Larry Gude
Strung Out
Thank you. I get so much flack around here for saying that it's not even funny. You realize you have now stepped over to the Dark Side and there is no going back, yes?
The GM Plan
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Thank you. I get so much flack around here for saying that it's not even funny. You realize you have now stepped over to the Dark Side and there is no going back, yes?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That remains to be seen. Understand that Obama, like any other 21 year old poli/sci major is in the middle of the belief stage, that it CAN be done if the right person (him) does it.
If I am right about Barney Frank, he's not gonna feel bad; he WANTED THIS.
Obama, he wants it, too. However, I think, I hope, he is more wrapped up in his beautiful self than the ideology. If the economy continues to unravel and he becomes commonly accepted as wrong and, worse, a clueless dupe who got used because of his malleable hyper lawerlyness, we'll see.
Tilted
..
Yeah, I tend to agree - what was done by the Bush Administration was surprising as well.
Absolutely to the first. However, did you not contradict your benefit of the doubt in that last sentence?I thought you might make that point. I considered wording that sentence differently due to the fact that it gives the appearance of contradicting my 'benefit of the doubt' reasoning. But, I decided that it was fine because it doesn't really (technically) contradict it, due to the specific nature of the notion on which I said I would give them the benefit of the doubt. In general, they knew where this was leading - more government control, less free-market dynamic, more Marxist policy - but I still don't think that the specific result that I referenced (i.e. a complete castration of bankruptcy law and the notion of secured lending in this nation) was easily foreseeable. When I said that they knew where it was leading, I wasn't referring to that specific development.
I think Barney Frank knew damn well where Fanny would take the economy if only the standards could be lowered enough both to get Fanny hyper heated AND let the Wall Street Gods hang themselves with enough rope.
Keep in mind that the Social Security privatization idea was viscerally hated by the left because it is a bedrock fundamental of the Democratic party as is; government funded and controlled retirement.
Their argument against it was just what we saw; a catastrophic Wall Street meltdown that most people thought impossible on this scale in this age.
Now, SS is safe for generations from the free market argument.
I think Barney thought this was possible, hoped this was possible. Maybe not this bad, but bad enough to save SS in his lifetime.
I won't take issue with any of that - except that I don't view what has happened as a catastrophic Wall Street meltdown. It really hasn't been that bad, considering the unstable, and unsustainable situation that we were in before the 'meltdown' took place (or before people perceived a meltdown starting). The truth is that the markets, and our economy in general, were artificially propped up and not real - they had to correct and come back to earth - to levels that more accurately reflected the reality of our prosperity (or lack thereof). I don't consider the bursting of a massively over-inflated bubble a meltdown - I consider it a natural, predictable, inescapable result of the situation that existed prior. I'm not saying the consequences aren't bad - but they had to come because of the untenable position that we had placed ourselves in by our societal and governmental behavior.
If a 6000 pound elephant is perched with 98% of its weight hanging over the edge of a cliff that descends 3000 feet to a river bed below - and that elephant suddenly falls to that river bed below and its own demise - I wouldn't think of that as a collapse of any sort. It's just what had to happen - it just fell because of readily apparent laws of physics (gravity, center of mass, unequal forces, et al). However, if that same elephant seemed to have been standing on very solid ground such that a reasonable observer would have had no basis to believe it was in peril - and all of a sudden the ground opened up and it plummeted to its demise - then I might consider that a collapse of some sort, figuratively a meltdown. It was still due to some laws of physics, but it wouldn't have seemed to have been inevitable prior to it happening.
Well, I realize that the mainstream media wasn't talking a lot about the perilous economic situation that we were in 5 years ago, or even 2 years ago, but it was pretty clear to some people. I think reasonably insightful and diligent observers should have been able to perceive the peril that we were in. We didn't have a meltdown - we had a correction - an unnaturally large correction, because our social behavior and public policies allowed an unnaturally large bubble to be created and prevented natural, smaller corrections from preventing it from getting so large.
Thank you. I get so much flack around here for saying that it's not even funny. You realize you have now stepped over to the Dark Side and there is no going back, yes?
You're welcome. I'm pretty sure I've expressed basically the same views before - for some reason I don't take as much flack for it as you do.
Obama would seem to suffer from the same fundamental lack of mechanistic understanding (the same logical naivety, if you will) that allows all Marxists to sincerely believe in the merits of the ideology. Without getting to deep into it, the problem with many economists today, is that they haven't come to grips with the intrinsic relativistic nature of the Universe - they just don't quite get the (less obvious) subtleties of the paradigm in which everything interacts with everything else.
I've come to the conclusion over the last five years that the soft sciences (e.g. economics, psychology, social sciences in general) lag behind the hard sciences in this regard. They haven't yet figured out and adapted to the relativistic nature of the world. They still base their reasoning on simpler, more Newtonian-like, classical laws and constructs. The hard sciences had their relativity revolution a century ago, thanks in no small part to Einstein, and they have adjusted their modeling to allow for that basic relative nature of everything - even though they still owe a great deal of gratitude and loyalty to the 'old-world' mechanics - the Newtonian models. But, the soft sciences haven't had their relativity revolution yet, and thus they miss an important part of the calculus, and thus their models can be completely wrong, yet they can't identify any reason why they are wrong (or even recognize that they are wrong).
Marxism aspires to two ideals - prosperity and equality - and fails to appreciate that the relative nature of the Universe means that those two ideals are necessarily contrarian to each other. The goals of Marxism are wonderful, but it misses a crucial layer of understanding which tries to point out to it that its goals are incongruous. It is not inherently evil - it is inherently naive. The only controlling difference between it and capitalism, is that capitalism (since it is simply modeled after nature) recognizes that crucial layer of understanding, and thus the incongruous nature of the two goals.
And again, the inherency of that incongruous nature can only be accepted in light of the relative nature of the Universe, and thus only articulated and accepted in light of that nature. Economics just doesn't get that nature yet, and thus many very intelligent, thoughtful people sincerely believe that Marxism is a workable model. Some day someone will come along and articulate the relative nature of the Universe in economic terms, much as Einstein did in Physic's terms, and then, eventually everyone will be able to see the light in this regard. Until then, we have to deal the failings of the human mind which lead to the pursuit of Marxist ideals.
I apologize if that all seems abstract and gibberish-esque. At one point I started to right a book about the notion, but it remains one of those partially explored projects that has found a perpetual place on the to do list. That's because I insist on playing golf and doing other such things to enjoy myself daily, as opposed to harnessing the discipline to work toward any meaningful end. One of these days, I suppose I'll grow up and do something about that character flaw.
Tilted
..
Auto Czar Quits Post Six Months Into the Job - WSJ.com
Steven Rattner is one of the truly despicable players in this whole saga. Mr. Rattner should go to jail for the role he played in these crimes.
He harnessed the government authority and power, given to him by the Obama administration, just long enough to wreak tremendous havoc on the institutions of American prosperity, and on the very ideals which had made America what she was. Now, he rides off into the sunset, no doubt with the adolescent smirk of one who knows he got away with untoward mischief, on his face.
Steven Rattner is one of the truly despicable players in this whole saga. Mr. Rattner should go to jail for the role he played in these crimes.
He harnessed the government authority and power, given to him by the Obama administration, just long enough to wreak tremendous havoc on the institutions of American prosperity, and on the very ideals which had made America what she was. Now, he rides off into the sunset, no doubt with the adolescent smirk of one who knows he got away with untoward mischief, on his face.
Tilted
..
Obama's Auto Task Force Chief Warns Against Dealer Plan - WSJ.com
This guy, Mr. Bloom, is another piece of work. I don't hold him in as much contempt as I do Mr. Rattner, but neither do I have many flattering things to say about him.
But, anyway, I quoted this article because I couldn't let the irony of his statement (which is bold-ed) pass without comment. That comment being, I don't know how words could add anything to the appreciation of the irony.
This guy, Mr. Bloom, is another piece of work. I don't hold him in as much contempt as I do Mr. Rattner, but neither do I have many flattering things to say about him.
But, anyway, I quoted this article because I couldn't let the irony of his statement (which is bold-ed) pass without comment. That comment being, I don't know how words could add anything to the appreciation of the irony.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
It's early yet. These guys are Obama's Chicago-land goon squad.
Tilted
..
US Treasury Talks to GMAC About Third Cash Infusion
I guess giving no interest loans to people to buy cars they can't afford from companies that would have trouble competing in the marketplace if the government wasn't subsidizing them AND their customers specifically (meaning their customers to a far greater degree than their competitors' customers), isn't such a good business practice. Hmmm ... who knew?
I guess it's a good thing that their financial backers have plenty of investment capital lying around to keep infusing them with.
Okay, I'm gonna be flippant for a change.
I guess giving no interest loans to people to buy cars they can't afford from companies that would have trouble competing in the marketplace if the government wasn't subsidizing them AND their customers specifically (meaning their customers to a far greater degree than their competitors' customers), isn't such a good business practice. Hmmm ... who knew?
