User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 99

  1. #41
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I think what Risen was TRYING to convey was that America would never go down in a Communist coup or revolution, but that incremental erosion of liberty could happen for a long enough time that the end result could be totalitarianism. Alarmist? Maybe. Inaccurate? I think not.
    agreed. we may not need or want the fanatic mccarthyism that was present at the beginning of the cold war but that doesn't mean we should completely abandon the safeguarding of our ideals or way of life.
    I'm feeling rough, I'm feeling raw, I'm in the prime of my life.

  2. #42
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    That's a joke. Aside from the bad management of the company, a great portion of the problem is due to the labor unions themselves sucking money out of the company, particularly in their demands for health care and retirement benefits that the company obviously just couldn't afford; leading to them going bankrupt.
    Companies come and go. The ability of them to come and go is what gives rise to efficiencies.

    Not to mention the attacks they've been making on the auto industry for the green movement.
    Progress is made and companies come and go. Products change.

    The democrats are sucking at the special interest tit again, and the main reason they'll want to bail out the auto industry is because of the labor unions.
    More that the states that have the factories/etc tend to be democratic, but... yah. Big policital issue (ie: that's what I meant by political will.)

    In this case, it is government intervention that has, again, pushed capitalism to implode on itself.
    Bad management and unions were the reasons you gave above - I'm confused how this relates to government.

    The issue now is that the pensions will be covered by government, so there is a bailout automatically implied. This gives a cash buyout more relative value. So there is a government influence, however I am not talking about those kinds of policies - quite the opposite. I'm saying that those kinds of policies would be better directed to social issues so that there is a safety for those that are fired and let go. This eases the transition and causes less economic shock. Instead, you end up with a giant cliff to fall off of when things go wrong.

    Rest assured, it will be that much worse if they continue to act like socialists and overstep their bounds by bailing them out.
    It really won't, actually. That's the point of what I said. With proper stabilizers outside of the company, the ability of the economy to process the change is greater. What you have is a mix of conditions that cause economic shocks in the US to have far reaching impacts. In part, this is due to poor safety nets.

    Saying that we need MORE socialism is horribly misguided my friend.
    What you need is some "actual socialism", as in social issues being dealt with. Instead, you end up with corporatism, which is simply an inefficient way to deal with the social issues.

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    6

    Default

    I just figured I'd go ahead and point out the irony that no one else has mentioned. The guy ranting against socialism has a quote by a *socialist* as his signature. Oh, and, by the way, that quote about liberty and security and such was spoken by Ben Franklin, not George Washington. But who knows, maybe it really WAS George Washington but the New World Order has duped us into thinking it was Franklin... I'm SUCH a sheeple.

  4. #44
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BillieMockrat View Post
    I just figured I'd go ahead and point out the irony that no one else has mentioned. The guy ranting against socialism has a quote by a *socialist* as his signature. Oh, and, by the way, that quote about liberty and security and such was spoken by Ben Franklin, not George Washington.
    I quoted from Martin Luther King, not George Washington or Ben Franklin (despite the fact that Martin Luther King borrowed some of them). Aside from that, despite whatever political philosophy George Washington held, I guarantee you it was NOTHING like what we see today in modern socialism or what have you.

    But who knows, maybe it really WAS George Washington but the New World Order has duped us into thinking it was Franklin... I'm SUCH a sheeple.
    If you say so...

  5. #45
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Companies come and go. The ability of them to come and go is what gives rise to efficiencies.



    Progress is made and companies come and go. Products change.
    Under a capitalist system, the change happens through the demand and needs of the consumer, not by force from the government, which is what we have seen via the artificial pressure they've put on the industry to change into what they consider a green standard.



    More that the states that have the factories/etc tend to be democratic, but... yah. Big policital issue (ie: that's what I meant by political will.)



    Bad management and unions were the reasons you gave above - I'm confused how this relates to government.
    What I mean is that the government has a long history of directly supporting the unions and implementing policies solely in their best interest. They've enforced the growth of unions, and the unions in turn have put a strangle on the industry. That is where the government is involved, plus the environmental pressures they've put on them.

    The issue now is that the pensions will be covered by government, so there is a bailout automatically implied. This gives a cash buyout more relative value. So there is a government influence, however I am not talking about those kinds of policies - quite the opposite. I'm saying that those kinds of policies would be better directed to social issues so that there is a safety for those that are fired and let go. This eases the transition and causes less economic shock. Instead, you end up with a giant cliff to fall off of when things go wrong.



    It really won't, actually. That's the point of what I said. With proper stabilizers outside of the company, the ability of the economy to process the change is greater. What you have is a mix of conditions that cause economic shocks in the US to have far reaching impacts. In part, this is due to poor safety nets.



    What you need is some "actual socialism", as in social issues being dealt with. Instead, you end up with corporatism, which is simply an inefficient way to deal with the social issues.
    And good points. I'll have to look investigate the issue from that angle.

  6. #46
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    It's funny, though. In theory, there should be stabilizers in place to reduce the impact. Welfare benefits, retraining programs, employment insurance, etc. Since the US is so anti-socialist, these policies aren't sufficiently present and it's shocks like this that can not just be bad, but horrific. Instead of adapting those kinds of policies, subsidies are used to deal with the social issues. It doesn't matter if it is subsidising food, rather than providing welfare/basic living standards... or unregulated financial markets being bailed out with government money, there is a cost and balancing factor that is required.
    sure. you can say that the big 3 is burdened with xyz. but management knew that already for many years, before getting itself into the mess it is now.

    if they get bailed out, its time to fire the entire management, and recruit toyota management. by far they are the most successful. its that simple in my eyes. everyone has problems, not everyone can solve them and excel.

    either way, not being able to focus on issues seems to be entirely a top down approach. if the government can't do it on the big 3, then its hopeless to begin with. Horrible management with no shame will be the downfall of American capitalism if this continues.

  7. #47
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    Under a capitalist system, the change happens through the demand and needs of the consumer, not by force from the government, which is what we have seen via the artificial pressure they've put on the industry to change into what they consider a green standard.
    Externalities should be accounted for, and pollution by cars is one such externality, as is congestion and load on public services.


    What I mean is that the government has a long history of directly supporting the unions and implementing policies solely in their best interest. They've enforced the growth of unions, and the unions in turn have put a strangle on the industry. That is where the government is involved, plus the environmental pressures they've put on them.
    Sometimes good, sometimes not... but I agree with you on the unions being the issue. The cycle now is very broken and it's why the unions need to be broken through the dissolution of the companies. Further bailouts of these companies simply isn't feasible.

    The problem is that not bailing them out won't solve any of the issues. No money will be saved - the cost of the pensions will turn public - and the economic ripple effect will be large. It's a net loss.

    But, given that the instability of the companies continue to grow, I think it has to happen anyway, just over a period of time. Realistically, the US simply isn't competitive enough in this arena. I disagree with MP that new management would solve anything - it's systemic to the US and the car industry there.


    (To be clear - I don't believe in bailouts for these companies, except as a controlled dissolution of the companies themselves. That, or I would allow at least one of them to go bankrupt first, before putting limited funds into the others. The short term issues are powerful enough not to be completely laissez-faire, but the long run issues require a lot of political will that just isn't present in the states, given the normally short time horizons.)

  8. #48
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I disagree with MP that new management would solve anything - it's systemic to the US and the car industry there.
    I'd have to point to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai car plants in the US, and point out that the cars manufactured at those plants, have similiar quality to the ones made back home.

    That fact alone makes it a management issue. Its either that, or workers in the south (North Carolina, Alabama, etc... have these Toyota, BMW, etc... plants) are better than workers in Detroit. I'd go for the former hypothesis.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Maabus1999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    528

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Modern Nomad View Post
    I'd have to point to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai car plants in the US, and point out that the cars manufactured at those plants, have similiar quality to the ones made back home.

    That fact alone makes it a management issue. Its either that, or workers in the south (North Carolina, Alabama, etc... have these Toyota, BMW, etc... plants) are better than workers in Detroit. I'd go for the former hypothesis.
    Actually they are more productive due to some silly old UAW laws reducing the productivity of the big 3...

  10. #50
    mountain surfing nomadic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maabus1999 View Post
    Actually they are more productive due to some silly old UAW laws reducing the productivity of the big 3...
    im sure that had something to do with it, but bottom line, I'd rather buy a 33,000 dollar US made BMW than a 30,000 detroit made watever. or a 17,000 dollar US made Camry, than a 15,000 dollar Ford escort.

    in the end, this is what matters most for end consumers. the product itself.

Similar Threads

  1. Complain about me, please.
    By skylights in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 10:42 AM
  2. [INTP] Please list books by/about INTPs here
    By Salomé in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-25-2008, 04:05 PM
  3. Communes: What do you think about them?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 12:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO