Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama's Crony Capitalism

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Barack Obama has practiced crony capitalism while in office.

First, he passes an Auto Bailout that "rescued" an industry that could not make it on its own on the free market. This is classic industry favoritism. It is a blockade to progress.

Second, he has pushed this "green" energy. Basically, Obama gives out these handouts to green energy companies. Solyndra is an example of this.

There are dozens more example. Health care, wall street, stimulus, etc. all come to mind.

The issue here is that we have a president who gives handouts to political allies and other politically popular industries. It is a blockade to progress. Industrial favoritism has never worked.
President of DDO
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:14:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't forget the pipeline.

Good point.

I can't believe I forgot that.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?
"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
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 5:36:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

Give them managed bankruptcies then give them money so they can un-bankrupt. The former bailouts where worthless wastes, and they still bankrupted. So either way you wasted money, so letting them go down chapter... Is it 7 or 11? But the one that is managed them help them would have been cheaper.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).
"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
2/29/2012 6:26:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, he passes an Auto Bailout that "rescued" an industry that could not make it on its own on the free market. This is classic industry favoritism. It is a blockade to progress.
Do you have an intelligent reason why it was better to lose 1.5million jobs?

At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Second, he has pushed this "green" energy. Basically, Obama gives out these handouts to green energy companies. Solyndra is an example of this.
And of those handouts for every dollar in government expenditures it creates 75 dollars of new investments. Only people who cant do basic math conclude that that was a bad policy.

At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
There are dozens more example. Health care, wall street, stimulus, etc. all come to mind.
So why is expanding health care to 35million people, making it so insurance companies can't drop your coverage when you get sick or discriminate against you while simultaneously reducing total health care spending by slashing waste ful expenditure "crony capitalism"?
Plz explain how creating 4million jobs and saving the economy trillions of dollars over a ten year period is "crony capitalism"
Plz explain how cracking down on banking fraud, making the banks pay for their being bailed out, and implementing regulations to prevent another crises is crony capitalism. My bet is you know nothing about the Dodd-Frank and are just regurgitating

At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
The issue here is that we have a president who gives handouts to political allies and other politically popular industries. It is a blockade to progress. Industrial favoritism has never worked.
The real issue is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Not surprising though given your poor intellect.
At 2/29/2012 5:36:21 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

Give them managed bankruptcies then give them money so they can un-bankrupt. The former bailouts where worthless wastes, and they still bankrupted. So either way you wasted money, so letting them go down chapter... Is it 7 or 11? But the one that is managed them help them would have been cheaper.

What are you talking about?
GM and Chrysler are turning record profits. How is having record profits equate to being bankrupt? Already half the bailouts of been repaid, meaning only 40bllion of govt. money is still on the line, which is totally worth saving 1.million jobs and Americas auto industry.
The reason the government had to provide the funding was because credit markets were frozen due to the banking crises; how you cannot remember the biggest banking crises to ever occur is beyond reason.

At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.
And the reason that the government needed to bailout the auto industry was because the deregulated private market/banks caused the biggest banking crises ever which froze up credit markets.
Only an ideological fool thinks that a whole industry should be destroyed costing the economy 1.5million jobs just because of some "free market" mantra.

At 2/29/2012 5:14:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Don't forget the pipeline.

I see so according to you not allowing oil companies to spill oil in drinking water and farm land and to pollute our air is crony capitalism... Do you ever think?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).

No. Detroit automakers gave in far too much to the unions. Also, they were poorly managed. Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

Imagine if we hadn't let the carriage business fail because there were so many jobs there. We wouldn't have cars today and our standard of living would be dramatically lower.

Plus, universal health care does not lead to reduced costs in cars. That is just absurd.
President of DDO
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 8:49:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).

Its really hard to compare things in Japan to things here in the US. I lived there.

For one, their cars are about a third the size of ours. The Japanese don't really use cars all that much since the train is the king of transport so demand is a lot less than it is here.

Sooo... bad comparison, just saying.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 8:50:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).


No. Detroit automakers gave in far too much to the unions. Also, they were poorly managed. Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.[/quote]

So you would not consider progress as going from record deficits to record profits, creating thousands of jobs, and regaining the top sales in America?
What is this "progress" you talk about? Is it 1.5million less jobs and America not having an advance auto industry... that might be progress but its not progress for America

At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Imagine if we hadn't let the carriage business fail because there were so many jobs there. We wouldn't have cars today and our standard of living would be dramatically lower.
I was not aware that GM and Chyrster were not developing new automobiles, cars with high MGP standards and hybrids.
Also if we really did what you suggested at let carriage business fail then we wouldn't have Ford because Ford started out building carriages.

At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Plus, universal health care does not lead to reduced costs in cars. That is just absurd.
Never did I say it did. However government health care leads to reduced costs for cars given that government health care is far superior and cheaper then private health care.
imabench
Posts: 21,217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 9:14:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

Not letting them FAIL kept progress from moving FORWARD

You realize you cant have forward progress if the company shuts down right?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 9:23:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 9:14:11 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

Not letting them FAIL kept progress from moving FORWARD

You realize you cant have forward progress if the company shuts down right?

Have you ever heard of creative destruction?

Companies that can't make it on a free market need to fail if the economy is to move forward at all.
President of DDO
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 9:55:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Barack Obama has practiced crony capitalism while in office.

First, he passes an Auto Bailout that "rescued" an industry that could not make it on its own on the free market. This is classic industry favoritism. It is a blockade to progress.

He isn't doing it for the company you idiot, he is doing it for all the workers that are out of a job if the company fails!

Second, he has pushed this "green" energy. Basically, Obama gives out these handouts to green energy companies. Solyndra is an example of this.

We need to invest in these things. Even if you deny global warming, there is no denying that our oil supplies are running out.

There are dozens more example. Health care, wall street, stimulus, etc. all come to mind.

The issue here is that we have a president who gives handouts to political allies and other politically popular industries. It is a blockade to progress. Industrial favoritism has never worked.

"industrial favoritism"? Could you give me a definition of that from a legitimate source? Cause I can't find one. Sounds like misleading crap to me.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 9:58:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 9:23:27 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 9:14:11 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

Not letting them FAIL kept progress from moving FORWARD

You realize you cant have forward progress if the company shuts down right?


Have you ever heard of creative destruction?

Companies that can't make it on a free market need to fail if the economy is to move forward at all.

While you let millions of people go out of a job. You could also help the company get back on its feet while letting people keep their jobs, and reform the bad decisions made by the company.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:00:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).


No. Detroit automakers gave in far too much to the unions. Also, they were poorly managed. Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

What is bad about unions??!! They PROTECT the working class! Before unions, companies completely exploited their workers. Have you taken American or world history?

Imagine if we hadn't let the carriage business fail because there were so many jobs there. We wouldn't have cars today and our standard of living would be dramatically lower.

That isn't true at all lol. We didn't switch to cars because the carriage business failed, the carriage business failed because people switched to cars.

Plus, universal health care does not lead to reduced costs in cars. That is just absurd.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:00:38 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Barack Obama has practiced awesome capitalism while in office.


http://images.cheezburger.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:08:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 8:50:19 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Never did I say it did. However government health care leads to reduced costs for cars given that government health care is far superior and cheaper then private health care.

Not only is government healthcare far inferior to that of free market healthcare (as evident by facts), but you are still making a comparison between cars and healthcare. See the bolded words.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:00:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).


No. Detroit automakers gave in far too much to the unions. Also, they were poorly managed. Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

What is bad about unions??!! They PROTECT the working class! Before unions, companies completely exploited their workers. Have you taken American or world history?

No, the increase in capital has increased the wealth of Americans, not unions. No evidence indicates that unions increase wages for the whole of society. If the US were to lose all their capital stock, then our level of wealth would go down significantly, and unions could not do anything about it. The industrial revolution seems harsh by modern standards, but life was much harsher pre-industrial period.

Nor would it make sense If they did since they do not increase the productivity of workers. Profits only account for about 8% of revenue so unions can't just "take from profits". However, the profits can be reinvested in more capital which can increase worker productivity.

That isn't true at all lol. We didn't switch to cars because the carriage business failed, the carriage business failed because people switched to cars.

Exactly, that is creative destruction in action.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:34:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:10:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/29/2012 10:00:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 2/29/2012 8:43:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:38:02 PM, Contra wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:32:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:29:58 PM, Contra wrote:
Would you just want Detroit to go dead?

No, but companies that fail on the free market should not be bailed out because they failed for a reason.

Ok. Because Japan has Universal healthcare, their cars cost about $1000 less than the U.S. cars, just because of this fact. So let's blame the government's inaction on healthcare, and Detroit's failed policy of modernizing and becoming more competitive (although this changed significantly after the bailout, the latter did).


No. Detroit automakers gave in far too much to the unions. Also, they were poorly managed. Not letting them fail kept progress from moving forward.

What is bad about unions??!! They PROTECT the working class! Before unions, companies completely exploited their workers. Have you taken American or world history?

No, the increase in capital has increased the wealth of Americans, not unions. No evidence indicates that unions increase wages for the whole of society. If the US were to lose all their capital stock, then our level of wealth would go down significantly, and unions could not do anything about it. The industrial revolution seems harsh by modern standards, but life was much harsher pre-industrial period.

You missed my point. I wasn't saying they always make wages higher. They don't always. But unions do much more than control wages. They keep safety regulations in order, and advocate for the rights and interests of the working class who don't have much of a say in business and government.

Nor would it make sense If they did since they do not increase the productivity of workers. Profits only account for about 8% of revenue so unions can't just "take from profits". However, the profits can be reinvested in more capital which can increase worker productivity.


That isn't true at all lol. We didn't switch to cars because the carriage business failed, the carriage business failed because people switched to cars.

Exactly, that is creative destruction in action.

Well it isn't as if we are switching or improving a product when today's businesses fail like we did with the car. That was a necessary switch. These businesses made bad business practices, and we shouldn't let the working class suffer because of it.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 9:55:27 PM, rogue wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Barack Obama has practiced crony capitalism while in office.

First, he passes an Auto Bailout that "rescued" an industry that could not make it on its own on the free market. This is classic industry favoritism. It is a blockade to progress.

He isn't doing it for the company you idiot, he is doing it for all the workers that are out of a job if the company fails!

Second, he has pushed this "green" energy. Basically, Obama gives out these handouts to green energy companies. Solyndra is an example of this.

We need to invest in these things. Even if you deny global warming, there is no denying that our oil supplies are running out.

There are dozens more example. Health care, wall street, stimulus, etc. all come to mind.

The issue here is that we have a president who gives handouts to political allies and other politically popular industries. It is a blockade to progress. Industrial favoritism has never worked.

"industrial favoritism"? Could you give me a definition of that from a legitimate source? Cause I can't find one. Sounds like misleading crap to me.

Rogue, I'm gonna adress all of your posts in this one.

First, I don't think you understand how the free enterprise system works. If a business cannot succeed on a free market, it goes out of business.

That is how progress works. The carriage industry had to die because it simply couldn't compete with cars. And, yes, of course jobs were lost when the carriage factories or whatever closed (there probably weren't carriage factories, but you get the idea).

In order for new, more innovative, more efficient, enterprises to arise, old enterprises have to be allowed to fail. As odd as it may sound, businesses closing down is essential to economic progress.

When the government artificially keeps industries alive, it only wastes resources and keeps new competitors and enterprises from arising. It makes the entire population worse off.

As far as energy goes, there is no reason to think that government "nvestment" or regulations will do anything but waste resources and increase gas prices. The best thing the government can do is stop limiting the supply of fossil fuels. We need to open up everywhere for drilling.

And, industrial favoritism is a real thing. But, it is better known as crony capitalism.
President of DDO
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 10:49:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 9:55:27 PM, rogue wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Barack Obama has practiced crony capitalism while in office.

First, he passes an Auto Bailout that "rescued" an industry that could not make it on its own on the free market. This is classic industry favoritism. It is a blockade to progress.

He isn't doing it for the company you idiot, he is doing it for all the workers that are out of a job if the company fails!

Second, he has pushed this "green" energy. Basically, Obama gives out these handouts to green energy companies. Solyndra is an example of this.

We need to invest in these things. Even if you deny global warming, there is no denying that our oil supplies are running out.

There are dozens more example. Health care, wall street, stimulus, etc. all come to mind.

The issue here is that we have a president who gives handouts to political allies and other politically popular industries. It is a blockade to progress. Industrial favoritism has never worked.

"industrial favoritism"? Could you give me a definition of that from a legitimate source? Cause I can't find one. Sounds like misleading crap to me.


Rogue, I'm gonna adress all of your posts in this one.

First, I don't think you understand how the free enterprise system works. If a business cannot succeed on a free market, it goes out of business.

I understand fine and if we lived in a truly free market then I would support what you are saying. But we don't. We are capitalist.

That is how progress works. The carriage industry had to die because it simply couldn't compete with cars. And, yes, of course jobs were lost when the carriage factories or whatever closed (there probably weren't carriage factories, but you get the idea).

In order for new, more innovative, more efficient, enterprises to arise, old enterprises have to be allowed to fail. As odd as it may sound, businesses closing down is essential to economic progress.

If you allow so many people to lose their source of income, they will have no money to buy product and the economy will fail much more drastically. It isn't as though these businesses failed because their product wasn't good enough, they failed because of bad business practices and we can't let the people they employed suffer for their mistakes.

When the government artificially keeps industries alive, it only wastes resources and keeps new competitors and enterprises from arising. It makes the entire population worse off.

If we lived in a truly free market, you'd be right.

As far as energy goes, there is no reason to think that government "nvestment" or regulations will do anything but waste resources and increase gas prices. The best thing the government can do is stop limiting the supply of fossil fuels. We need to open up everywhere for drilling.

Are you kidding? Do you know how bad that is for the environment? It pollutes the water horribly for one thing. I'm guessing you don't believe in global warming despite the immense amount of undeniable scientific evidence for it so I won't go into that. Even if we did drill everywhere, we would still run out of oil eventually. It is not renewable. We need to invest in renewable resources before it is too late. We need to think about the future.

And, industrial favoritism is a real thing. But, it is better known as crony capitalism.

I would still like a definition.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 11:10:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:49:01 PM, rogue wrote:
At 2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/29/2012 9:55:27 PM, rogue wrote:
At 2/29/2012 5:14:15 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Barack Obama has practiced crony capitalism while in office.

First, he passes an Auto Bailout that "rescued" an industry that could not make it on its own on the free market. This is classic industry favoritism. It is a blockade to progress.

He isn't doing it for the company you idiot, he is doing it for all the workers that are out of a job if the company fails!

Second, he has pushed this "green" energy. Basically, Obama gives out these handouts to green energy companies. Solyndra is an example of this.

We need to invest in these things. Even if you deny global warming, there is no denying that our oil supplies are running out.

There are dozens more example. Health care, wall street, stimulus, etc. all come to mind.

The issue here is that we have a president who gives handouts to political allies and other politically popular industries. It is a blockade to progress. Industrial favoritism has never worked.

"industrial favoritism"? Could you give me a definition of that from a legitimate source? Cause I can't find one. Sounds like misleading crap to me.


Rogue, I'm gonna adress all of your posts in this one.

First, I don't think you understand how the free enterprise system works. If a business cannot succeed on a free market, it goes out of business.

I understand fine and if we lived in a truly free market then I would support what you are saying. But we don't. We are capitalist.

I agree that we don't live in a free market. However, we do have enough economic freedom for some market forces to work.

The basic mechanisms of a free market have generally been allowed to work. That has not been so true the last couple of years.


That is how progress works. The carriage industry had to die because it simply couldn't compete with cars. And, yes, of course jobs were lost when the carriage factories or whatever closed (there probably weren't carriage factories, but you get the idea).

In order for new, more innovative, more efficient, enterprises to arise, old enterprises have to be allowed to fail. As odd as it may sound, businesses closing down is essential to economic progress.

If you allow so many people to lose their source of income, they will have no money to buy product and the economy will fail much more drastically. It isn't as though these businesses failed because their product wasn't good enough, they failed because of bad business practices and we can't let the people they employed suffer for their mistakes.

I would actually say that most businesses do fail because their product wasn't good enough. And, for the ones that fail because of bad business practices, I think that they should fail.

Businesses that are run innefficiently need to fail so more efficient enterprises can replace them.

You seem to be making an argument that creative destruction causes a shortfall in aggregate demand. That is not the case.

Creative destruction simply makes way for new, more efficient enterprises. The problem is not that people don't have enough buying power it is that the government is holding back the free market's mechanisms for progress in the name of "jobs".

Jobs will come with newer enterprises. But, don't forget, jobs are a means not an end. Consumer standard of living is an end.


When the government artificially keeps industries alive, it only wastes resources and keeps new competitors and enterprises from arising. It makes the entire population worse off.

If we lived in a truly free market, you'd be right.

The fact that we don't live in a pure free market does not mean we should totally abandon all facets of a free market.


As far as energy goes, there is no reason to think that government "nvestment" or regulations will do anything but waste resources and increase gas prices. The best thing the government can do is stop limiting the supply of fossil fuels. We need to open up everywhere for drilling.

Are you kidding? Do you know how bad that is for the environment? It pollutes the water horribly for one thing. I'm guessing you don't believe in global warming despite the immense amount of undeniable scientific evidence for it so I won't go into that. Even if we did drill everywhere, we would still run out of oil eventually. It is not renewable. We need to invest in renewable resources before it is too late. We need to think about the future.

I believe in global warming. The globe has clearly gotten warmer. Whether or not man has contributed to a significant degree is more debated.

I agree, however, that we need to eventually move on to a new resource from fossil fuel. But, that doesn't mean that we should stop using the fossil fuels that are still available. The environmental costs are minimal because we have the technology to extract resources more efficiently.

We need more energy now and in the future. One good source could be nuclear energy. But wait, environmentalists don't like that either.

I truly believe in an all of the above approach. Where companies do work on things like solar and wind... but, we are also allowed to use more realistic energies in the short run like nuclear and fossil fuels.

Of course, government "investments" won't do anything for energy.


And, industrial favoritism is a real thing. But, it is better known as crony capitalism.

I would still like a definition.

Okay, it is the government picking favorited industries and giving them special tax breaks, protectionism, loopholes, subsidies, etc.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 11:15:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:49:01 PM, rogue wrote:

First, I don't think you understand how the free enterprise system works. If a business cannot succeed on a free market, it goes out of business.

I understand fine and if we lived in a truly free market then I would support what you are saying. But we don't. We are capitalist.

Free market = capitalism.

If you allow so many people to lose their source of income, they will have no money to buy product and the economy will fail much more drastically. It isn't as though these businesses failed because their product wasn't good enough, they failed because of bad business practices and we can't let the people they employed suffer for their mistakes.

So your telling me that If a business fails because of "bad practices" that no corporation will try to buy the companies assets and make them more productive?


When the government artificially keeps industries alive, it only wastes resources and keeps new competitors and enterprises from arising. It makes the entire population worse off.

If we lived in a truly free market, you'd be right.

So your solution to crony capitalism is more crony capitalism?

Are you kidding? Do you know how bad that is for the environment? It pollutes the water horribly for one thing. I'm guessing you don't believe in global warming despite the immense amount of undeniable scientific evidence for it so I won't go into that.

There are trade-offs between environmental friendliness and cheaper goods and services. 100% environmental friendliness is impossible. Even hybrid cars run on environmentally unfriendly batteries.

Even if we did drill everywhere, we would still run out of oil eventually. It is not renewable. We need to invest in renewable resources before it is too late. We need to think about the future.

The supply of petroleum and even some natural gas is running out. The supply of coal and uranium has enough energy to last thousands of years. By then, the world should develop the technology for fusion, in which the amount of fuel for that is plentiful.


And, industrial favoritism is a real thing. But, it is better known as crony capitalism.

I would still like a definition.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 11:54:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:08:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 8:50:19 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Never did I say it did. However government health care leads to reduced costs for cars given that government health care is far superior and cheaper then private health care.

Not only is government healthcare far inferior to that of free market healthcare (as evident by facts), but you are still making a comparison between cars and healthcare. See the bolded words.
Part of the cost of cars is the cost of paying the workers who make those cars, and since workers get health care via their employer lowering health care costs results in lower labor costs for employers.
Also you are a 100% dumbass if you think private health care is better then government health care.
So plz stop posting until you get a clue which means never post again because you are a retard
http://www.cms.hhs.gov...
==Medicare costs per beneficiary since 1970 have been 1.1% less than the private market.
==If the private markets cost inflation equaled that of Medicare private insurance would cost 44% less than it does today.
--or it would cost .8 trillion less.

http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
^3 studies show VA has better care than private hospitals, and costs less even though it treats older, sicker patients.
^VA health care delivers about 30% better quality care than private health care.
^VA Costs 40% less than private health care.

http://www.reuters.com...
^United states is ranked last on health care outcomes among 16 nations.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
==1) American's want their health care system changed more than two times the amount that people in "socialized medicine" countries do.
2) Americans report 50% more medical errors then those in socialized medicine countries.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
http://www.who.int...
http://assets.opencrs.com...
http://www.oecd.org...
==Academic standards show America has worse healthcare then other countries.
USA compared to government health care. (all statistics are per capita).
Where America is worse.
1) America has 50% more Medical errors.
2) America is worst in preventable deaths. If America was like government health care 200,000 people would be saved a year.
3) America has 2 million more medical bankruptcies compared to 0.
4) America has 26% less doctors.
5) America has 4% less nurses.
6) America has 46% less hospital beds.
7) America saw half the life expectancy change than countries who changed to government health care.
8) Infant mortality rates are 17% higher in America.
9) America has 100% less Psychiatric care beds.
10) America has 20% less people who go to hospitals.
11) America has 26% more years of life lost due to medical reasons.
12) America has 40% more Respiratory deaths
13) US Tuberculosis treatment success is 10% less

http://assets.opencrs.com...
1) USA spends 150% more than the OCED average.
2) OCED has 33% more patients
3) OCED has 71% more doctor visits
4) OCED has 25% more doctors
5 OCED has 46% more hospital beds
6) OCED has 75% less deaths due to medical errors

Just to repeat, you are a dumbass
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/29/2012 11:55:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 11:54:26 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/29/2012 10:08:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 2/29/2012 8:50:19 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Never did I say it did. However government health care leads to reduced costs for cars given that government health care is far superior and cheaper then private health care.

Not only is government healthcare far inferior to that of free market healthcare (as evident by facts), but you are still making a comparison between cars and healthcare. See the bolded words.
Part of the cost of cars is the cost of paying the workers who make those cars, and since workers get health care via their employer lowering health care costs results in lower labor costs for employers.
Also you are a 100% dumbass if you think private health care is better then government health care.
So plz stop posting until you get a clue which means never post again because you are a retard
http://www.cms.hhs.gov...
==Medicare costs per beneficiary since 1970 have been 1.1% less than the private market.
==If the private markets cost inflation equaled that of Medicare private insurance would cost 44% less than it does today.
--or it would cost .8 trillion less.

http://thinkprogress.org...
http://thinkprogress.org...
^3 studies show VA has better care than private hospitals, and costs less even though it treats older, sicker patients.
^VA health care delivers about 30% better quality care than private health care.
^VA Costs 40% less than private health care.

http://www.reuters.com...
^United states is ranked last on health care outcomes among 16 nations.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
==1) American's want their health care system changed more than two times the amount that people in "socialized medicine" countries do.
2) Americans report 50% more medical errors then those in socialized medicine countries.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org...
http://www.who.int...
http://assets.opencrs.com...
http://www.oecd.org...
==Academic standards show America has worse healthcare then other countries.
USA compared to government health care. (all statistics are per capita).
Where America is worse.
1) America has 50% more Medical errors.
2) America is worst in preventable deaths. If America was like government health care 200,000 people would be saved a year.
3) America has 2 million more medical bankruptcies compared to 0.
4) America has 26% less doctors.
5) America has 4% less nurses.
6) America has 46% less hospital beds.
7) America saw half the life expectancy change than countries who changed to government health care.
8) Infant mortality rates are 17% higher in America.
9) America has 100% less Psychiatric care beds.
10) America has 20% less people who go to hospitals.
11) America has 26% more years of life lost due to medical reasons.
12) America has 40% more Respiratory deaths
13) US Tuberculosis treatment success is 10% less

http://assets.opencrs.com...
1) USA spends 150% more than the OCED average.
2) OCED has 33% more patients
3) OCED has 71% more doctor visits
4) OCED has 25% more doctors
5 OCED has 46% more hospital beds
6) OCED has 75% less deaths due to medical errors

Just to repeat, you are a dumbass

Starcraftzzz, please stop trolling my threads with your nonsense.
President of DDO
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 12:01:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:10:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/29/2012 10:00:32 PM, rogue wrote:
What is bad about unions??!! They PROTECT the working class! Before unions, companies completely exploited their workers. Have you taken American or world history?

No, the increase in capital has increased the wealth of Americans, not unions. No evidence indicates that unions increase wages for the whole of society. If the US were to lose all their capital stock, then our level of wealth would go down significantly, and unions could not do anything about it. The industrial revolution seems harsh by modern standards, but life was much harsher pre-industrial period.
As always you are wrong
http://www.vpppa.org...
^Unionized workplaces com,parable to other workplaces have 30% less accidents/injuries
/http://www.epi.org...
^Unions raise unionized workers compensation by about 28%

www.askneca.com/unionadvantage/Electrical%20-%20Biz%20Plan%20(2).pdf
^Unionized construction business are 17% more efficient.

At 2/29/2012 10:10:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/29/2012 10:00:32 PM, rogue wrote:
Nor would it make sense If they did since they do not increase the productivity of workers. Profits only account for about 8% of revenue so unions can't just "take from profits". However, the profits can be reinvested in more capital which can increase worker productivity.
Has show above unions actually result in higher productivity due to unionized workplaces having less accidents, less employee turnover, and healthier and more happier workers
So next time you decide to lie/talk about things you have no clue about just don't post
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 12:08:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Rogue, I'm gonna adress all of your posts in this one.

First, I don't think you understand how the free enterprise system works. If a business cannot succeed on a free market, it goes out of business.
Yep that is how a free market works. However us people with brains would rather that what is best for society and economic growth happen instead of business just failing

At 2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote: That is how progress works. The carriage industry had to die because it simply couldn't compete with cars. And, yes, of course jobs were lost when the carriage factories or whatever closed (there probably weren't carriage factories, but you get the idea).
Ford started out making carriages. The transfer from carriages to cars took place gradually and the capital to make cars was capital that started out making carriages, meaning the failure of carriages would result in the failure of cars being produced.

At 2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
When the government artificially keeps industries alive, it only wastes resources and keeps new competitors and enterprises from arising. It makes the entire population worse off.
PLz explain how 1.5million less jobs and American not having a car industry makes America better off.

At 2/29/2012 10:39:39 PM, jimtimmy wrote:: As far as energy goes, there is no reason to think that government "nvestment" or regulations will do anything but waste resources and increase gas prices.
All the facts show that you are wrong.
http://www.energy.gov...
^DOE energy standards for 20 appliances set to save a net of 275 billion dollars over 20 years. Appliances include but not excluded to, lamps, washing machines, refrigerators, freezers and dryers

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
^Light bulb energy standards will save 4 billion dollars each year,

http://www.energy.ca.gov...
http://edition.cnn.com...
^TV energy standards in California which will make TV's 49% more energy efficient set to save the state 1 billion dollars each year.

http://eetdnews.lbl.gov...
^DOE energy standards which will make washers/dryers 35% more energy efficient will save 35 billion dollars over 20 years.

http://www.environmentalleader.com...
^DOE energy standards which will make refrigerator and freezers 20% more energy efficient will save 30 billion dollars over 30 years.

http://earthjustice.org...
^-DOE energy standards for furnaces which would increase efficiency would save 11 billion dollars over 20 years.

http://www.treehugger.com...
^DOE energy standards requiring water heaters to be 37% more efficient will save 10 billion dollars over 30 years.
<b>Alright now that we know that you are an ignorant dumbass we should discount anything you have to say</b>