I guess it's a good thing that their financial backers have plenty of investment capital lying around to keep infusing them with.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Time out. You seem to be under some sort of misunderstanding that the intent is to compete in the market place or that 'good business practice' has anything to do with this, at all.
George W. Bush decreed from on high that the UAW was to be federally subsidized and Barack H. Obama could not agree more and will continue it.
Now, had we voted in John S. McCain, things would be totally different. He would be continuing the subsidy instead of Obama.
Next step; the right to affordable car care and, after that, the right to affordable cars.
Wanna know what 'affordable' means?
Tilted
..
I think my sentiments regarding Bush's role in this mess have been made plain several times. That said, and regarding the notion of subsidizing the UAW, I believe there were conditions that came along with the original auto bailout funds. I believe there was a requirement that the debt holding parties (e.g. UAW, bondholders) take at least X% hair cut on what they were owed. That may have been required in order to receive further funds, though I don't recall the details off the top of my head. Of course, when President Obama got his hands on the situation, he changed those rules and allowed the UAW to skate through taking essentially no hair cut (or at least, substantially less than other players).
Did Bush open the door for all of it to happen? Of course. But, his actions aren't equatable to President Obama's with regard to the auto bailouts. The latter's actions were at least an order of magnitude more heinous.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I was being a bit sarcastic there. Certainly you know you and I are rather much in the same chapter about this stuff, if not the same page.
However, there is NO way, in my opinion, Obama gets anywhere near this much garbage done absent a GOP'er opening the door. There is a whirlwind out there, socialism. The doors and windows are part of the integrity of the structure, our ship of state. As long as they are secure, hatches battened down, we are in good shape.
When someone opens the door at the wrong time, allows a hatch to give way, the integrity of the whole is threatened and that person, Bush, is, in my view, a failed sentinel. Obama I have no problems with; he IS a socialist. I understand him and will never, ever drop my guard with him and his ilk. Bush, as the gate keeper, I have REAL problems with; he FAILED us all. At our weakest moment. When we most needed his fealty.
Tilted
..
Tilted
..
Larry Gude
Strung Out
What's that supposed to mean? You object to people who, through no fault of their own, can't/don't/won't pay their bills on time getting financing?
Tilted
..
Well, when you put it that way ...
ProfMoneyWise
Member
I'll keep my "What to do when I'm upside down on a car loan that I cannot afford" step-by-step speech handy. Looks like it will have some new takers soon.
Last edited:
E
EmptyTimCup
Guest
Rush was talking about the purchase the other day ....
another way for the Government to buy up more businesses ......
use Government Motors to do the buying ....
another way for the Government to buy up more businesses ......
use Government Motors to do the buying ....
Mongo53
New Member
So we were told GM got what it deserved, making all those big SUV's that no one wanted to buy. Well, they were best sellers, until decades of government intervention and mismanagement and a lack of any realistic energy plan resulted in a sudden spike in fuel prices.
Yes, GM, like Chrysler, can't deny they got caught with their pants down again, like in the 70's, when they stopped making small efficient cars and drop them from their line-up.
But today we see, GM is making the cars everyone wants to buy, a $41k electric car the same size and feature as a $16k car, but hey, it can only go 40 miles. Yep, people will be running to buy this winner like hot cakes.
In a few years when its a dismal failure, we'll see all the hippies and liberals complaining about black helicopter conspiracy theories of how the oil companies, or big corporations, or someone evil conspired to take away their lovely electric cars that all 800 people that actually bought one, said they loved.
Oh, don't worry about the price, the Federal Government is going to offer a $7.5k tax break if you buy one, to offset the costs. What was Obama saying about debt again and again? But, hey, those of us that don't want one of these things, get to help those that do want one, to buy it, or should I say, are forced to help them buy it.
Yes, GM, like Chrysler, can't deny they got caught with their pants down again, like in the 70's, when they stopped making small efficient cars and drop them from their line-up.
But today we see, GM is making the cars everyone wants to buy, a $41k electric car the same size and feature as a $16k car, but hey, it can only go 40 miles. Yep, people will be running to buy this winner like hot cakes.
In a few years when its a dismal failure, we'll see all the hippies and liberals complaining about black helicopter conspiracy theories of how the oil companies, or big corporations, or someone evil conspired to take away their lovely electric cars that all 800 people that actually bought one, said they loved.
Oh, don't worry about the price, the Federal Government is going to offer a $7.5k tax break if you buy one, to offset the costs. What was Obama saying about debt again and again? But, hey, those of us that don't want one of these things, get to help those that do want one, to buy it, or should I say, are forced to help them buy it.
Last edited: