Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Failure of the Auto Bailout

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 7:46:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is simply untrue that the Auto Bailout was a success. Peter Suderman wrote an excellent article on this in Reason Magazine:

Sure, it's back (referring to the Auto Industry) in the sense that General Motors is finally beating Toyota, a Japanese car maker that just saw its supply chain decimated by a Tsunami and a nuclear disaster. And you know what? In a boxing match pitting a lower ranked fighter who's been given brass knuckles by the ref against a higher-ranked fighter who just broke his ankle, I'll probably bet on the one with the brass knuckles. But it's not much of a victory.

And sure, it's back in the sense that GM is no longer on the precipice of complete fiscal meltdown; all it took was a $50 billion handout bailout copout gift from taxpayers, and a $20 billion tax break. Also: continued public losses as the company under performs. When GM went public, taxpayers bought up a 61 percent stake in its operations at about $33 a share. So I suppose Obama was right about one thing: The auto bailout was a bet of sorts; in order for the public to simply break even, GM's share prices would have to rise to roughly $51. As of yesterday evening, shares are trading at $24.75. The company's investors—that would be everyone who pays taxes—are losing money on this deal. This is straightforward industry favoritism, and it's not particularly fair to the millions of American workers and taxpayers who play by the rules, but weren't bailed out, and are now having to foot a giant-sized bill for a company that was.

Yet this is apparently the kind of success that Obama would like to see replicated across the country. "What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries," he said. So taxpayers can take tens of billions in avoidable losses in order to bail out other failing industries too? Not exactly a blueprint for success, but it certainly tells you where the Obama administration would like to take the country.


Full article here:

http://reason.com...
President of DDO
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:07:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
According to a conservative economist who supported McCain analysis concludes that the the auto bailout saved 1.4million jobs
http://www.freerepublic.com...

As of June 6th 2011 half the auto bailout has already been repaid which is ahead of schedule.
http://www.treasury.gov...

Only people whoa re clueless consider the auto-bailout unsuccessful
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:07:18 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to a conservative economist who supported McCain analysis concludes that the the auto bailout saved 1.4million jobs
http://www.freerepublic.com...

As of June 6th 2011 half the auto bailout has already been repaid which is ahead of schedule.
http://www.treasury.gov...

Only people whoa re clueless consider the auto-bailout unsuccessful

I don't care if some economist who supported Mccain thinks something worked. You seem to think that if one conservative supports a liberal perspective, that means the liberal perspective is correct.

The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have still lost a lot of money on the Auto Bailout. It wasn't all that successful.

Did pumping some $70 Billion in Detroit keep it alive temporarily?

Maybe, but it also lead to an industry that should have failed being kept alive artificially.

This is a typical failure of industrial favoritism.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:25:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:07:18 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to a conservative economist who supported McCain analysis concludes that the the auto bailout saved 1.4million jobs
http://www.freerepublic.com...

As of June 6th 2011 half the auto bailout has already been repaid which is ahead of schedule.
http://www.treasury.gov...

Only people whoa re clueless consider the auto-bailout unsuccessful


I don't care if some economist who supported Mccain thinks something worked. You seem to think that if one conservative supports a liberal perspective, that means the liberal perspective is correct.

The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have still lost a lot of money on the Auto Bailout. It wasn't all that successful.

Did pumping some $70 Billion in Detroit keep it alive temporarily?

Maybe, but it also lead to an industry that should have failed being kept alive artificially.

This is a typical failure of industrial favoritism.

If the entire bailout has been repaid, how is this lost taxpayer money? Heck, considering inflation, we may have gotten a little extra on our investment. Plus, you know, over a million jobs.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:25:31 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:07:18 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to a conservative economist who supported McCain analysis concludes that the the auto bailout saved 1.4million jobs
http://www.freerepublic.com...

As of June 6th 2011 half the auto bailout has already been repaid which is ahead of schedule.
http://www.treasury.gov...

Only people whoa re clueless consider the auto-bailout unsuccessful


I don't care if some economist who supported Mccain thinks something worked. You seem to think that if one conservative supports a liberal perspective, that means the liberal perspective is correct.

The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have still lost a lot of money on the Auto Bailout. It wasn't all that successful.

Did pumping some $70 Billion in Detroit keep it alive temporarily?

Maybe, but it also lead to an industry that should have failed being kept alive artificially.

This is a typical failure of industrial favoritism.

If the entire bailout has been repaid, how is this lost taxpayer money? Heck, considering inflation, we may have gotten a little extra on our investment. Plus, you know, over a million jobs.

You know as well as I that even if Obama went classical liberal, near Laissez-faire on us, jimtimmy as well as the author of that article would slither to the left and criticize him for that too. Its blind opposition born of partisan bias from a broken political system, or outright racism in some cases.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:32:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I will never buy a GM or Chrysler again for the simple fact that they are now, in my eyes, unnatural companies. Without the government they wouldn't exist anymore. Ford and Toyota would have bought up their facilities or they would have shrank to unrecognizable sizes.

In the free market, they are unnatural, they don't belong so I won't buy from them...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:32:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fact is that the auto-bailout saved more than its fair share of jobs, and after the restructuring of GM, remade a failing enterprise into a now moderately successful one (and getting better everyday).

The bailout was repaid, investors now have confidence in a formerly dying American industry, and consumers - a.k.a. the taxpayers, both in the US and Canada - are getting their worth out of it. I know personally the government here in Ontario can partly thank the success of GM on their re-election last year. Had it been a failed venture, and everyone would've picked up on that if it was, then this wouldn't be the case.

Now, if all of this points to a "failure" of the bailout's aims, then someone has pretty high standards. This bailout was not a failure. Your disagreement lies in the fact that you think it shouldn't have happened in the first place, a completely different quarrel.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:07:18 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
According to a conservative economist who supported McCain analysis concludes that the the auto bailout saved 1.4million jobs
http://www.freerepublic.com...

As of June 6th 2011 half the auto bailout has already been repaid which is ahead of schedule.
http://www.treasury.gov...

Only people whoa re clueless consider the auto-bailout unsuccessful


I don't care if some economist who supported Mccain thinks something worked. You seem to think that if one conservative supports a liberal perspective, that means the liberal perspective is correct.[/quote]
I see so you dont care about actual research, analysis and facts. Good to know

At 2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The fact of the matter is that taxpayers have still lost a lot of money on the Auto Bailout. It wasn't all that successful.
Again saving 1.4million jobs at the cost of less then 40billion dollars is a huge success. And the cost will continue to diminish as GM and Chrysler pay the government back and as the government sells its stocks. So theoretically the auto-bailout could eventually cost taxpayers $0.
At 2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Did pumping some $70 Billion in Detroit keep it alive temporarily?
If having 1.4million more jobs is alive then yes

At 2/16/2012 8:21:52 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Maybe, but it also lead to an industry that should have failed being kept alive artificially.

This is a typical failure of industrial favoritism.
Again only a moron thinks 1.4million jobs at the price of 40billion dollars is a failure.
Also its not really industrial favoritism its more of the government stepping in wheret he private sector failed. The private banking sector imploded because conservatives convinced us that deregulation would be a good thing (like usual they were 100% wrong). Because of the crisis markets were frozen and the government had to step in or else the auto industry would of collapsed and caused 1.4million in job losses.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:33:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:32:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I will never buy a GM or Chrysler again for the simple fact that they are now, in my eyes, unnatural companies. Without the government they wouldn't exist anymore. Ford and Toyota would have bought up their facilities or they would have shrank to unrecognizable sizes.

In the free market, they are unnatural, they don't belong so I won't buy from them...

What about corporations that get special tax breaks from the government? Will you refuse to buy from them?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:34:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:32:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In the free market, they are unnatural, they don't belong so I won't buy from them...

Lol, you can't function in the modern economy without dealing with companies, corporations, banks, regulators, investors, and so on, that are considered "unnatural" in the free-market system. You may as well just kill yourself, because holding yourself to such a standard would render you completely cut off from modern society.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:34:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:33:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:32:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I will never buy a GM or Chrysler again for the simple fact that they are now, in my eyes, unnatural companies. Without the government they wouldn't exist anymore. Ford and Toyota would have bought up their facilities or they would have shrank to unrecognizable sizes.

In the free market, they are unnatural, they don't belong so I won't buy from them...

What about corporations that get special tax breaks from the government? Will you refuse to buy from them?

No. Unless they were saved from destruction.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:37:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:32:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
The fact is that the auto-bailout saved more than its fair share of jobs, and after the restructuring of GM, remade a failing enterprise into a now moderately successful one (and getting better everyday).

The bailout was repaid, investors now have confidence in a formerly dying American industry, and consumers - a.k.a. the taxpayers, both in the US and Canada - are getting their worth out of it. I know personally the government here in Ontario can partly thank the success of GM on their re-election last year. Had it been a failed venture, and everyone would've picked up on that if it was, then this wouldn't be the case.

Now, if all of this points to a "failure" of the bailout's aims, then someone has pretty high standards. This bailout was not a failure. Your disagreement lies in the fact that you think it shouldn't have happened in the first place, a completely different quarrel.

Wrong. GM still owes the gov't 20B dollars. The tax payers still technically own 32% of the stock.

In 2010 they owed over 40 Billion and this year was a record profit of 7 billion so how on Earth could they have possibly paid back the government with only 7 billion coming in a year?

They haven't.

http://www.forbes.com...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am from Michigan, the heart of the auto industry. Here the auto bailout is very popular. Plus, now GM profits are at record highs today.

All top three automakers are all profitable right now, the first time since 2004.

It saved about 1.5 million jobs.

I remember in 2008 and early 2009, and I supported the auto bailout strongly, especially because Michigan would of been devastated. To quote Lansing mayor Virg Bernero, "I just gotta say "I told you so".

http://money.cnn.com...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:33:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:32:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I will never buy a GM or Chrysler again for the simple fact that they are now, in my eyes, unnatural companies. Without the government they wouldn't exist anymore. Ford and Toyota would have bought up their facilities or they would have shrank to unrecognizable sizes.

In the free market, they are unnatural, they don't belong so I won't buy from them...

What about corporations that get special tax breaks from the government? Will you refuse to buy from them?
No he'll only refuse to buy from companies that were helped by liberals or that liberals like
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:38:55 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:33:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:32:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I will never buy a GM or Chrysler again for the simple fact that they are now, in my eyes, unnatural companies. Without the government they wouldn't exist anymore. Ford and Toyota would have bought up their facilities or they would have shrank to unrecognizable sizes.

In the free market, they are unnatural, they don't belong so I won't buy from them...

What about corporations that get special tax breaks from the government? Will you refuse to buy from them?
No he'll only refuse to buy from companies that were helped by liberals or that liberals like

Yes because I know every company that liberals like.

No, as a consumer I have a choice and I choose not to use companies who are "too big to fail" because that line is a load of crap.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:46:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:37:46 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Wrong. GM still owes the gov't 20B dollars. The tax payers still technically own 32% of the stock.

In 2010 they owed over 40 Billion and this year was a record profit of 7 billion so how on Earth could they have possibly paid back the government with only 7 billion coming in a year?

They haven't.

http://www.forbes.com...

You're right, I misspoke - they repaid fully their loans from the governments, not the bailout money.

However, you realize that these companies were bailed out at over $60B dollars... the repayment will take a few years. They're exactly on schedule as well, if not beating it, according to your numbers...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:46:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:40:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yes because I know every company that liberals like.

I like every store you like. Every single one. I make sweet, sweet love to them when you're not buying there.

No, as a consumer I have a choice and I choose not to use companies who are "too big to fail" because that line is a load of crap.

Name me one.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:46:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:40:03 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Yes because I know every company that liberals like.

I like every store you like. Every single one. I make sweet, sweet love to them when you're not buying there.

No, as a consumer I have a choice and I choose not to use companies who are "too big to fail" because that line is a load of crap.

Name me one.

I refuse to use:

Bank of America
GM
Chrysler

those are the big three.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:48:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:48:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I refuse to use:

Bank of America
GM
Chrysler

those are the big three.

Sorry I wasn't clear - name me companies and corps you buy from/use services at.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:52:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:48:58 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:48:01 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I refuse to use:

Bank of America
GM
Chrysler

those are the big three.

Sorry I wasn't clear - name me companies and corps you buy from/use services at.

Idk lol

Shell Gas
Publix Grocery
Barnes and Noble
McDonalds

things like that?

I bank with Navy Federal, get my insurance from AAA.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:55:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:52:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Shell Gas

We can go with this. What do you think of the taxpayer subsidies that keep oil and gas production alive and kicking in the US?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 8:59:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:55:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:52:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Shell Gas

We can go with this. What do you think of the taxpayer subsidies that keep oil and gas production alive and kicking in the US?

Honestly, I don't think that they need the subsidies no. In my view of perfect capitalism there is no government intervention at all.

So I think we could do away with them yes.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 8:59:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Honestly, I don't think that they need the subsidies no. In my view of perfect capitalism there is no government intervention at all.

So I think we could do away with them yes.

Why do you use Shell then?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:04:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:00:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/16/2012 8:59:04 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Honestly, I don't think that they need the subsidies no. In my view of perfect capitalism there is no government intervention at all.

So I think we could do away with them yes.

Why do you use Shell then?

Well for gas:

1) it's the only conveniently located station to my house
2) the entire industry is subsidized isn't it?

I have a choice with cars, Ford took no money from the government etc.

For gas the choices are a little slimmer.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fact of the matter is that GM was hurt by government regulations and the UAW. These problems should have been fixed. However, GM's own inability to make products consumers wanted to buy hurt a lot too.

But, throwing money at GM did not help the American economy. It did not "save" or "create" a single job. People seem to forget that the $60 Billion spent was taken from somewhere else in the economy. After all, the government must tax what it spends.

I could do pretty well with any shitty business I start if the government were to give me $60 Billion.

In my opinion, it is much better to let consumers decide how that $60 Billion should be allocated. You know, going to businesses that consumers want to survive because they sell products at prices that consumers want.

The idea that this bailout "created or saved" 1.4 Million jobs is just absurd because it doesn't even take into account the effects of taking $60 Billion out of areas of the economy.

Ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The money taken out of the economy wasn't so. It was likely funded by taxation, which are by the way at really low levels (14.7% of GDP compared to 18% of GDP in 1980s, or compared to about 35% of GDP in Australia or 50% GDP in Finland).

After the bailout, GM was forced to improve its work, and it became a leader again. So it did save jobs.

It was an investment for the American people to make a stronger future with a more responsible auto industry (Ford excluded of course). It is a shame that this couldn't happen with government help, but it had to happen this way.

If we just ENFORCED our trade laws, removed tariffs, switched all fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy that is domestic, and removed farm subsidies and modernized regulation in America and reformed our tax code, then we could finally stop talking about "burdensome regulation". It gets old. Some bad regulations are there, I know that, my grandfather ran an automobile dealership. Regulation is however not the root of the problem. We have to analyze the problem from all angles that helps America the most. Free trade would be beneficial as well, because exports would help. When used with environmental standards, our trading partners can engage with us in trade without destroying the environment.

If the automakers were allowed to die, I promise you that the USA would be in a depression today. Bush said he supported the auto bailouts too, the first time I agree with him!
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The fact of the matter is that GM was hurt by government regulations and the UAW. These problems should have been fixed. However, GM's own inability to make products consumers wanted to buy hurt a lot too.[/quote]
1) Name one regulation that hurt GM.
2) UAW plants are around 30% more productive with 30% less injuries. However I realize that you don't give a s.hit about anyone expect the rich owners and stockholders.
3) GM just reported its biggest profit ever; before the bailout it was a failing company now it is a successful company that is contributing to the US economy
At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
But, throwing money at GM did not help the American economy. It did not "save" or "create" a single job.
That is only id you are a moron who rejects reality.

At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
People seem to forget that the $60 Billion spent was taken from somewhere else in the economy. After all, the government must tax what it spends.
Incorrect he government can borrow and print money. Furthermore crowding out does not occur in a liquidy trap with 0% unemployment 65% capital utilization and 0% interest rates.

At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I could do pretty well with any shitty business I start if the government were to give me $60 Billion.
So you are saying that you could create 1.4million jobs within 3 years and then repay half of the money back to the government.

At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, it is much better to let consumers decide how that $60 Billion should be allocated. You know, going to businesses that consumers want to survive because they sell products at prices that consumers want.
Yes that is your opinion, which happens to be counter to reality and 100% false.

At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The idea that this bailout "created or saved" 1.4 Million jobs is just absurd because it doesn't even take into account the effects of taking $60 Billion out of areas of the economy.
It is only absurd if you partisan hack who denies reality because it doesn't fit your stupid ideology
At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
Yes i have heard of it. But in order for it to apply you are gong to need to explain us why saving 1.4millon jobs, turning two failing company into a profitable ones (with 7billion in profits) at the cost of less then 40billion and potentially no cost is a waste.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
The money taken out of the economy wasn't so. It was likely funded by taxation, which are by the way at really low levels (14.7% of GDP compared to 18% of GDP in 1980s, or compared to about 35% of GDP in Australia or 50% GDP in Finland).

Actually it is about twice that because that doesn't include state and local taxes.

And, yes, taxes take money out of the economy.


After the bailout, GM was forced to improve its work, and it became a leader again. So it did save jobs.

No, it didn't. It just wrote a check to a favorited industry.


It was an investment for the American people to make a stronger future with a more responsible auto industry (Ford excluded of course). It is a shame that this couldn't happen with government help, but it had to happen this way.

Oh, more "investment" BS. I can promise you that consumers would have been able to make a much better investment in products they wanted to buy on a free market.


If we just ENFORCED our trade laws, removed tariffs, switched all fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy that is domestic, and removed farm subsidies and modernized regulation in America and reformed our tax code, then we could finally stop talking about "burdensome regulation". It gets old. Some bad regulations are there, I know that, my grandfather ran an automobile dealership. Regulation is however not the root of the problem. We have to analyze the problem from all angles that helps America the most. Free trade would be beneficial as well, because exports would help. When used with environmental standards, our trading partners can engage with us in trade without destroying the environment.

Ya, this is total BS. Talking about "modernizing regulation" is something everyone is for. The fact is that regulations, by nature, become outdated and burdensome.

82% of small businesses recently said that government regulations and taxes are holding them back from hiring. So, it is a big part of the problem.


If the automakers were allowed to die, I promise you that the USA would be in a depression today. Bush said he supported the auto bailouts too, the first time I agree with him!

No, we would just have a more natural economy that actually works.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:34:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:26:59 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The fact of the matter is that GM was hurt by government regulations and the UAW. These problems should have been fixed. However, GM's own inability to make products consumers wanted to buy hurt a lot too.[/quote]
1) Name one regulation that hurt GM.
2) UAW plants are around 30% more productive with 30% less injuries. However I realize that you don't give a s.hit about anyone expect the rich owners and stockholders.
3) GM just reported its biggest profit ever; before the bailout it was a failing company now it is a successful company that is contributing to the US economy

Ever heard of environmental regulations?

And, if you think the UAW did good for anyone, you need to get your head checked.

At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
But, throwing money at GM did not help the American economy. It did not "save" or "create" a single job.
That is only id you are a moron who rejects reality.

Look who's talking.


At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
People seem to forget that the $60 Billion spent was taken from somewhere else in the economy. After all, the government must tax what it spends.
Incorrect he government can borrow and print money. Furthermore crowding out does not occur in a liquidy trap with 0% unemployment 65% capital utilization and 0% interest rates.

ROFL. Ya, it can borrow from somebody... taking money out of the economy.... And, causing inflation is also just trasnferring resources... not creating them

Logic doesn't dissapear in a liquidity trap... lol


At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
I could do pretty well with any shitty business I start if the government were to give me $60 Billion.
So you are saying that you could create 1.4million jobs within 3 years and then repay half of the money back to the government.

I could repay all of the money.. and then some.


At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
In my opinion, it is much better to let consumers decide how that $60 Billion should be allocated. You know, going to businesses that consumers want to survive because they sell products at prices that consumers want.
Yes that is your opinion, which happens to be counter to reality and 100% false.

Wow, you really are just a joke.


At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The idea that this bailout "created or saved" 1.4 Million jobs is just absurd because it doesn't even take into account the effects of taking $60 Billion out of areas of the economy.
It is only absurd if you partisan hack who denies reality because it doesn't fit your stupid ideology

Wow.... your stupidity is quite astounding.

At 2/16/2012 9:11:56 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Ever heard of the broken window fallacy?
Yes i have heard of it. But in order for it to apply you are gong to need to explain us why saving 1.4millon jobs, turning two failing company into a profitable ones (with 7billion in profits) at the cost of less then 40billion and potentially no cost is a waste.

Ya, it didn't do any of those things... explained.
President of DDO
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:41:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
The money taken out of the economy wasn't so. It was likely funded by taxation, which are by the way at really low levels (14.7% of GDP compared to 18% of GDP in 1980s, or compared to about 35% of GDP in Australia or 50% GDP in Finland).
Actually it is about twice that because that doesn't include state and local taxes.
And, yes, taxes take money out of the economy.
No they dont they transfer money in the economy. I'm not surprised that you again are incorrect

At 2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
After the bailout, GM was forced to improve its work, and it became a leader again. So it did save jobs.
No, it didn't. It just wrote a check to a favorited industry.
Before the Bailout GM's profit was -10billion, now afterwards it has posted 7billion in profits. So explain to us why you think during an unprofitable business into a profitable one isn't an improvement.

At 2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
It was an investment for the American people to make a stronger future with a more responsible auto industry (Ford excluded of course). It is a shame that this couldn't happen with government help, but it had to happen this way.
Oh, more "investment" BS. I can promise you that consumers would have been able to make a much better investment in products they wanted to buy on a free market.
Are you talking about the 1.4million consumers who would of lost their jobs?
40billion in tax cuts wouldn't even result in enough increased demand to create a forth the jobs saved by the auto bailout.

At 2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If we just ENFORCED our trade laws, removed tariffs, switched all fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy that is domestic, and removed farm subsidies and modernized regulation in America and reformed our tax code, then we could finally stop talking about "burdensome regulation". It gets old. Some bad regulations are there, I know that, my grandfather ran an automobile dealership. Regulation is however not the root of the problem. We have to analyze the problem from all angles that helps America the most. Free trade would be beneficial as well, because exports would help. When used with environmental standards, our trading partners can engage with us in trade without destroying the environment.
Ya, this is total BS. Talking about "modernizing regulation" is something everyone is for. The fact is that regulations, by nature, become outdated and burdensome.
That is what conservatives said about banking regulations, so we roved those and then we experienced the biggest banking crisis ever. Like always conservatives are/were wrong.

At 2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
82% of small businesses recently said that government regulations and taxes are holding them back from hiring. So, it is a big part of the problem.
Any analysis of government regulations shows that they save a net of trillions of dollars every year.
Also you are lying not even 25% of businesses claim that regulations are stopping them from hiring
http://politicalcorrection.org...

At 2/16/2012 9:30:46 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:26:24 PM, Contra wrote:
If the automakers were allowed to die, I promise you that the USA would be in a depression today. Bush said he supported the auto bailouts too, the first time I agree with him!

No, we would just have a more natural economy that actually works.
So tell us why you think an economy without two profitable companies works better then an economy with them.