03-31-2009, 11:54 AM
Hey there's a difference between resurrecting dying brands that can reform themselves and inventing profit where it never existed.What would Obama know about "inventing profit". What are these things called "profits" anyway? Are they anything like "windfall profits"?

How much profits are o.k. with Obama? Obviously some profits are necessary because "we cannot continue to keep bailing out GM(government motors)". But, if Obama started making profits for the government, what should the government do with the profits?

Maybe a committee should hold hearings to determine what to do with profits, and when they would be considered "windfall profits".

While they are at it, they should go ahead and nationalize the oil industry. They might as well seize it while it is still profitable, since, obviously the green cars that GM(government motors) will be cranking out soon, oh so soon, will not be running on Saudi Arabian fossil fuels so they should take them while there is something to take.

Then, the great Obama, can expedite the move to a more green economy with green low carbon fuels that will create millions of new jobs and save the planet.

Calcountry
03-31-2009, 11:56 AM
In the news this morning Comrade Obama is calling for a $5k credit to turn in your old car and buy a new eco-friendly one.You mean "Chairman Obama".

Calcountry
03-31-2009, 12:02 PM
Speaking of women drivers:

<EMBED src=http://www.youtube.com/v/4wT7zM8XgXQ&hl=en&fs=1 width=425 height=344 type=application/x-shockwave-flash allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>

I'm sure this is a repost, but I don't care. The best part was the dude getting the chick out of the car, pulling forward, hitting reverse one time and dropping it right into the space, then getting in his car and getting on his way.

You have to do what you have to do sometimes. ROFL

Calcountry
03-31-2009, 12:03 PM
Seriously? Good Lord...

...so, does this mean that from here on out all government vehicles will be GM products?Government Motors(GM)

headsnap
03-31-2009, 12:14 PM
Government Motors(GM)

Lada... I mean Yada... I mean YES!

Taco John
03-31-2009, 12:33 PM
...yet we keep putting money into Amtrak, the USPS, the NEA, government schools, Socialist Insecurity...


But we can't put those things in control of the people! What if the people want to do things that government doesn't agree with!

Chief Faithful
03-31-2009, 12:59 PM
But we can't put those things in control of the people! What if the people want to do things that government doesn't agree with!

People are evil and greedy. Government is the only solution.

RaiderH8r
03-31-2009, 01:05 PM
ROFL

Waitaminute - You call the resurrecting of GM "jumpstarting development?" ROFLROFLROFL

Care to explain how government is going to "jumpstart demand?" Or perhaps more mandates are on the way?

So what's the principle here that allows government to intervene for one but not the other? One was once profitable, and the other is an upstart with an unproven vision? The one that was once successful and squandered their success until they demolished an entire American industry gets the nod for what now? "Jumpstarting development?" The funny part is that you are floored, just completely floored when I suggest that you're a communist with this completely communist view on things.

You are going to gag...

HR 1550 introduced by Rep. Sutton of Ohio. The Cash for Clunkers Bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111TI9LmX

The government would buy cars and trucks that are at least eight years old and send them to the scrap heap or to be recycled for parts and materials. The owners would receive vouchers worth $3,000 to $7,500 to buy more fuel-efficient North American vehicles or use mass transit.

So yeah, I hope this bill passes because I'm going out and buying up every $100 POS model car I can find and "selling" it to the government. This, right here, is why this government has FAIL written all over it.

Amnorix
03-31-2009, 01:11 PM
You are going to gag...

HR 1550 introduced by Rep. Sutton of Ohio. The Cash for Clunkers Bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111TI9LmX

The government would buy cars and trucks that are at least eight years old and send them to the scrap heap or to be recycled for parts and materials. The owners would receive vouchers worth $3,000 to $7,500 to buy more fuel-efficient North American vehicles or use mass transit.

So yeah, I hope this bill passes because I'm going out and buying up every $100 POS model car I can find and "selling" it to the government. This, right here, is why this government has FAIL written all over it.

Yeah, let's hope this one never gets out of committee.

RaiderH8r
03-31-2009, 01:12 PM
Yeah, let's hope this one never gets out of committee.

Yep, because it is retarded. I buy a $1K heap of shit and pass it off onto the government at a sizeable profit and I suspect that it would be non taxed income because taxing the "greening of autos" would be wrong.

RaiderH8r-1
Congress-FAIL.

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 01:34 PM
Yep, because it is retarded. I buy a $1K heap of shit and pass it off onto the government at a sizeable profit and I suspect that it would be non taxed income because taxing the "greening of autos" would be wrong.

RaiderH8r-1
Congress-FAIL.

This idea isn't unique. Germany is doing this right now and apparently several states in the US are doing this as well.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/31/german-lessons-is-cash-for-clunkers-the-answer-to-us-auto-woes/

As far as TJ's OP goes it is my understanding that the money sent to the automakers was a loan so since when is a loan communism? Also if you want to get a glimpse of communism let the automakers fail and you will see 3 million + Americans standing in ration and bread lines. Great thinking geniuses.

patteeu
03-31-2009, 01:53 PM
This idea isn't unique. Germany is doing this right now and apparently several states in the US are doing this as well.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/03/31/german-lessons-is-cash-for-clunkers-the-answer-to-us-auto-woes/

As far as TJ's OP goes it is my understanding that the money sent to the automakers was a loan so since when is a loan communism? Also if you want to get a glimpse of communism let the automakers fail and you will see 3 million + Americans standing in ration and bread lines. Great thinking geniuses.

According to wiki, "[c]ommunism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general".

Government control over the means of production in a major portion of the auto industry (and the financial/banking industry) isn't fully realized communism, but it is a big step in the right direction if you're a fan. If you'd prefer to call what's going on these days a trillion dollar lunge toward increased socialism or fascism, you could probably find some common ground with people referring to communism in this thread.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 01:58 PM
You are going to gag...

HR 1550 introduced by Rep. Sutton of Ohio. The Cash for Clunkers Bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/~c111TI9LmX

The government would buy cars and trucks that are at least eight years old and send them to the scrap heap or to be recycled for parts and materials. The owners would receive vouchers worth $3,000 to $7,500 to buy more fuel-efficient North American vehicles or use mass transit.

So yeah, I hope this bill passes because I'm going out and buying up every $100 POS model car I can find and "selling" it to the government. This, right here, is why this government has FAIL written all over it.


Let me guess... The $3000 to $7500 isn't based on the value of the vehicle, but your income level. From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his need.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:01 PM
... so since when is a loan communism?



A loan from government? Government is a bank now?


To answer the question - a loan is communims when the government gets to start calling the shots.

But aside from that obvious point, could you point me to the provision of the Constitution that permits government to "loan" the people's money to industries? Also, what happens if those industries can't repay those loans? Who gets what assetts in this forclosure? Who gets the final say?

Garcia Bronco
03-31-2009, 02:02 PM
A loan from government? Government is a bank now?


To answer the question - a loan is communims when the government gets to start calling the shots.

But aside from that obvious point, could you point me to the provision of the Constitution that permits government to "loan" the people's money to industries? Also, what happens if those industries can't repay those loans? Who gets what assetts in this forclosure? Who gets the final say?

Exactly. It's a whole ball of wax they never should have gotten involved with.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:05 PM
Exactly. It's a whole ball of wax they never should have gotten involved with.


Keep in mind, though, that Bush started this ball rolling - and that McCain was coming up with the same answers.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican problem. This is a systemic problem sourced from the fact that Republicans outside Ron Paul don't have a true economic message that counters this stuff... "Spend a lot, just not as much as the Democrats" is not an oppositional message.

patteeu
03-31-2009, 02:07 PM
Let me guess... The $3000 to $7500 isn't based on the value of the vehicle, but your income level. From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his need.

LMAO It's really not all that funny since it's actually conceivable.

RaiderH8r
03-31-2009, 02:09 PM
Let me guess... The $3000 to $7500 isn't based on the value of the vehicle, but your income level. From each according to his ability to pay, to each according to his need.

It's based on the vehicle you purchase and where that vehicle was either assembled or fully constructed.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:10 PM
Yeah, well there's a reason Ayn Rand books are starting to sell like hotcakes again.

patteeu
03-31-2009, 02:10 PM
Keep in mind, though, that Bush started this ball rolling - and that McCain was coming up with the same answers.

This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican problem. This is a systemic problem sourced from the fact that Republicans outside Ron Paul don't have a true economic message that counters this stuff... "Spend a lot, just not as much as the Democrats" is not an oppositional message.

This is all true, although it's unfair to paint all Republicans with the Bush/McCain brush. Ron Paul is by far the best on this subject. It's just a shame his foreign policy views make him unqualified to be POTUS.

RaiderH8r
03-31-2009, 02:11 PM
A loan from government? Government is a bank now?


To answer the question - a loan is communims when the government gets to start calling the shots.

But aside from that obvious point, could you point me to the provision of the Constitution that permits government to "loan" the people's money to industries? Also, what happens if those industries can't repay those loans? Who gets what assetts in this forclosure? Who gets the final say?

As soon as the loaner starts calling the shots the loaner ceases to be such.

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 02:12 PM
A loan from government? Government is a bank now?


To answer the question - a loan is communims when the government gets to start calling the shots.

But aside from that obvious point, could you point me to the provision of the Constitution that permits government to "loan" the people's money to industries? Also, what happens if those industries can't repay those loans? Who gets what assetts in this forclosure? Who gets the final say?

The government loans money out every day to all kinds of people and has been doing it for a very long time. Now it suddenly becomes a problem and it is communism? Cmon...

InChiefsHell
03-31-2009, 02:16 PM
This is why I didn't want to borrow money from my folks back in the day, I don't need my dad "helping" me with my personal financial life...nor does he want to be in a position where he needs to be "helping" me...

InChiefsHell
03-31-2009, 02:17 PM
The government loans money out every day to all kinds of people and has been doing it for a very long time. Now it suddenly becomes a problem and it is communism? Cmon...

He said to "industries"...keep up now...

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:23 PM
This is all true, although it's unfair to paint all Republicans with the Bush/McCain brush. Ron Paul is by far the best on this subject. It's just a shame his foreign policy views make him unqualified to be POTUS.

I don't see how you can seperate the Bush/McCain/Obama foriegn policy from the Bush/McCain/Obama domestic policy. They are intertwined entities.

If Ron Paul is not qualified to serve as president for his small government foriegn policy view, neither is he qualified to serve as president for his small government domestic policy view. I, of course, reject that idea outright.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:25 PM
The government loans money out every day to all kinds of people and has been doing it for a very long time. Now it suddenly becomes a problem and it is communism? Cmon...

Cmon? That's your rebuttal? You ignore the whole point about government calling the shots, and want me to get off my position with "cmon?"

Is this serious?

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 02:25 PM
The government loans money out every day to all kinds of people and has been doing it for a very long time. Now it suddenly becomes a problem and it is communism? Cmon...

That's true but it doesn't make it right. Hamilton was one who favored subsidies to businesses, as well as high debt. He simply didn't think business could survive without govt sponsoring them. Yet, there were examples around him all the time and others in his day who observed the same and felt the same way. His views led to the battles over the original govt bank. Jefferson was his fierce rival on this stuff. And Madison who was one of the federalists, even opposed Hamilton on this stuff. It's a feature of mercantilism, socialism and fascism.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:27 PM
Let's see if this works:

It's communism! Cmon!

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 02:36 PM
Commie, commie, commie chameleon...
They come and go, they come and goooooooo....

Chiefshrink
03-31-2009, 02:39 PM
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach here, but I have no idea how we're supposed to fix these auto companies.

Is it "our" job to fix them? Let the free market determine their fate. Let them fail !!!!!! But no, govt wants its tenticles in every aspect of American business so as to "control" and have say so in everything. Anybody with 1/2 a brain can see it is the "unions" and greenies(EPA) that are not allowing these companies to profit. Obama doesn't want GM or any other US car co. to fail and take "traditional bankruptcy" because "THEN" the unions would have to renegotiate everything "alllllllllllllllllllllll" over again and that would not be good because then they would have to actually start working again for a profit! What a concept!!! This is all payback to the unions from Obama for their support and more importantly to continue the socialist ideology that Obama wants for American business. PERIOD!!

patteeu
03-31-2009, 02:41 PM
The government loans money out every day to all kinds of people and has been doing it for a very long time. Now it suddenly becomes a problem and it is communism? Cmon...

Just because the government has been doing objectionable things for a long time doesn't mean that they haven't upped the ante by doing even more egregiously objectionable things over the past few months.

banyon
03-31-2009, 02:42 PM
Yeah, well there's a reason Ayn Rand books are starting to sell like hotcakes again.

There have been some kindling and fuel source shortages lately.

banyon
03-31-2009, 02:43 PM
That's true but it doesn't make it right. Hamilton was one who favored subsidies to businesses, as well as high debt. He simply didn't think business could survive without govt sponsoring them. Yet, there were examples around him all the time and others in his day who observed the same and felt the same way. His views led to the battles over the original govt bank. Jefferson was his fierce rival on this stuff. And Madison who was one of the federalists, even opposed Hamilton on this stuff. It's a feature of mercantilism, socialism and fascism.

Hamilton didn't favor high debt, no matter what that "Lincoln is a rapist" guy has been telling you.

patteeu
03-31-2009, 02:43 PM
I don't see how you can seperate the Bush/McCain/Obama foriegn policy from the Bush/McCain/Obama domestic policy. They are intertwined entities.

If Ron Paul is not qualified to serve as president for his small government foriegn policy view, neither is he qualified to serve as president for his small government domestic policy view. I, of course, reject that idea outright.

I'm not sure you're qualified to evaluate political candidates if you don't see how foreign policy views can be evaluated separately from domestic policy views. They aren't as intertwined as you apparently believe.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:44 PM
There have been some kindling and fuel source shortages lately.


Not sure how this comment applies to what I said.

Chiefshrink
03-31-2009, 02:46 PM
Allowing the free market to work will allow the consumer to always get fair value for most everything. A gov't controlled economy will always screw the consumer on value PERIOD!! If this mortgage and banking industry continues to surrender to the govt more and more over time you can bet if you ever have to sell a house in the future you will "NOT" get near the fair value it's really worth with the govt in control as opposed to the free market dictating your asking price.

***SPRAYER
03-31-2009, 02:48 PM
MOONBATS SUCK

Taco John
03-31-2009, 02:50 PM
Hamilton didn't favor high debt, no matter what that "Lincoln is a rapist" guy has been telling you.



It's pretty common knowledge that Hamilton favored debt as he saw it as a necessary means to financial expansion. He called a national debt a "public blessing."

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 02:58 PM
He said to "industries"...keep up now...

Since when is GM the whole industry?

Taco John
03-31-2009, 03:01 PM
Since when is GM the whole industry? cmon



FYP

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 03:02 PM
Cmon? That's your rebuttal? You ignore the whole point about government calling the shots, and want me to get off my position with "cmon?"

Is this serious?

When companies go into bankruptcy or receivership doesn't the government call the shots? Don't they appoint people to run the company and make sure it gets turned around and the books are clean?

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 03:11 PM
Not sure how this comment applies to what I said.

He's implying that our allegedly capitalist system has shortages just as a socialism/communism has.

He's using anecdotal data *gasp* at least as far as this argument goes. It's actually cherry-picked because a free-market is simply dealing with the problem of scarcity which is what economics has to deal with. The socialist/communist paradigm doesn't deal with shortages well, and depending on how extreme a socialism is—not at all. For one, it doesn't have a free-market price system where prices go up as a signal on the scarcity so that alternatives can develop or someone can enter the market at a lower price if that scarcity is artificial.


The reason they had widespread shortages in the Soviet Union was because they had nor real price system. They simply copied what prices the free west was using when it had nothing to do with the availability in Russia.

InChiefsHell
03-31-2009, 03:12 PM
Since when is GM the whole industry?

:spock: I don't understand what you mean...they've obviously loaned a ton of money to many industries as of late...this one (GM) though, they are basically running...baby steps see?

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 03:17 PM
:spock: I don't understand what you mean...they've obviously loaned a ton of money to many industries as of late...this one (GM) though, they are basically running...baby steps see?

You said industries which I take as meaning loaning money to the industry as a whole which they didn't do.

They loaned money to 2 companies, GM and Chrysler. The other car companies didn't take any money and they don't need to right now.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 03:19 PM
You said industries which I take as meaning loaning money to the industry as a whole which they didn't do.

They loaned money to 2 companies, GM and Chrysler. The other car companies didn't take any money and they don't need to right now.

Industries is just plural for those two companies. It's still socialism because one of the arguments made as that those 2 would wreck the economy by taking it down with them and millions would lose jobs. That serves a collective purpose. That's the communist/socialist link right there.

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 03:24 PM
Industries is just plural for those two companies. It's still socialism because one of the arguments made as that those 2 would wreck the economy by taking it down with them and millions would lose jobs. That serves a collective purpose. That's the communist/socialist link right there.

My frame of reference comes from when the government bailed out the airline industry after 9/11. They gave money to all the airlines except maybe Southwest.

Oh and the government gave the airlines loans and helped them through bankruptcy. Damn Bush communists.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 03:28 PM
My frame of reference comes from when the government bailed out the airline industry after 9/11. They gave money to all the airlines except maybe Southwest.

Oh and the government gave the airlines loans and helped them through bankruptcy. Damn Bush communists.

Well, both taco and I have both called Bush a socialist....even more so than LBJ. Now I see Dick Morris saying that on tv as well s Lou Dobbs.

As far as I'm concerned communism is just the higher stage of socialism. It's only really occurred in religious communities. Even the soviets were socialists, just a socialist dictatorship....but we come to know that as communism too.


I don't agree with any of the bailouts. Even Chyrsler years ago. It even had a buyer on the horizon that was interested in buying it. Govt just prevents those things from happening. It crowds out private solutions. And it isn't Constitutional. But that concern is just tossed away these days and has been for too long. Our govt before the 1930's allowed businesses to fail.


I think taco's essential gist is correct though despite parsing it technically.

banyon
03-31-2009, 03:36 PM
It's pretty common knowledge that Hamilton favored debt as he saw it as a necessary means to financial expansion. He called a national debt a "public blessing."

I guess you missed the word "high" in BEP's and my posts.

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 03:40 PM
Well, both taco and I have both called Bush a socialist....even more so than LBJ. Now I see Dick Morris saying that on tv as well s Lou Dobbs.

As far as I'm concerned communism is just the higher stage of socialism. It's only really occurred in religious communities. Even the soviets were socialists, just a socialist dictatorship....but we come to know that as communism too.

I don't agree with any of the bailouts. Even Chyrsler years ago. It even had a buyer on the horizon that was interested in buying it. Govt just prevents those things from happening. It crowds out private solutions. And it isn't Constitutional. But that concern is just tossed away these days and has been for too long. Our govt before the 1930's allowed businesses to fail.

I think taco's essential gist is correct though despite parsing it technically.

Obama and Bush aren't socialists they did what they thought was right in regards to both the airlines and GM. Can you imagine what would have happened if they would listened to you and TJ and let the airlines go under? Millions of people would have been stranded and billions of dollars would have been lost every day.

I am all for private solutions but what if there is no private solutions? I don't see alot of suitors lining up to buy GM though it appears someone might buy Chrysler. If we weren't in such shitty financial straits I might be inclined to agree with you about GM but if they go under now that is just going to make the problem that much worse.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 03:45 PM
I guess you missed the word "high" in BEP's and my posts.

Oh, I get it. You want to mince words with Buc on what the word "high" means.

banyon
03-31-2009, 03:52 PM
Oh, I get it. You want to mince words with Buc on what the word "high" means.

No, I'm looking to correct her faulty historical reference that Hamilton was for "high government debt". It's simply incorrect. No parsing needs to be done, unless it is by you or her.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 03:52 PM
Obama and Bush aren't socialists they did what they thought was right in regards to both the airlines and GM.

Yeah, they socialized them. That's double-plus good, right?


Can you imagine what would have happened if they would listened to you and TJ and let the airlines go under?

I can imagine what would happen: better airlines would rise from the ashes - airlines that don't need taxpayer dollars in order to operate.


I am all for private solutions but what if there is no private solutions?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hXjhQ1_xjuQ/SJ22GuAwRtI/AAAAAAAAD9E/v6TL8jJohj0/s400/Jesus+Facepalm.jpg

I'm fricken' speechless. Speechless. This amount of stupidity shorts my circuits.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 03:57 PM
Obama and Bush aren't socialists they did what they thought was right in regards to both the airlines and GM. Can you imagine what would have happened if they would listened to you and TJ and let the airlines go under? Millions of people would have been stranded and billions of dollars would have been lost every day.

I am all for private solutions but what if there is no private solutions? I don't see alot of suitors lining up to buy GM though it appears someone might buy Chrysler. If we weren't in such shitty financial straits I might be inclined to agree with you about GM but if they go under now that is just going to make the problem that much worse.

Bush is a socialist. It's a fact. Is he completely socialist? No. He's pretty mercantilist too. Both are forms of big govt that support subsidies to business. What was prescription drug meds for? Overall he's governed to the left of LBJ.

Obama IS a socialist by sheer fact that he's come right out and said ( remember Joe the Plumber) that he believes in re-distribution. There was also what Obama said about him bemoaning the fact that our Constitution didn't really support it.

Sorry dirk, I love ya' but you're in denial.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 04:10 PM
No, I'm looking to correct her faulty historical reference that Hamilton was for "high government debt". It's simply incorrect. No parsing needs to be done, unless it is by you or her.

Except that he was. Hamilton argued in favor of a large national debt. He saw a large national debt as a "public blessing." (his words)

Are you trying to make the argument that Hamilton was in favor of a small national debt? To what end would you imagine that he'd argue that case? His whole aim was to thrash the Articles of Confederation and the mindset that individual states had their own destiny by cementing everybody's necks in the same yolk. That wasn't going to be accomplished with a minor debt. So he combined all the debt of all the states, and then took out additional loans from the bank he founded.

A small national debt served no purpose to Hamilton's aims. Buc was correct when she said Hamilton favored a "high," or "large" government debt. No other kind would suit his needs.

dirk digler
03-31-2009, 04:14 PM
I can imagine what would happen: better airlines would rise from the ashes - airlines that don't need taxpayer dollars in order to operate.

And how long will that take? years? So let's lose billions of dollars a day while we magically hope something better comes along. Not to mention the chaos that it would cause and all the jobs lost. Do you guys live in fantasy land or something?

My point about private solutions was in regards to GM. I don't see any private person or company willing to buy them so there is no private solution except for them to go under.

Calcountry
03-31-2009, 04:14 PM
This is all true, although it's unfair to paint all Republicans with the Bush/McCain brush. Ron Paul is by far the best on this subject. It's just a shame his foreign policy views make him unqualified to be POTUS.This.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 04:14 PM
Except that he was. Hamilton argued in favor of a large national debt. He saw a large national debt as a "public blessing." (his words)
That's exactly right. Too many people think he was a saint. I'm reading DiLorenzo's book which cites right from his Report on Manufactures which is the mercantilist program of the Whigs. Lots of specifics on it in the book too. Like the national bank which once established immediate began inflation.


banyon is relying on anecdotal bits of history about Hammy

banyon
03-31-2009, 04:34 PM
Except that he was. Hamilton argued in favor of a large national debt. He saw a large national debt as a "public blessing." (his words)

Are you trying to make the argument that Hamilton was in favor of a small national debt? To what end would you imagine that he'd argue that case? His whole aim was to thrash the Articles of Confederation and the mindset that individual states had their own destiny by cementing everybody's necks in the same yolk. That wasn't going to be accomplished with a minor debt. So he combined all the debt of all the states, and then took out additional loans from the bank he founded.

A small national debt served no purpose to Hamilton's aims. Buc was correct when she said Hamilton favored a "high," or "large" government debt. No other kind would suit his needs.

He didn't combine the debts of the states because he thought it was neat to have large government debts. He combined them because it was a compromise measure that the Northern States wanted in exchange for locating the national capital in the Southern States. Many of them were having serious difficulties repaying their war debts, and even though they had supplied most of the troops in the fight, the South had the more prosperous economy.

He was also looking for a means to enhance the government's reputation worldwide as a responsible creditor so that we could finance future wars (like 1812) if needed.

Your usual binary logic is like telling someone that getting a credit card and paying it off responsibly as a way to build up your credit is the same thing as advising them to immediately max out all of their cards and borrow past the limits.

Probably want to get a new historical source beyond a Box of Ron Paul brand Cracker Jacks.

banyon
03-31-2009, 04:37 PM
That's exactly right. Too many people think he was a saint. I'm reading DiLorenzo's book which cites right from his Report on Manufactures which is the mercantilist program of the Whigs. Lots of specifics on it in the book too. Like the national bank which once established immediate began inflation.


banyon is relying on anecdotal bits of history about Hammy

It's not anecdotal, it's the same that's been told in any biography that wasn't written by your crazy fringe Lincoln is a rapist guy.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 04:48 PM
My point about private solutions was in regards to GM. I don't see any private person or company willing to buy them so there is no private solution except for them to go under.

Which is the appropriate solution.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 04:49 PM
He didn't combine the debts of the states because he thought it was neat to have large government debts. He combined them because it was a compromise measure that the Northern States wanted in exchange for locating the national capital in the Southern States. Many of them were having serious difficulties repaying their war debts, and even though they had supplied most of the troops in the fight, the South had the more prosperous economy.

He was also looking for a means to enhance the government's reputation worldwide as a responsible creditor so that we could finance future wars (like 1812) if needed.

Your usual binary logic is like telling someone that getting a credit card and paying it off responsibly as a way to build up your credit is the same thing as advising them to immediately max out all of their cards and borrow past the limits.

Probably want to get a new historical source beyond a Box of Ron Paul brand Cracker Jacks.



Yeah. Like we had said. Hamilton was in favor of a large national debt. Whatever you want to say about motive, all you did was prove our point.

Simplex3
03-31-2009, 04:50 PM
...but what if there is no private solutions?

Then it wasn't a real problem to begin with.

Garcia Bronco
03-31-2009, 04:53 PM
I can imagine what would happen: better airlines would rise from the ashes - airlines that don't need taxpayer dollars in order to operate.




Exactly TJ. By artifically proping up business our Government stifles innovation in that industry. It preserves the status quo. If the status quo was good enough then they wouldn't have needed to be proped up in the first place.

banyon
03-31-2009, 04:56 PM
Yeah. Like we had said. Hamilton was in favor of a large national debt. Whatever you want to say about motive, all you did was prove our point.

No, he was not in favor of a large national debt as a PRINCIPLE, which is what the argument was about.

He did argue that the government assume the States' existing large debts but not as a matter of prinicple that large national debts were somehow beneficial, but instead as a compromise measure and as the best choice at the time between already bad choices.

It doesn't surprise me that you lost track of the argument though in favor of glossing it over in the broadest and most favorable, if not irrelevant terms.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 06:51 PM
No, he was not in favor of a large national debt as a PRINCIPLE, which is what the argument was about.


Actually, you're wrong. Jefferson argued against' Hamilton's idea of large national debt as a principle on exactly those grounds:

Thomas Jefferson:
I am for a government rigrously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for (arguing directly against Hamilton's position) a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of it's being a public blessing.


Thomas Jefferson:
My whole correspondence while in France, and every word, letter, and act on the subject since my return, prove that no man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am. This exactly marks the difference between Colo. Hamilton's views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid tomorrow; He wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature. (you don't accomplish that with a small debt)


Madison writing about the way Hamilton left the US Treasury shocked and dejected over what a big spender Hamilton was:
A committee of ways and means are employed in investigating our revenues and our wants. It is found that there are between six and seven millions of anticipations due to the Banks, that our ordinary income is barely at par with our ordinary expenditures, and that the new taxes must be ready to meet near 1.5 millions which will accrue in 1801... Who could have supposed that Hamilton could have gone off in triumph he assumed, with such a condition of the finances behind him?

Jefferson writing in reply to Madison:
I do not at all wonder at the condition in which the finances of the US are found. Ham's object from the beginning was to throw them into forms which should be utterly undecypherable. I ever said he did not understand their condition himself, nor was able to give a clear view of the excess of our debts beyond our credits, nor whether we were diminishing or increasing the debt.


Whatever you want to say about his intentions, go ahead. His actions speak loudest, and those actions were towards ever increasing the national debt. Of course, he founded the bank that gave America its first loan, so that might have had something to do with his love of debt, though I'm inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just a big government liberal writing checks that he figured someone else would have to pay for someday.

Hamilton argued for a national debt on the grounds of it being "a public blessing." Hardly the words of someone who believes in any sort of "small debt principle."

Oh, by the way.

Source:
Jefferson vs. Hamilton
By Noble E. Cunningham

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 07:06 PM
ROFL

Waitaminute - You call the resurrecting of GM "jumpstarting development?" ROFLROFLROFL

Care to explain how government is going to "jumpstart demand?" Or perhaps more mandates are on the way?

So what's the principle here that allows government to intervene for one but not the other? One was once profitable, and the other is an upstart with an unproven vision? The one that was once successful and squandered their success until they demolished an entire American industry gets the nod for what now? "Jumpstarting development?" The funny part is that you are floored, just completely floored when I suggest that you're a communist with this completely communist view on things.

You're a bit in hyperdrive right now, so I'll just sit here and let you wind down a bit before re-engaging.

BucEyedPea
03-31-2009, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by banyon View Post
He didn't combine the debts of the states because he thought it was neat to have large government debts. He combined them because it was a compromise measure that the Northern States wanted in exchange for locating the national capital in the Southern States. Many of them were having serious difficulties repaying their war debts, and even though they had supplied most of the troops in the fight, the South had the more prosperous economy.

Your use of the word "many" referring to states having difficulty paying off their debt is misleading when, it was certain states ( Mass was one of them) that were not as responsible as the other states. Virginia hated this idea because they had paid off most of their war debt by the 1790's. Hammy socialized and nationalized the debts for the states that were more profligate by forcing the responsible states to pay taxes for the less responsible ones. Sound familiar?

King George III of England had signed a peace treaty with each individual state, named one by one in the document—not with some consolidated "United States govt." Each state still considered itself independent and sovereign. In fact the word congress at that time meant an assembly of sovereign countries.

Senator John Taylor of Virginia pointed out that consolidating taxing and borrowing powers of the central govt would lead to a "suppression of the republican state assemblies by depriving them of political importance resulting from imposition and dispensation of taxes." Sound familiar?

Hammy's plans were defeated 5 times by Congress until his last bargaining chip which was to move the capital from the NY to Virginia. Jefferson caved.

Hammy also proposed the notorious whiskey tax to fund the war debt. Hammy's tariffs put a disproportionate burden on the agricultural south making a mockery of his "national unity" and "common good." Critics of Hammy's financial plans were outraged that a tax burden was placed on poor farmers in order to assure interest payments to the wealthy.

Also regarding the war debt, Hammy proposed that it be cashed out at full face value which became public knowledge in NYC while it spread slowly to the other states. This created tremendous speculative opportunities for Hammy's wealthy NY and New England supporters. They got inside information allowing them to make a mad scramble up an down the eastern seaboard to purchase govt bonds from hapless and unsuspecting war veterans as low as 10 percent of full value. These war veterans had held these bonds for years. Some of Hammy's supporters in NE made a fortune off of this.

Settling the war debt had nothing to do with Hamilton's being a good guy, he also championed the creation of a large national debt. Bonds also required a steady revenue scheme. He also had schemes for things like subsidizing businesses etc. He viewed it as an indispensable instrument for growing the state in general—not just for paying off war debts.

His plans for commandeering resources through taxation was not just to ensure a good credit rating for the new govt, it would also lure investors in govt debt from around the world. This is how European empires were financed. It requires endless debt that never gets paid off. If one bond was paid off, new ones were issued. It was never ending. This is how the European empires bankrupted themselves eventually. Sound familiar?

Even Madison, his fellow federalist at the Convention, eventually turned on Hamilton and went with Jefferson more as time progressed.

As Yale University social scientist William Graham Sumner said: " [Hamilton ] was completely befogged in the mists of mercantilism."

Hammy believed in issuing bonds for the sake of enlarging govt debt as well. This way he could create a formidable pressure group in favor of bigger govt and higher taxation. He believed in "bounties" ( subsidies) for manufacturers who were in the north. Hammy also believed in imperialism along the lines of the British Empire. He championed debt as it can pay for more wars. He believed in empire along the lines of the British Empire. Sound familiar?

It is a red-herring to say Hammy wasn't for large debts even when he claimed "non excessive". He wrote two reports advocating govt debt.

We live in Hamilton's America today and the Democrats who were once opposed to this are now just as much his champion as those on the right.

Free markets my arse!

wild1
03-31-2009, 07:24 PM
Exactly TJ. By artifically proping up business our Government stifles innovation in that industry. It preserves the status quo. If the status quo was good enough then they wouldn't have needed to be proped up in the first place.

if America understood this, we wouldn't be in this mess

Taco John
03-31-2009, 07:32 PM
You're a bit in hyperdrive right now, so I'll just sit here and let you wind down a bit before re-engaging.

Uh huh... Your way of saying "man, I don't have anything but faith in Obama."

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 08:56 PM
Uh huh... Your way of saying "man, I don't have anything but faith in Obama."

I don't know why you're goading me into debate, when I'm as open to debate in this forum as anybody. I've done absolutely nothing to suggest I'd run away from a debate on this forum, ever. So the goading is unnecessary.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 10:07 PM
I don't know why you're goading me into debate, when I'm as open to debate in this forum as anybody. I've done absolutely nothing to suggest I'd run away from a debate on this forum, ever. So the goading is unnecessary.



Then why all the tucking tail?

Direckshun
03-31-2009, 10:21 PM
Then why all the tucking tail?

FFS. Because I can find better uses of my time in this forum than entering into a pissing contest with you? I'll respond, but I want you to do at least one thing in your reply: tell me if you've ever seen me """"""tuck"""""" """"""tail"""""" before in this forum. Once.

I'm totally easy to talk to, you don't have to go all BEP on me and order me to dance at your whim.

The ultimate reason I don't appreciate being called socialist/communist/whatever is because this is a crisis. I don't want the government running companies. I don't want government playing Emperor and deciding who lives and who dies, and basically titty-fucking banks to get loans going again. This is as dangerous a proposition as anything, even if government claims it's temporary, because I see temporary ownership of financial institutions and car companies as I see the "temporary occupation" of Iraq: there may be a period in the future where the government pulls its power out of the mix, but it'll still be there in some form for decades.

I don't like that. And it doesn't make me happy when it happens.

I don't think neocons are pro-occupation generally. I just think that they believe that occupying a foreign country is right when there's a national security crisis and our livelihood is at stake. I doubt any neocon in this forum has been totally comfortable with taking over Iraq, but time makes fools of us all.

I get your side of the issue. Man oh man, do I. But there's a good argument FOR abandoning the status quo in times of crisis, as well.

There was never any good way of getting out of this crisis. There has certainly been no middle ground. We can either adopt the Keynesian approach, which I support, which involves handfeeding a group of gigantic assholes in order to keep large swathes of our society afloat, tweaking them until they can get their act together. Then there's the Austrian economic model, which you support, which involves letting these gigantic assholes fail and taking down a shitload of innocent people who just want to work and pay their bills with them, from which there is no guarantee they'd recover.

I don't really know what you want me to say, so I welcome you to clarify any questions you'd like for me to field. Just... save the games.

KC Dan
03-31-2009, 10:29 PM
A well said explanation and for the record I somewhat agree. However, the gov't should of IMO stopped at providing businesses loans. They have no place in running a business, dictating salary/bonuses and firing executives or employees. This is a slope that they have made to steep to climb back up anytime soon and that has me worried.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 11:49 PM
The ultimate reason I don't appreciate being called socialist/communist/whatever is because this is a crisis.


So what? What do I care that your side is now flapping their arms and insisting that this latest crisis means that government expansion is the only logical step? Communism is communism whether you use it to solve a crisis or whether you just do it because you had an epiphany one day. By the way, which of those two scenarios do you think is more likely to make people abandon liberty in favor of communism?

Crisis my ass. Let them fail. Let the market work.


I don't want the government running companies.

Government doesn't care what you do or don't want. Government wants power.

I don't want government playing Emperor and deciding who lives and who dies, and basically titty-****ing banks to get loans going again. This is as dangerous a proposition as anything, even if government claims it's temporary, because I see temporary ownership of financial institutions and car companies as I see the "temporary occupation" of Iraq: there may be a period in the future where the government pulls its power out of the mix, but it'll still be there in some form for decades.

Yeah. Communism.


I don't like that. And it doesn't make me happy when it happens.

But yet you'll rationalize it as it happens right in front of your face. Observe:

I don't think neocons are pro-occupation generally. I just think that they believe that occupying a foreign country is right when there's a national security crisis and our livelihood is at stake. I doubt any neocon in this forum has been totally comfortable with taking over Iraq, but time makes fools of us all.

How many wrongs make a right, 'Shun? Two? Twenty? What's the principle that you're observing? Whenever one side or the other thinks the crisis is serious enough, then they're free to do whatever in the hell they want to make it all better?


I get your side of the issue. Man oh man, do I. But there's a good argument FOR abandoning the status quo in times of crisis, as well.

There isn't. There is never a good time to abandon the constitution of a country in good times or bad. It's the country's constitution. When you abandon your country's constitution - YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTION. When you have no constitution, YOU HAVE NO COUNTRY. Oh yes, I'm sure it sounds real melodramatic to you, and over the top. But it's 100% true.


There was never any good way of getting out of this crisis.

Yes there was. Dr. Paul has had the roadmap since WELL before the crisis began and has been talking about it for DECADES now. But strangely enough, you're too busy FIGHTING FOR THE STATUS QUO to give his solutions a fair hearing. And make no mistake - that's all these communist moves are designed to do - attempt to preserve the status quo. But no matter what moves get made, we're going to find that the status quo is insustainable. We've spent and spent and spent against our nation's future to bring prosperity today at the expense of tomorrow. It is what it is.



There has certainly been no middle ground. We can either adopt the Keynesian approach, which I support, which involves handfeeding a group of gigantic assholes in order to keep large swathes of our society afloat, tweaking them until they can get their act together. Then there's the Austrian economic model, which you support, which involves letting these gigantic assholes fail and taking down a shitload of innocent people who just want to work and pay their bills with them, from which there is no guarantee they'd recover.


The saddest thing about your "philosophy" is that if there were a poll taken here, you'd be against an Oligarchy, and yet that is exactly what you advocate for in a "crisis." Your approach: keep the fat cats fat and keep the little man in his place. My approach: let the cream float to the top and let the waste float to the bottom. Your approach is going to wreck everybody for the long term. It may not happen now. The rich may pull us out of this, and take a few of the middle class up with them. But it wont sustain itself for the long term. The ponzi scheme will one day crumble on itself because of the simple effects of causation. We are creating our future with the decisions we make today. History isn't just "happening to us." Everything is causal. You can't just flip a switch and turn off your brain to the evils that are being committed to the future because there's a crisis happening now. You can't say, "let us be permitted to give government and irrational amount of control of our lives (and industry), and be reasonable about everything else." It doesn't work that way. Reality doesn't care what you want to ignore to assuage your conscience. Government certainly doesn't. That's exactly how government wants you to react: shut off your brain here, but go ahead and leave it on over there, until it's time to shut it off again and pay attention to something else.

The America that you people are turning your brains off with the blank-out phrase, "it's a crisis," is exactly the America that you're going to deserve.

Taco John
03-31-2009, 11:50 PM
And for the record, the question that I asked you was this:

"What is the principle that allows government to intervene for one (company) but not the other?"

So far, it seems the answer is "It's a crisis!"

Direckshun
04-01-2009, 01:08 AM
Chickenshit.

At least you're implicitly admitting that I don't hightail out of debates in this forum by knowingly ignoring the question. But I had expected better. Shows what I know. Some real chickenshit stuff there, TJ.

Your reply sprouts off in too many directions to be productive (you're pretty much just doing a sentence-for-sentence dick measurement, sadly), so I'm going to narrow down to the essense of your argument(s) here.

I don't argue that in some aspects a government ownership of private businesses is an embrace of socialism, however limited. I'm just defending myself against the charge (which at this point I don't think you believe, you were just trying to lure me into conversation...) that I'm a communist. I do not support socialism, but in crises I am prepared to exert public power on private industries that have made themselves too important to the public at large. (Although it should be noted that I'm in the Krugman camp of "if it's too big to fail, it's too big to exist." But little can be done about this after the fact.)

And again, you're still not recognizing the reality of what you're arguing. You want the market to work, I get that. You think this is a vast overreach by the fed, I get that. You don't like the government spoon feeding a selection of really big corporate idiots, I get that.

What you DON'T get, because you're too busy sugar-coating the philosophy YOU support, is that if we take the exact opposite route and embrace the "let them fail" perspective... there will be casualties for a completely unknown future. Sure the big assholes will justly crumble, but they will absolutely take loads of innocent people with them, people who did nothing but play by the rules and rely on them.

And there is absolutely no guarantee that whatever structure that will replace it will be any healthier. Hell, if we devoid it of regulation like you'd prefer, it's entirely possible we'll just see a cycle of bubbles that a vast majority of the country will be incredibly susceptible to. I find that immensely undesirable.

It is this unwillingness to embrace the NECESSARY nasty side of your point of view, in your incessant quest to sugar coat it, that helps rob it of any allure it might have sustained with me. It feels too much like propaganda and I've grown more convinced that, in addition to the fruits that folks like yourself consistently trumpet, there are dark realities behind it that I've not yet recognized...

Taco John
04-01-2009, 02:02 AM
Chickenshit.

At least you're implicitly admitting that I don't hightail out of debates in this forum by knowingly ignoring the question. But I had expected better. Shows what I know. Some real chickenshit stuff there, TJ.

I'm not going to take responsibility for your dodging of my question about what the principle is. Your limp wristed "you're a bit in hyperdrive right now" attempt was weak. I'm not sure why you feel the need to press the point. I have no intentions of taking responsibility for your dodge.


What you DON'T get, because you're too busy sugar-coating the philosophy YOU support, is that if we take the exact opposite route and embrace the "let them fail" perspective... there will be casualties for a completely unknown future.

You're wrong. I FULLY get it. I'm prepared to face it. I know that Americans can handle the challenge. I know that we don't NEED government to solve our problems for us. I know that government needs us more than we need them. And I know that the casualties of letting the government overreach are much more severe and lasting than letting we the people solve the problem.

I don't need to sugar coat my philosphy. Freedom sells itself. Its you guys who need to take the sugar coating of freedom and equality and spread it on this bitter pill that we're having to swallow, "for the good of the people."


Sure the big assholes will justly crumble, but they will absolutely take loads of innocent people with them, people who did nothing but play by the rules and rely on them.

What you don't understand is that those people are going down no matter what. Those are the people that your way eats for lunch and shits out for dinner. Your oligarchy isn't going to do them any favors, I promise you that.


And there is absolutely no guarantee that whatever structure that will replace it will be any healthier. Hell, if we devoid it of regulation like you'd prefer, it's entirely possible we'll just see a cycle of bubbles that a vast majority of the country will be incredibly susceptible to. I find that immensely undesirable.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about here, and couldn't hope to without any clue on economics past "well, I know what Paul Krugman says that I should believe." And for the record, I'm in favor of GOVERNMENT deregulation for the fact that MARKET regulation is superior and provides better fail-safes.


It is this unwillingness to embrace the NECESSARY nasty side of your point of view, in your incessant quest to sugar coat it, that helps rob it of any allure it might have sustained with me. It feels too much like propaganda and I've grown more convinced that, in addition to the fruits that folks like yourself consistently trumpet, there are dark realities behind it that I've not yet recognized...


What nasty side? Letting the market fail, and revolution (the cream rising to the top, the waste falling to the bottom) happen? That's nasty? Revolution is part of the circle of life. What makes you think that I'm unwilling to embrace that? I'd much rather see that, than watch you fools flapping your arms insisting that we have to allow communsim to happen because "IT'S A CRISIS! AAAAUUUGH! WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAAAAAPPEN IF WE DON'T GIVE GOVERNMENT EMERGENCY POWERS!"

Oh, I know. You all want government to put down these emergency powers someday and let the people get back to the business of freedom. It's all for the common good.

Yeah, thanks.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 02:10 AM
Oh, and for the record, for all the outrage you displayed, you've still dodged the question that started your hissy fit.

So I'll ask again:

"What is the principle that allows government to intervene for one (company) but not the other?"

So far, it seems the answer is "It's a crisis!" That's not actually an answer.

To be honest, I know what the answer is: there is no principle. It's why you dodged the question with the "hyperdrive" crack, and why you've gotten all uppity since. You don't have an answer to the question. In truth, you don't actually have any guiding principles. They change on issue to issue based on your feelings about the situations and actors involved.

InChiefsHell
04-01-2009, 06:27 AM
I'm in total agreement with the Donk fan...well said, all of it.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 06:40 AM
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
The ultimate reason I don't appreciate being called socialist/communist/whatever is because this is a crisis.
Come on Direckshun, you answered nearly every question with a socialist answer when I put up my 40 questions which was BEFORE this crisis? The questions were right out of the writings of Marx's Communist Manifesto.

There used to be a time when we let businesses and people fail.

wild1
04-01-2009, 07:22 AM
Well, that settles this.

alanm
04-01-2009, 07:57 AM
Well, that settles this.Da Comrade.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 08:17 AM
And for the record, the question that I asked you was this:

"What is the principle that allows government to intervene for one (company) but not the other?"


I know you didn't ask me and probably don't care what I say but I will offer my lowly .02

The principle is the companies are to big\important to fail. It is a pragmatic approach unlike what you are proposing.

What you seem to not understand is what the consequences of such an extreme position would be. Just like I asked you about the airlines which you failed to answer the same can be said about GM or god forbid AIG.

I don't like AIG, no I hate AIG but the fact remains that they hold billions and billions of dollars of people's mortgages, 401k, insurance, retirement etc. If we would do what you suggest millions of people would lose everything through no fault of their own but it seems like you could care less.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 08:20 AM
.

I don't like AIG, no I hate AIG but the fact remains that they hold billions and billions of dollars of people's mortgages, 401k, insurance, retirement etc. If we would do what you suggest millions of people would lose everything through no fault of their own but it seems like you could care less.

That's why it's socialism. For the people. Most of those 401ks made money on paper due to inflation and artificial stimulus. I'd say they're too big to save, because it takes the rest of the country down with them....since we all have to pay for it. Not everyone was invested in that stuff. Why should they pay. The consumer of financial products has some responsibility to practice due diligence too.

InChiefsHell
04-01-2009, 08:26 AM
DOes anyone think it's possible that these companies got in so deep and were so poorly run because they KNEW that the government would bail them out? In other words, without the "failsafe" provided by the government, these companies would probably have performed better, or had more of a sense of urgency about failure...whereas now (and this has been true for a few years now) they KNOW the fed will bail them out, so they can get as risky or as stupid as they want...sort of like regulation in reverse.

If the fed would keep it's damn paws out of business like it always should have, these companies would have re-structured or gone under or what have you LONG before it would have been a huge far reaching crisis.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 08:29 AM
That's why it's socialism. For the people. Most of those 401ks made money on paper due to inflation and artificial stimulus. I'd say they're too big to save, because it takes the rest of the country down with them....since we all have to pay for it. Not everyone was invested in that stuff. Why should they pay. The consumer of financial products has some responsibility to practice due diligence too.

I agree they are too big but they have to be saved and then later once everything is stable they need to be broken up into little pieces.

What you also don't understand is that alot of companies have insurance, 401k, retirement through AIG for their employees. So the little man gets screwed again because you would want them to go under.

I know TJ will like this but CMON...

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 08:34 AM
I know you didn't ask me and probably don't care what I say but I will offer my lowly .02

The principle is the companies are to big\important to fail. It is a pragmatic approach unlike what you are proposing.

Teaching people that failing isn't failing is pragmatic?

What you seem to not understand is what the consequences of such an extreme position would be. Just like I asked you about the airlines which you failed to answer the same can be said about GM or god forbid AIG.

I don't like AIG, no I hate AIG but the fact remains that they hold billions and billions of dollars of people's mortgages, 401k, insurance, retirement etc. If we would do what you suggest millions of people would lose everything through no fault of their own but it seems like you could care less.

If AIG had been allowed to fail the mortgages, 401ks, insurance, retirement, etc would have all been spun off or sold off to their smarter competitors. The toxic sludge would have been flushed and this whole thing would already be over.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 08:38 AM
I agree they are too big but they have to be saved and then later once everything is stable they need to be broken up into little pieces.

What you also don't understand is that alot of companies have insurance, 401k, retirement through AIG for their employees. So the little man gets screwed again because you would want them to go under.

I know TJ will like this but CMON...

The "little man", or "We, the people" as I like to call them, got screwed with the current plan. Your 401k still tanked. Massive inflation is coming, so what little you have left will be worth far less. Oh, and you're paying out the ass through taxes to keep your 401k, all the while the government is taking off its commission along the way.

We still got fucked and there is no way around that.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 08:38 AM
I agree they are too big but they have to be saved and then later once everything is stable they need to be broken up into little pieces.
That's just a consideration.

What you also don't understand is that alot of companies have insurance, 401k, retirement through AIG for their employees. So the little man gets screwed again because you would want them to go under.

Whether or not we think it's good or bad/ right or wrong....it's still a form of socialism.

I think we'd survive it as we have before. This just corrupts the people and makes them weak pussies imo.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 08:41 AM
The "little man", or "We, the people" as I like to call them, got screwed with the current plan. Your 401k still tanked. Massive inflation is coming, so what little you have left will be worth far less. Oh, and you're paying out the ass through taxes to keep your 401k, all the while the government is taking off its commission along the way.

We still got ****ed and there is no way around that.

Yup. They don't see the forest for the trees. They ignore reality by disguising it for a utopian vision of the world.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 08:53 AM
Teaching people that failing isn't failing is pragmatic?



If AIG had been allowed to fail the mortgages, 401ks, insurance, retirement, etc would have all been spun off or sold off to their smarter competitors. The toxic sludge would have been flushed and this whole thing would already be over.

In this case it is pragmatic just like saving the airlines was pragmatic. The whole country would be effected and the cost to the country would be unmeasurable.

You make it sound so simple but I doubt it was that simple.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 08:55 AM
The "little man", or "We, the people" as I like to call them, got screwed with the current plan. Your 401k still tanked. Massive inflation is coming, so what little you have left will be worth far less. Oh, and you're paying out the ass through taxes to keep your 401k, all the while the government is taking off its commission along the way.

We still got fucked and there is no way around that.

We always get fucked it is just the degree of how hard the fucking is.

InChiefsHell
04-01-2009, 08:58 AM
In this case it is pragmatic just like saving the airlines was pragmatic. The whole country would be effected and the cost to the country would be unmeasurable.

You make it sound so simple but I doubt it was that simple.

If the airlines had not been saved, is it the contention that we wouldn't have any airlines anymore? America would have just took a bus?

...no. The airlines would have survived, adapted, changed, did what they had to do to survive.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 08:58 AM
I think we'd survive it as we have before. This just corrupts the people and makes them weak pussies imo.

Seriously? I don't want any of you people come complaining or crying about losing your job or losing anything because I am going to laugh and make fun of you for being pussies.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 09:01 AM
Seriously? I don't want any of you people come complaining or crying about losing your job or losing anything because I am going to laugh and make fun of you for being pussies.

Well, I do think it's okay for anyone who's lost their job to cry. Simply, because those who mismanaged our managed economy are suffering from the same things that are being used to salvage it. Sorry. But when it's a real market based system and someone loses it's one thing. It's another thing when the crises has been created by govt and vested interests. I am convinced if left alone, save some humanitarian aid, we'd recover....and faster.

Oh, and I found a job in the middle of this crisis and my kid had 8 offers for a part time job.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:02 AM
If the airlines had not been saved, is it the contention that we wouldn't have any airlines anymore? America would have just took a bus?

...no. The airlines would have survived, adapted, changed, did what they had to do to survive.

No because a few airlines would have survived like Southwest but the others would have gone under causing us to lose billions of dollars a day and create mass chaos until a suitable airline could take over the routes which would probably take a long time.

Think for a moment what would happen if Microsoft went out of business. 95% of the world's PC's run Windows do you think that would be acceptable if they were to suddenly go under?

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 09:04 AM
No because a few airlines would have survived like Southwest but the others would have gone under causing us to lose billions of dollars a day and create mass chaos.

Think for a moment what would happen if Microsoft went out of business. 95% of the world's PC's run Windows do you think that would be acceptable if they were to suddenly go under?

It wouldn't be the disaster you assume it would. Plenty of other players would fill the void. There simply is too much opportunity there if there is still enough demand. That's how a free system deals with such things. The inefficient players go under and the more efficient players take over. If no one was interested, then it means no gains and it's become a loser. So losing it is no loss. Remember, it didn't exist at one time either and we survived.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:07 AM
Well, I do think it's okay for anyone who's lost their job to cry. Simply, because those who mismanaged our managed economy are suffering from the same things that are being used to salvage it. Sorry. But when it's a real market based system and someone loses it's one thing. It's another thing when the crises has been created by govt and vested interests. I am convinced if left alone, save some humanitarian aid, we'd recover....and faster.


You just contradicted yourself because you said people are pussies if they cry about losing their house, mortgage, 401k, retirement through no fault of their own yet it is ok to for someone to cry over losing a job?

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:11 AM
It wouldn't be the disaster you assume it would. Plenty of other players would fill the void. There simply is too much opportunity there if there is still enough demand. That's how a free system deals with such things. The inefficient players go under and the more efficient players take over. If no one was interested, then it means no gains and it's become a loser. So losing it is no loss. Remember, it didn't exist at one time either and we survived.

LMAO. You don't have any concept of how long it would take for a suitable replacement for the airlines or how about replacing 95% of the OS's in the world.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 09:12 AM
You just contradicted yourself because you said people are pussies if they cry about losing their house, mortgage, 401k, retirement through no fault of their own yet it is ok to for someone to cry over losing a job?

Not really. Maybe it just wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about how excess govt intervention, bailouts and socialist fixes spoil the people's resiliency, work ethic and character because they need govt to bail things out instead of dealing with it on their own. If a free-market they'd have learned to be tougher, save more money for hard times, not abuse credit etc because what we have creates moral hazards. The family would also be stronger as it's also an economic support group. Sorry, people adjust, develop and learn the wrong behaviors when the govt does too much for them.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 09:15 AM
LMAO.
So you got nuthin' here, judging from the smiley?

You don't have any concept of how long it would take for a suitable replacement for the airlines or how about replacing 95% of the OS's in the world.
You have no concept of how long it would take necessarily. You don't know that. I am confident based on the track record of govt versus the private sector that the private sector would be more efficient than the govt.

In the meantime there's the net with video conferencing etc to reduce travel for business where needed. You underestimate people's reslilience...especially American ingenuity.



LMAO
More nuthin'? You might like Europe more.

InChiefsHell
04-01-2009, 09:15 AM
LMAO. You don't have any concept of how long it would take for a suitable replacement for the airlines or how about replacing 95% of the OS's in the world.

LMAO

Um...I have clients who are still running Win98...the world would go on. In fact, there would be a new industry of "Windows Fixers" who would specialize in fixing and keeping windows running...until the guys from Microsoft started another company and created a new OS. It's a bad example frankly. If Microsoft went out of business today, my PC will still boot up and work...

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:20 AM
Not really. Maybe it just wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about how excess govt intervention, bailouts and socialist fixes spoil the people's resiliency, work ethic and character because they need govt to bail things out instead of dealing with it on their own. If a free-market they'd have learned to be tougher, save more money for hard times, not abuse credit etc because what we have creates moral hazards. The family would also be stronger as it's also an economic support group. Sorry, people adjust, develop and learn the wrong behaviors when the govt does too much for them.

I agree with that to an extent. My problem is you calling people pussies for crying about losing everything they own through no fault of their own just like them losing a job may not be their fault.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:24 AM
We always get fucked it is just the degree of how hard the fucking is.

Let's see. Options:

A) My 401k is wiped out completely, I move on.

B) My 401k is nearly wiped out, the value of everything I own goes down, I have a larger tax burden into perpetuity, and my kids and grandkids spend their lives paying interest on loans to the Chinese.

Which was the harder fucking.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:28 AM
So you got nuthin' here, judging from the smiley?


You have no concept of how long it would take necessarily. You don't know that. I am confident based on the track record of govt versus the private sector that the private sector would be more efficient than the govt.

In the meantime there's the net with video conferencing etc to reduce travel for business where needed. You underestimate people's reslilience...especially American ingenuity.




More nuthin'? You might like Europe more.

I am just laughing at you for thinking that if certain companies fail that everything would just work out perfectly like this is some fantasy dream.

There is a reason why these companies can't fail right now because they have their hand into many different cookie jars and the impact of them failing would be tremendous.

I agree with you that government isn't the best option but sometimes they do have a role to play and can help in some situations.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:31 AM
Um...I have clients who are still running Win98...the world would go on. In fact, there would be a new industry of "Windows Fixers" who would specialize in fixing and keeping windows running...until the guys from Microsoft started another company and created a new OS. It's a bad example frankly. If Microsoft went out of business today, my PC will still boot up and work...

That is a simplistic answer because Microsoft does more than just desktop OS's. They host thousands of companies email, data, and network. They have their hand in almost every part of IT including network connectivity.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:33 AM
No because a few airlines would have survived like Southwest but the others would have gone under causing us to lose billions of dollars a day and create mass chaos until a suitable airline could take over the routes which would probably take a long time.

So what? I can assure you that those routes would have been covered within weeks. Your statement illustrates a key belief of Democrats and Republicans, though. The belief that people are just to frail and stupid to act in their own best interest. I disagree on principal. I think acting in one's best interest is the only thing you *can* count on a person to do.

Think for a moment what would happen if Microsoft went out of business. 95% of the world's PC's run Windows do you think that would be acceptable if they were to suddenly go under?

It is completely acceptable for MS to go out of business tomorrow. First, there are viable alternatives to everything they supply. Second, their source code would either be purchased or placed into escrow for their customers.

The only hard part would be the fact that people have allowed M$ to build in an activation procedure that requires a phone-home.

Humans like to overblow things. It makes us feel important and relevant. We have a hard time accepting that in the grand scheme of things none of us is really that important.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:37 AM
LMAO. You don't have any concept of how long it would take for a suitable replacement for the airlines or how about replacing 95% of the OS's in the world.

LMAO

Really? Do you? When did you do it? Oh, that's right, you didn't.

Like so many people you pretend that these things just up and vanish overnight and all the assets are just gone.

If 1/2 the Airlines in the world went bankrupt tomorrow the planes, gates, pilots, runways, ground crews, all of it, still exist. IF there is a demand for flights then someone somewhere will purchase those assets, hire those employees, and meet that demand. If the demand is high they will do it in weeks, not years.

The thing that scares liberals is that people might figure out the demand wasn't real.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:39 AM
Um...I have clients who are still running Win98...the world would go on. In fact, there would be a new industry of "Windows Fixers" who would specialize in fixing and keeping windows running...until the guys from Microsoft started another company and created a new OS. It's a bad example frankly. If Microsoft went out of business today, my PC will still boot up and work...

No it wouldn't!!!1! Fear! Be scared!!! End OF WORLD!!!

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:42 AM
I am just laughing at you for thinking that if certain companies fail that everything would just work out perfectly like this is some fantasy dream.

There is a reason why these companies can't fail right now because they have their hand into many different cookie jars and the impact of them failing would be tremendous.

I agree with you that government isn't the best option but sometimes they do have a role to play and can help in some situations.

I let my kids learn to not stand on chairs by letting them stand on chairs. They fell, they cried, I made sure they were OK and then talked to them about how that probably wasn't a good idea.

You're under the impression that you've been protected from the pain of what has happened, but the truth is the pain is still coming. All you've done is postponed the pain in favor of a high-def flat screen. With some luck you may be able to postpone the pain until you die and pass it on to your kids, but this debt, the inflation, and the tax burden associated with them are going to bite and bite hard.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 09:43 AM
That is a simplistic answer because Microsoft does more than just desktop OS's. They host thousands of companies email, data, and network. They have their hand in almost every part of IT including network connectivity.

Bullshit. They don't host squat. They license the operating software. That software doesn't disappear if MS goes out of business.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 09:52 AM
So what? I can assure you that those routes would have been covered within weeks. Your statement illustrates a key belief of Democrats and Republicans, though. The belief that people are just to frail and stupid to act in their own best interest. I disagree on principal. I think acting in one's best interest is the only thing you *can* count on a person to do.

It is completely acceptable for MS to go out of business tomorrow. First, there are viable alternatives to everything they supply. Second, their source code would either be purchased or placed into escrow for their customers.

The only hard part would be the fact that people have allowed M$ to build in an activation procedure that requires a phone-home.

Humans like to overblow things. It makes us feel important and relevant. We have a hard time accepting that in the grand scheme of things none of us is really that important.

Simplex my whole point is that for good or bad we have allowed certain companies\industries to get so big that they have their hands into too many areas that would have a dramatic effect on the country and world as a whole if they were allowed to go dark.

They should save these types of companies and then break them so it doesn't happen again. Kind of like what they did to the Bell's.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 10:02 AM
Bullshit. They don't host squat. They license the operating software. That software doesn't disappear if MS goes out of business.

Really?

http://www.microsoft.com/online/exchange-online.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/online/about.mspx

LMAO

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 10:02 AM
From IEEE

Ooops...Powerful US computer companies continue to buy up the main hardware and software lines connecting countries and continents to the emergent private Internet.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Simplex my whole point is that for good or bad we have allowed certain companies\industries to get so big that they have their hands into too many areas that would have a dramatic effect on the country and world as a whole if they were allowed to go dark.

They should save these types of companies and then break them so it doesn't happen again. Kind of like what they did to the Bell's.

The Bells? You mean "The New AT&T", which is bigger than Ma Bell ever was? Yeah, that worked out great.

Government intervention and regulation is the very thing that enables a business to become so huge. Huge companies are all for weird, esoteric, hard to comprehend and comply with regulations. It makes the barrier to entry into their space too high for a small company to attempt.

As for 'dramatic effects': Who cares? Did someone give you a guarantee that your life would be wrinkle free? Maybe you could get Hagar to sponsor the federal govt. "Life should be like your pants: Wrinkle free and stain resistant."

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:09 AM
Really?

http://www.microsoft.com/online/exchange-online.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/online/about.mspx

LMAO

Now go find out what their market share is smartass. I host an email server too, but I'm pretty sure that if it went down the world's economy wouldn't be crippled. Additionally, if that portion of their business is profitable someone else would purchase it and run it without any interruption in service.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:10 AM
From IEEE

Ooops...Powerful US computer companies continue to buy up the main hardware and software lines connecting countries and continents to the emergent private Internet.

Once again you act like the disappearance of the company that owns a thing means that thing disappears with them. Show me one example through history where a product that was in demand ceased to exist without government interference.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 10:20 AM
Now go find out what their market share is smartass. I host an email server too, but I'm pretty sure that if it went down the world's economy wouldn't be crippled. Additionally, if that portion of their business is profitable someone else would purchase it and run it without any interruption in service.

Once again you act like the disappearance of the company that owns a thing means that thing disappears with them. Show me one example through history where a product that was in demand ceased to exist without government interference.

Apparently it is going to get bigger they just landed a giant Pharm company that has 100,000 employees.

The company also landed a major customer for Microsoft Online Services: drug giant GlaxoSmithKline. With more than 100,000 employees, Glaxo will be the largest customer so far for this online offering. A Glaxo executive said the company expects to save 30 percent through the move.

My point is Simplex once more these companies are too large to fail that is all that I am saying. For people to act like it would be no big deal just to let them go dark are really really really really really really naive.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 10:32 AM
Apparently it is going to get bigger they just landed a giant Pharm company that has 100,000 employees.



My point is Simplex once more these companies are too large to fail that is all that I am saying. For people to act like it would be no big deal just to let them go dark are really really really really really really naive.

100,000 email accounts is nothing.

I'm not telling you there wouldn't be any pain whatsoever. You act like bailing them out is pain free. I contend it is actually more painful, you just delay the effect by interfering.

Your plan props up these giant entities and continues the problem. Or do you actually buy this line of crap that the government is going to bust up the companies that write them those huge ass campaign contribution checks? Because I'm here to tell you it isn't going to happen. They may set up some superficial separation to appease the general population, but all it will take is one more American Idol elimination show and people will forget all about it.

dirk digler
04-01-2009, 10:52 AM
100,000 email accounts is nothing.

I'm not telling you there wouldn't be any pain whatsoever. You act like bailing them out is pain free. I contend it is actually more painful, you just delay the effect by interfering.

Your plan props up these giant entities and continues the problem. Or do you actually buy this line of crap that the government is going to bust up the companies that write them those huge ass campaign contribution checks? Because I'm here to tell you it isn't going to happen. They may set up some superficial separation to appease the general population, but all it will take is one more American Idol elimination show and people will forget all about it.

I don't know Simplex I ran the calculator on MS site for the hosted Exchange and the cost is $760,000\month! I don't see how they will be saving money but I digress.

I look at it this way, when a bank fails the FDIC comes in, takes it over, and there is no interruption of service. If we do what TJ or BEP suggests then these companies fail, people lose everything in them and there is loss of service not to mention the adverse effect it would have on an already shaky to weak economy.

And I have stated before if the economy was normal\strong I probably wouldn't support helping out GM at all but to let them go now would just make things worse.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 11:15 AM
I know you didn't ask me and probably don't care what I say but I will offer my lowly .02

The principle is the companies are to big\important to fail. It is a pragmatic approach unlike what you are proposing.

There's no such thing as "too big" or "too important" to fail. There is just success and failure. Pragmatisim is judged on what it is that you're practicing. Stealing money from the future to give to the oligarchical bandits of today because you're too scared to face the consequences is not pragmatic. It's theft. Robbery. It's evil, not pragmatic. Rationalizing evil because you're scared isn't pragmatic either. It's cowardly. Our generation should rise to this challenge, not cower.

What you seem to not understand is what the consequences of such an extreme position would be.

I fully understand the consequences of my position. What you don't appreciate is the evil of your position. You blank it out, feeling that theivery can be justified for the greater good. But evil can't be justified. Two wrongs will never make a right.

The only answer is to let them fail and let the market revolutionize itself. Abandoning our constitution in favor of communism is the WRONG answer.

Simplex3
04-01-2009, 11:15 AM
I don't know Simplex I ran the calculator on MS site for the hosted Exchange and the cost is $760,000\month! I don't see how they will be saving money but I digress.

I don't know this for a fact, but having dealt with MS on bulk licensing in the past I would bet you they aren't paying 1/5 of that, and it is probably far, far less.

I look at it this way, when a bank fails the FDIC comes in, takes it over, and there is no interruption of service. If we do what TJ or BEP suggests then these companies fail, people lose everything in them and there is loss of service not to mention the adverse effect it would have on an already shaky to weak economy.

The thing to realize is that a company doesn't fail as a whole. Let's say I own a company that has three divisions, offering three product lines. Division A is bleeding cash like a stuck pig, losing $1M a year. Divisions B and C are each profiting $.25M a year. Obviously the product line that Division A is selling is one of the following: not in demand, over priced, or in such great supply there are too many vendors. As the owner I've allowed that to continue and bankrupted my company. Let's say that I've reached the end and it is time to fold up shop.

My exit strategy isn't going to be to lock the doors and walk away. First things first I'm going to sell Divisions B and C to someone so that I can recover some cash. A profitable division will probably sell for three to seven year's earnings even in a down economy like this. Hell, the division that is bleeding will likely even have value to some of my competitors, even if it is just so that they can get their hands on my customer list. Odds are almost perfect that part of that sale agreement will be for an orderly transfer of service.

I've helped to wind down a handful of companies over the years and not once were the customers dropped on their heads. Every time they were gracefully moved to competitors.

And I have stated before if the economy was normal\strong I probably wouldn't support helping out GM at all but to let them go now would just make things worse.

No, to let them go now would be to realize how bad it actually is. To prop them up is to shift the burden of how bad it is now onto the future.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 11:20 AM
There is no such thing as "too large to fail." It's a myth.

There is only success, or failure.

Velvet_Jones
04-01-2009, 11:21 AM
"All your industry are belong to us."

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 05:40 PM
I agree with that to an extent. My problem is you calling people pussies for crying about losing everything they own through no fault of their own just like them losing a job may not be their fault.

Yeah well, I wasn't talking about that. But you can't say there is absolutely no fault for all of them either.

banyon
04-01-2009, 06:37 PM
Actually, you're wrong. Jefferson argued against' Hamilton's idea of large national debt as a principle on exactly those grounds:

Thomas Jefferson:
I am for a government rigrously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for (arguing directly against Hamilton's position) a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of it's being a public blessing.


Thomas Jefferson:
My whole correspondence while in France, and every word, letter, and act on the subject since my return, prove that no man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am. This exactly marks the difference between Colo. Hamilton's views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid tomorrow; He wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature. (you don't accomplish that with a small debt)


Madison writing about the way Hamilton left the US Treasury shocked and dejected over what a big spender Hamilton was:
A committee of ways and means are employed in investigating our revenues and our wants. It is found that there are between six and seven millions of anticipations due to the Banks, that our ordinary income is barely at par with our ordinary expenditures, and that the new taxes must be ready to meet near 1.5 millions which will accrue in 1801... Who could have supposed that Hamilton could have gone off in triumph he assumed, with such a condition of the finances behind him?

Jefferson writing in reply to Madison:
I do not at all wonder at the condition in which the finances of the US are found. Ham's object from the beginning was to throw them into forms which should be utterly undecypherable. I ever said he did not understand their condition himself, nor was able to give a clear view of the excess of our debts beyond our credits, nor whether we were diminishing or increasing the debt.


Whatever you want to say about his intentions, go ahead. His actions speak loudest, and those actions were towards ever increasing the national debt. Of course, he founded the bank that gave America its first loan, so that might have had something to do with his love of debt, though I'm inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just a big government liberal writing checks that he figured someone else would have to pay for someday.

Hamilton argued for a national debt on the grounds of it being "a public blessing." Hardly the words of someone who believes in any sort of "small debt principle."

Oh, by the way.

Source:
Jefferson vs. Hamilton
By Noble E. Cunningham


Great, you found a bunch of quotes talking about how he favored a debt and appear to have missed the point entirely, viz., that he wasn't in favor of a large debt. That's what we are arguing about. I don't know why you are unable to focus on the topic, but saying other people opposed taking on the debt, of course, shows nothing about Hamilton's attitude or beliefs, which is what we were talking about in the first place.

I already explained his reasons for favoring assuming the states' debts, but you appear to have ignored those in your fervor to be right all of the time about petty points that you aren't very well informed about. It's not really how an honest discussion of the history would work.

Here's a chart showing debt as a pct of GDP:

<object id="_ds_2852093" name="_ds_2852093" width="670" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=2852093&mem_id=293447&doc_type=xls&fullscreen=0" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><br /><font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/2852093/US-National-Debt-1790-2008">U.S. National Debt, 1790-2008</a> - Get more <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/documents/financial/">Free Tax Forms</a></font>

Look at the 3rd chart. It shows Debt as a pct of GDP. Upon looking at this chart a couple of things become pretty obvious: 1) The debt Hamilton took on While he was treasury secretary was MUCH smaller than where we are today, and smaller than we have had for most of our history.

2) It's also obvious that Hamilton was actively PAYING DOWN THE WAR DEBT. I put that in bold, since you've been glossing over most of my posts in favor of hand wringing and outrage. That is, Hamilton was not seeking out andissuing new government debt or taking on new borrowing. If he truly believed , as you have falsely claimed, that a LARGE debt was desirable, then why did he, as Treasury secretary, retire so much of it? In fact, he got it down to about 15% of GDP, which is less than all but a few decades in the mid 1800s and late 19th century when we had notoriously "do nothing" forgettable presidents. Your rantings on this topic hold about as much water as Al Davis's bladder.

banyon
04-01-2009, 07:08 PM
Your use of the word "many" referring to states having difficulty paying off their debt is misleading when, it was certain states ( Mass was one of them) that were not as responsible as the other states. Virginia hated this idea because they had paid off most of their war debt by the 1790's. Hammy socialized and nationalized the debts for the states that were more profligate by forcing the responsible states to pay taxes for the less responsible ones. Sound familiar?

Yeah, and the southern states had a bunch of controversial people artificially inflating their economy called "slaves" for who they got free votes, sound familiar?

King George III of England had signed a peace treaty with each individual state, named one by one in the document—not with some consolidated "United States govt." Each state still considered itself independent and sovereign. In fact the word congress at that time meant an assembly of sovereign countries.

ROFL Is it possible for you to ever describe an historical event without creating some horribly butchered bizarre misrepresentation of what happened? It's like you were taught history by Jackson Pollack or something. The Treaty of Paris was not with each individual state, it was with the "Congress of the Confederation". Individual States did NOT have representation at the treaty conference. In FACT, directly opposite of what you claim here the "United States" and the "United States of America" are mentioned REPEATEDLY throughout the document. It is here for anyone to view, and not even your deviant historical revision attempts can alter it:

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml

Senator John Taylor of Virginia pointed out that consolidating taxing and borrowing powers of the central govt would lead to a "suppression of the republican state assemblies by depriving them of political importance resulting from imposition and dispensation of taxes." Sound familiar?

Yeah, I don't think it's any mystery to thinking individals that a Federal government gaining the power of taxation would diminish the relative taxation powers and importance of the states to some degree. Then again, Governments without competent central government revenue collection have historically performed pretty poorly, or collapsed repeatedly, so it's not a trade I care to make.

Hammy's plans were defeated 5 times by Congress until his last bargaining chip which was to move the capital from the NY to Virginia. Jefferson caved.

Like any nationally historic legislation, yes there was a give and take to the negotiation process.

Hammy also proposed the notorious whiskey tax to fund the war debt. Hammy's tariffs put a disproportionate burden on the agricultural south making a mockery of his "national unity" and "common good." Critics of Hammy's financial plans were outraged that a tax burden was placed on poor farmers in order to assure interest payments to the wealthy.

Also regarding the war debt, Hammy proposed that it be cashed out at full face value which became public knowledge in NYC while it spread slowly to the other states. This created tremendous speculative opportunities for Hammy's wealthy NY and New England supporters. They got inside information allowing them to make a mad scramble up an down the eastern seaboard to purchase govt bonds from hapless and unsuspecting war veterans as low as 10 percent of full value. These war veterans had held these bonds for years. Some of Hammy's supporters in NE made a fortune off of this.

Settling the war debt had nothing to do with Hamilton's being a good guy, he also championed the creation of a large national debt. Bonds also required a steady revenue scheme. He also had schemes for things like subsidizing businesses etc. He viewed it as an indispensable instrument for growing the state in general—not just for paying off war debts.

His plans for commandeering resources through taxation was not just to ensure a good credit rating for the new govt, it would also lure investors in govt debt from around the world. This is how European empires were financed. It requires endless debt that never gets paid off. If one bond was paid off, new ones were issued. It was never ending. This is how the European empires bankrupted themselves eventually. Sound familiar?

Uh, that's the pattern for EVERY major industrialized country and NO, it's not exactly how the empires did it. Hamilton did pioneer many innovations in government securities. It's not like a relic of the past that only doomed empires followed. There's not a government today that doesn't finance part of its operations with government bonds of some type, save perhaps some anarchic commune somewhere. None of this, of course, addresses the point of the argument which was about a LARGE national debt being desirable, other than just your naked unsubstantiated assertion that it is so because you say so, which given your other historical errors in this post, is not very persuasive.

Even Madison, his fellow federalist at the Convention, eventually turned on Hamilton and went with Jefferson more as time progressed.

Sure he did, and then he went on to have an atrocious presidency and Washington and many other people who mattered went mor and more with Hamilton, and in the end Hamilton's ideas won out. Not sure what the point is here other than just to try to fling feces. Probably should be noted that "federalist" here doesn't mean what people normally think of that term, as those factions weren't really developed until Washington's 2nd election run.

As Yale University social scientist William Graham Sumner said: " [Hamilton ] was completely befogged in the mists of mercantilism."

I'm not even going to attempt to analyze this, as you've repeatedly shown that you have no idea what "mercantilism" is other than a catch word to throw at idea that you think are big government from a long time ago, which is not, of course what it means.

Hammy believed in issuing bonds for the sake of enlarging govt debt as well. This way he could create a formidable pressure group in favor of bigger govt and higher taxation. He believed in "bounties" ( subsidies) for manufacturers who were in the north. Hammy also believed in imperialism along the lines of the British Empire. He championed debt as it can pay for more wars. He believed in empire along the lines of the British Empire. Sound familiar?

Hamilton believed that it was his role as Treasury secretary to make sure that our economy was developing and our industrial progress wasn't going to fall too far behind European powers who could potentially threaten us (at that time both economically and militarily). I don't know what you'd advocate the Treasury secretary's role is, but I'm sure it's hilarious. Probably you'd only need 2 or three people in a hotel room with an abacus and their fingers stuck up their noses all day. After all, doing nothing doesn't require much effort. Just trust that the glorious corporations will be beneficient toward all of us and everything will work out great, even though it never has before.

It is a red-herring to say Hammy wasn't for large debts even when he claimed "non excessive". He wrote two reports advocating govt debt.

We live in Hamilton's America today and the Democrats who were once opposed to this are now just as much his champion as those on the right.

Free markets my arse!

See Taco, Even BEP knows the claim is overblown and Hamilton used the term "non-excessive", which can only mean, NOT TOO LARGE.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 07:31 PM
That's not what I meant by "non-excessive" those were Hamilton's words for arguing for more debt. Just because he said that didn't mean he didn't want it. He pushed for it. It's a good thing he was hamstrung from getting all he wanted....especially on what he called "bounties" for manufactures which were subsidies.

On I only glanced at the post and caught the bottom. I'm not going to spend hours on this.

banyon
04-01-2009, 07:36 PM
That's not what I meant by "non-excessive" those were Hamilton's words for arguing for more debt. Just because he said that didn't mean he didn't want it. He pushed for it. It's a good thing he was hamstrung from getting all he wanted....especially on what he called "bounties" for manufactures which were subsidies.

On I only glanced at the post and caught the bottom. I'm not going to spend hours on this.

So, just to be clear here, you want to nitpick the things Hamilton actually said and not give him credit for them, AND you don't have any statements actually FROM Hamilton that would support your crazy theory that he loved "large national debts".

You maintain the cognitive dissonance there pretty well indeed.

Nice to see that you still have me on fake ignore though, run along now.

Direckshun
04-01-2009, 08:10 PM
You're wrong. I FULLY get it. I'm prepared to face it. I know that Americans can handle the challenge.
Well... what are we preparing to face? What are the necessary negative consequences of your desired course of action? You know they exist, but you never acknowledge them on this website other than the "let them fail" blurb. What are the necessary, negative ramifications of that?

Of COURSE Americans can handle the challenge. They can handle literally anything. If Obama held a press conference to declare he was a Manchurian candidate from the Taliban and immediately began nuking every major city he had a bomb for, the American people would be up the THAT challenge.

But that doesn't mean that's a challenge they have to face.

The ultimate choice for me comes down to allowing a vast majority of innocent bystanders get wiped out, versus rewarding a class of assholes in order to preserve that the aforementioned bystanders don't get punished for their beligerence. Choosing the latter is my principle.

The choice for me isn't as easy as it must be for you, but then again, I've openly discussed the downsides of my course of action, and you have not, and introspection does that to people.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Well... what are we preparing to face? What are the necessary negative consequences of your desired course of action? You know they exist, but you never acknowledge them on this website other than the "let them fail" blurb. What are the necessary, negative ramifications of that?


Who can really guess? I know the consequences of giving freedom over to government. I know that people will be worse off than they would be if we let these institutions fail - because they're going to fail anyway. Your way just makes sure that the richest of the rich get out with a golden parachute. Your way pads the oligarchs with pillows while lining the beds of Americans with stones. All for the "common good."

I can't guess at how America will innovate if you give her the freedom to. That's why it's called "innovation." It's unknown. You want someone to provide your sweet little brain with all the answers so that you can pacify your feelings. I say your feelings be damned. The world is an unsure place, and giving the oligarchs more control doesn't change that one bit.

I am not moved by your fear of the unknown.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 09:37 PM
So, just to be clear here, you want to nitpick the things Hamilton actually said and not give him credit for them, AND you don't have any statements actually FROM Hamilton that would support your crazy theory that he loved "large national debts".



Uh hello? He called a national debt a "public blessing." Those were his words.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 09:39 PM
Great, you found a bunch of quotes talking about how he favored a debt and appear to have missed the point entirely, viz., that he wasn't in favor of a large debt.


Well, you're wrong. He was in favor of a "large" debt. No other would have served his purpose. That's been adequately demonstrated regardless of your trademark refusal to accept reality even when it's staring you in the face.

So like I said before, if you want to quibble over what the word "large" means, you can do that with Buc.

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:40 PM
Uh hello? He called a national debt a "public blessing." Those were his words.

What do you think? Is having a credit card a "blessing" for your financial well being in being able to afford a home or car? Or would you be better off applying for that mortgage with no credit experience?

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:44 PM
Well, you're wrong. He was in favor of a "large" debt. No other would have served his purpose. That's been adequately demonstrated regardless of your trademark refusal to accept reality even when it's staring you in the face.

So like I said before, if you want to quibble over what the word "large" means, you can do that with Buc.

I guess one way of replying to my post is to pretend that I didn't post anything. If we were having this conversation in person would you just stick your fingers in your ears and hum?

Out of curiosity what did you think his "purpose" was? This is in a vain attempt to follow this logical strand.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 09:44 PM
What do you think? Is having a credit card a "blessing" for your financial well being in being able to afford a home or car? Or would you be better off applying for that mortgage with no credit experience?


That's a different discussion. How a credit card affects my ability to get a mortgage has nothing to do with the fact that Hamilton favored having a large and permanent debt. It appears you're now conceeding the point and rationalizing Hamilton's position.

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:46 PM
That's a different discussion. How a credit card affects my ability to get a mortgage has nothing to do with the fact that Hamilton favored having a large and permanent debt. It appears you're now conceeding the point and rationalizing Hamilton's position.

No, it's the same discussion. If you can't follow one analogous situation, I doubt you can honestly follow the other one.

It's pretty obvious why you don't want to answer this question.

Taco John
04-01-2009, 09:48 PM
I guess one way of replying to my post is to pretend that I didn't post anything.

You actually didn't... well, nothing of substance. You pulled a typical Banyon once you're trapped by the truth of the situation: you went into "dazzle them with bullshit" mode.

I told you before, I don't care to get into the discussion of what constitutes the word "Large" to you. That's a discussion for you and Buc to have. I just wanted to correct your error, because I know that there are people who follow along in these discussions, and it should be made clear that Hamilton was, in fact, the father of American debt. And yes, he did favor a large debt. It was the only kind that would serve his purpose.


Out of curiosity what did you think his "purpose" was? This is in a vain attempt to follow this logical strand.

This isn't rocket science. Anyone familiar with the Federalist Papers should know the answer to what Hamilton's purpose was.

Hamilton's purpose was to centralize power.

A large debt would accomplish that. A small debt would not.

Are you in disagreement with history about this fact too?

Taco John
04-01-2009, 09:49 PM
No, it's the same discussion. If you can't follow one analogous situation, I doubt you can honestly follow the other one.

It's pretty obvious why you don't want to answer this question.



No, I don't think a credit card is a blessing. I think it's one of the worst things I've ever done.

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:56 PM
You actually didn't... well, nothing of substance. You pulled a typical Banyon once you're trapped by the truth of the situation: you went into "dazzle them with bullshit" mode.

I told you before, I don't care to get into the discussion of what constitutes the word "Large" to you. That's a discussion for you and Buc to have. I just wanted to correct your error, because I know that there are people who follow along in these discussions, and it should be made clear that Hamilton was, in fact, the father of American debt.

Well, if that's a discussion you didn't want to be a part of, you sure have wasted a tremendous amount of bandwidth arguing about it. I've been pretty clear that that issue was exactly the point I was making. It's incontrovertible that Hamilton favored the Federal Government assuming debt, and of course I never made any effort to deny that he had such a position, since it would be an indefensible proposition. On the contrary, my position the ENTIRE thread has ben that Hamilton did not advocate a "LARGE" National Debt. He was fervently pragmatic as the Treasury Secretary and despite you and BEP's revisionist attempts to demonize him as your Great Satan, he would have seen such a move as financially imprudent, because it is.


This isn't rocket science. Anyone familiar with the Federalist Papers should know the answer to this.

Hamilton wanted to centralize power.

A large debt would accomplish that.

Are you in disagreement with history about this fact too?

I suppose Hamilton advocating infecting people with smallpox or blasting them with an atomic weapon so that they would be more reliant on large government would accomplish *that* as well, but none were positions he held, and I already gave you the stated and documented reasons behind the debt assumption which you pretended weren't posted because they didn't align with your spurious claims.

banyon
04-01-2009, 09:57 PM
No, I don't think a credit card is a blessing. I think it's one of the worst things I've ever done.

So you did *do* it? Did you not use it responsibly?

Taco John
04-01-2009, 10:04 PM
On the contrary, my position the ENTIRE thread has ben that Hamilton did not advocate a "LARGE" National Debt.

I've adequately proven in this thread that you're wrong on this point. I'm ready to move on. I'll go ahead and give you the last word, which I can only assume goes along the lines of Dirk Diglers "cmon!"

He was fervently pragmatic as the Treasury Secretary...

ROFL Yeah, his former associate Madison sure thought he was pragmatic.

Madison writing about just how "Pragmatic" Hamilton was ROFL:
A committee of ways and means are employed in investigating our revenues and our wants. It is found that there are between six and seven millions of anticipations due to the Banks, that our ordinary income is barely at par with our ordinary expenditures, and that the new taxes must be ready to meet near 1.5 millions which will accrue in 1801... Who could have supposed that Hamilton could have gone off in triumph he assumed, with such a condition of the finances behind him?


Sounds like a real pragmatist!

wild1
04-01-2009, 10:08 PM
So you did *do* it? Did you not use it responsibly?

Perhaps he was a kid - hardly an adult by any stretch - inexperienced with money, never having lived in the real world, shortsighted, only worried about today, clueless as to what he was doing, learning on the job and making mistakes at almost every turn, and as such he spent ridiculously, with scarcely a thought to the crushing price he would pay for his arrogance?

Sounds like our president, actually.

banyon
04-01-2009, 10:10 PM
I've adequately proven in this thread that you're wrong on this point. I'm ready to move on. I'll go ahead and give you the last word, which I can only assume goes along the lines of Dirk Diglers "cmon!"

Wow, you can't be bothered to even listen to or acknowledge the summary of what I've posted. You had to shorten that to make it look like you were somehow meaningfully replying to what I posted. I think it's pretty clear that in this thread I've posted a bit more than "c'mon". On the contrary, that's essentially been your response to anything I posted though.



ROFL Yeah, his former associate Madison sure thought he was pragmatic.

Madison writing about just how "Pragmatic" Hamilton was ROFL:
A committee of ways and means are employed in investigating our revenues and our wants. It is found that there are between six and seven millions of anticipations due to the Banks, that our ordinary income is barely at par with our ordinary expenditures, and that the new taxes must be ready to meet near 1.5 millions which will accrue in 1801... Who could have supposed that Hamilton could have gone off in triumph he assumed, with such a condition of the finances behind him?


OMGWTFBBQ!!!!11!ROFLCOPTER! You mean a country trying to pay back its war debts against the World's most powerful country were running a deficit? *gasp* Hamilton must've been off his rocker proposing any deficit, no matter how small! And that one of his political opponents would put it in a nasty tone? Wow, you sure showed me!

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 10:11 PM
You actually didn't... well, nothing of substance. You pulled a typical Banyon once you're trapped by the truth of the situation: you went into "dazzle them with bullshit" mode.
He goes into this mode: "you this"- "you that" - "you're this or that" .....you, you, you....it's all about you the person.

BTW banyon, you've on ignore a looooooong time for your style, not your opinions. ( not to mention your stalking with long, long arguments where one must remain for hours just responding to one person repeatedly over and over) Anyhow, that's why I say that. Although, I occassionally peek, to see if you're still talking to me, with your knowing this. LOL! I occasionally see a quote too.
It's sad to see someone still respond as though that person is listening. You're dealing with lay people not other lawyers.


All he has to do is read Hammy's Report on Manufactures and the confrontations he had with others in his day and their opinions on what Hammy was advocating. Not to mention how he treated war veterans.

banyon
04-01-2009, 10:12 PM
Perhaps he was a kid - hardly an adult by any stretch - inexperienced with money, never having lived in the real world, shortsighted, only worried about today, clueless as to what he was doing, learning on the job and making mistakes at almost every turn, and as such he spent ridiculously, with scarcely a thought to the crushing price he would pay for his arrogance?

Sounds like our president, actually.

Hey, I used one Card irresponsibly. I learned from it and moved on.

I was trying to make a point, but Taco's really only interested in trying to score points.

Direckshun
04-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Or his schtick, "you this"- "you that".....you, you, you....it's all about you the person.
?

Come on Direckshun, you answered nearly every question with a socialist answer when I put up my 40 questions which was BEFORE this crisis? The questions were right out of the writings of Marx's Communist Manifesto.

banyon
04-01-2009, 10:14 PM
Or his schtick, "you this"- "you that".....you, you, you....it's all about you the person.

BTW banyon, you've on ignore a looooooong time for your style, not your opinions. ( not to mention your stalking with long, long arguments where one must remain for hours just responding to one person repeatedly over and over) Anyhow, that's why I say that. Although, I occassionally peek, to see if you're still talking to me, with your knowing this. LOL! I occasionally see a quote too.
It's sad to see someone still respond as though that person is listening. You're dealing with lay people not other lawyers.


All he has to do is read Hammy's Report on Manufactures and the confrontations he had with others in his day and their opinions on what Hammy was advocating. Not to mention how he treated war veterans.


I've stated to you before that I don't care one whit whether you are "listening" to me or not. But I'm not going to just sit here and watch someone make up history to suit their whims and let it go unchallenged.

BucEyedPea
04-01-2009, 10:18 PM
?

That was about your answers. It was a fact. That was how you answered. That's your score. Ya' know like those political quizzes we take around here. You gave the most amount of socialist answers. It wasn't a call out even. That's a set of ideas.
But I will retaliate if someone does it to me....even if earlier, which you did.
But you haven't really done it that much as far as I can see. Just once as far as regards me.

banyon
04-01-2009, 10:23 PM
?

Careful, don't use too many question marks or SHE'LL PUT YOU ON IGNORE TOO and SHOW YOU!

BucEyedPea
04-03-2009, 06:42 AM
I am just laughing at you for thinking that if certain companies fail that everything would just work out perfectly like this is some fantasy dream.
You don't know very much economic history is what the problem is hence the nervous laughter.

I have never claimed that this will work exactly like a fantasy dream. I just know that this country has been through such things before and things ended up all right. So markets correct, they usually do. Govt usually screws things up and it will make things worse.

There is a reason why these companies can't fail right now because they have their hand into many different cookie jars and the impact of them failing would be tremendous.
That's just a consideration. Change the thought actions will change. We used to let big companies fail before...and we should again. We survived just fine. What's happening is an attempt to keep prices artificially high including money made on PAPER only. ( with the smarter folks taking their money to safer places) There are NO guarantees in life. That's the fantasy dream you're striving for—a worker and business paradise. It will NEVER happen.

I agree with you that government isn't the best option but sometimes they do have a role to play and can help in some situations.
I never said the govt had no role to play. It's role is more of a refree not a major player like some communist country. Our govt is taking on way too much, and that's what was done to deal with the Clinton recession which has brought us to this point. These solutions will take us all down with the companies you claim need to be saved and make it last longer.

It's there in the history books. Like the forgetten depression of 1920-21. Warren Harding refused to intervene. ( intervene is not the same as being a referee) He let businesses and banks fail and prices fall. It was over with in a year. In 1946, our govt drastically cut spending and Keynesian economists predicted doom & gloom. Instead our govt cut spending by 2/3rds and we had one of the biggest booms in US history. THAT, was the end of the Great Depression. Even Van Buren refused to intervene in his financial panic and it corrected in a year. That is what our govt should do—get less involved in the economy, cut spending, go after all fraudsters and close the Fed or audit that and regulate them.

Collectivizing whole areas of the economy is not the answer.

KC native
04-03-2009, 09:47 AM
You don't know very much economic history is what the problem is hence the nervous laughter.

I have never claimed that this will work exactly like a fantasy dream. I just know that this country has been through such things before and things ended up all right. So markets correct, they usually do. Govt usually screws things up and it will make things worse.


That's just a consideration. Change the thought actions will change. We used to let big companies fail before...and we should again. We survived just fine. What's happening is an attempt to keep prices artificially high including money made on PAPER only. ( with the smarter folks taking their money to safer places) There are NO guarantees in life. That's the fantasy dream you're striving for—a worker and business paradise. It will NEVER happen.


I never said the govt had no role to play. It's role is more of a refree not a major player like some communist country. Our govt is taking on way too much, and that's what was done to deal with the Clinton recession which has brought us to this point. These solutions will take us all down with the companies you claim need to be saved and make it last longer.

It's there in the history books. Like the forgetten depression of 1920-21. Warren Harding refused to intervene. ( intervene is not the same as being a referee) He let businesses and banks fail and prices fall. It was over with in a year. In 1946, our govt drastically cut spending and Keynesian economists predicted doom & gloom. Instead our govt cut spending by 2/3rds and we had one of the biggest booms in US history. THAT, was the end of the Great Depression. Even Van Buren refused to intervene in his financial panic and it corrected in a year. That is what our govt should do—get less involved in the economy, cut spending, go after all fraudsters and close the Fed or audit that and regulate them.

Collectivizing whole areas of the economy is not the answer.

ROFL Now you're a market historian? ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

How many times are you going to peddle the lie that the Great Depression ended in 1946? Also, 1920-21 wasn't a depression. It was a recession and that's all.

BucEyedPea
04-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Did you say something?

banyon
04-03-2009, 08:16 PM
You don't know very much economic history is what the problem is hence the nervous laughter.

.

Uh, yeah. :huh: