(04-28-2009 07:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-28-2009 05:18 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-28-2009 11:36 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-28-2009 04:12 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  GM is set to give the Gubment and UAW 89% of the company, current shareholders would end up with a 1% stake with the rest going to creditors. Chrysler is going to give Fiat 20% and the UAW another 55%. This effectively ends the existence of two of the big three. Ford can not last outside gubment control. Almost half the GM dealers will be forced to close.

I would have preferred bankruptcy to this. I will NEVER buy another American made car period! The UAW can take a flying leap!!!

Good don't buy another American car. THe new workers are making $15/hour plus benefits. Do you REALLY have a problem with that? How much do you think they should make $8/hour and no benefits like Wal-Mart? Also remember, many of the workers are getting old so much of the workforces' pay is going to come down in the next few years making the company more competetive.

Btw, I think you should take a flying leap, not the Unions.

Let's see what the LAZY arse UAW has enjoyed/extorted over the past few years.

4 years severance pay if they were permanently laid off
100% paid Health/Dental/vision coverage for employees and retirees
Higher pay than any other nations auto workers (since Democrats like to talk about how great other countries are)
Union paid country clubs


Forgive me if I don't cry for them, actually I hope every last one of them is out of work in five years for their greed.

I hope you aren't talking about the workers being selfish. Health insurance is needed.

Health insurance is needed, absolutely, but the only workers I know that have their insurance paid 100% by their private industry employer is the UAW. There is a shared responsibility here, employers should be required to provide affordable health care coverage, even the Walmart's, and employees should pay a portion to get this coverage. It should not be free, but it should be affordable.

Ok, I get ya. Do they not have a co-pay?

(04-28-2009 07:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Unions have worn out their welcomes. They have made the workplace habitable, but now all they do is kill business. They saw that GM was going in the tank and they still made impossible demands and now they are paying. Sometimes it's better to make $8 an hour with benefits (they'll never cut that out) than to make nothing at all. As property values go lower, it will become a livable wage.

But I do have to say that if there is a small company out there that can come around and create jobs, this is their chance. Just go to SC (I hate to say that), they'll give you all of the incentives in the world to do business there.

:ncaabbs: :ncaabbs: :ncaabbs: :ncaabbs: :ncaabbs:

You nailed it.

And I will never buy a car from a UAW plant, especially now that they own those plants. The inmates are, indeed, running the asylum.

I don't see how American industry can remain competitive in the world. We'll still have retail and service, and we'll still have those manufacturing facilities that make stuff exclusively for the domestic market. But I simply do not see how American industry can compete for export sales. WIthout export sales, I don't see how we survive as an economy.

Somebody with a different view, please speak up, because I'd love to believe it is possible. I just don't.

(04-28-2009 08:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see how American industry can remain competitive in the world. We'll still have retail and service, and we'll still have those manufacturing facilities that make stuff exclusively for the domestic market. But I simply do not see how American industry can compete for export sales. WIthout export sales, I don't see how we survive as an economy.

Somebody with a different view, please speak up, because I'd love to believe it is possible. I just don't.

We've got to get our businesses to stop manufacturing their products in China, Mexico, etc.

Through lower taxes all around it can be done.

(04-28-2009 08:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-28-2009 08:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see how American industry can remain competitive in the world. We'll still have retail and service, and we'll still have those manufacturing facilities that make stuff exclusively for the domestic market. But I simply do not see how American industry can compete for export sales. WIthout export sales, I don't see how we survive as an economy.
Somebody with a different view, please speak up, because I'd love to believe it is possible. I just don't.

We've got to get our businesses to stop manufacturing their products in China, Mexico, etc.

Well, the way we're headed isn't the way to do that. And trade protection doesn't work either. If we put a tariff on stuff from China that may help US companies compete with Chinese companies in the US market. But it doesn't help us at all in any other market in the world (may even hurt in a few depending on how the retaliation goes). If the product involved is a raw material (say, steel), then every US company that makes anything out of that steel now has higher costs than its international competitors (who get to use the Chinese steel without the tariffs). Even if it is a final consumer product, then every worker's cost to maintain the same standard of living just went up, so to keep workers in the same place you need across-the-board wage hikes, which again makes the US company less competitive in world markets.

The one protectionist change that might help is a consumption tax, becasue that is not only charged on imports but rebated on exports. That means it helps limit imports and helps expand exports.

(04-28-2009 08:43 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Through lower taxes all around it can be done.

Yeah, but we're not headed that way. If we were, I'd be more optimistic.

(04-28-2009 08:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see how American industry can remain competitive in the world. We'll still have retail and service, and we'll still have those manufacturing facilities that make stuff exclusively for the domestic market. But I simply do not see how American industry can compete for export sales. WIthout export sales, I don't see how we survive as an economy.

Somebody with a different view, please speak up, because I'd love to believe it is possible. I just don't.

Have I brought up Ricardo before? It seems like you think Ricardo is the root of all evil. And, I will once again profess my ignorance of general economic theory.

(04-28-2009 10:31 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-28-2009 08:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see how American industry can remain competitive in the world. We'll still have retail and service, and we'll still have those manufacturing facilities that make stuff exclusively for the domestic market. But I simply do not see how American industry can compete for export sales. WIthout export sales, I don't see how we survive as an economy.
Somebody with a different view, please speak up, because I'd love to believe it is possible. I just don't.

Have I brought up Ricardo before? It seems like you think Ricardo is the root of all evil. And, I will once again profess my ignorance of general economic theory.

Actually, not at all. I'm more in line with Malthus than Ricardo on the rent issue, but I'm a huge proponent of free trade, and basically agree with Ricardo's concepts of competitive avantage and comparative advantage. In Ricardian terms, the problem I see is that we are doing nothing to stimulate a comparative advantage anywhere except retail and service, and even there the only significant advantage we offer is proximity to a large market. This was enough to attract manufacturing, too, when we were clearly the world's largest market and transportation issues were more difficult. But in today's global economy, with the EU and huge emerging markets elsewhere, and with the amount of value you can move around the world overnight by loading a 747 with laptops, the old restrictions on location don't apply.

I'm not nearly as concerned about jobs sewing Nikes going to Thailand as I am about jobs building robots going to Ireland. They clearly hold the comparative advantage on the former, but we should be able to hold the comparative advantage on the latter and we don't. Socialists like to point to the former whenever the subject arises, because they don't want to deal with the issues raised by the latter.

In the end, this means a massive wealth transfer overseas to pay for the value that gets added in the manufacturing that takes place there. The economy can only sustain so long as we can attract the money back as investment. So we just get deeper and deeper in debt to China, until they cut us off and we become Zimbabwe.

We would presumably still have large agricultural production, of course. But a model where we ship agricultural production overseas and purchase manufactured goods from overseas is not one that has led to very admirable societies. The slave-holding American south and the banana republics come to mind. Swapping raw materials and agricultural products for finished goods has pretty much always been a losing proposition. In particular it seems to promote tremendous inequality of income distribution.

The liberals seem to be making the bet that through more equal redistribution of wealth we will somehow magically and mysteriously solve these problems. The way that worked under communism was that if I'm the government and you have one dollar and Jimmy has none, then I steal your dollar and now you and Jimmy are equal. I see absolutely no reason for believing that we'll get a better result from the likes of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama.

(04-28-2009 08:46 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-28-2009 08:13 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I imagine that soon we'll see a government sponsored "cash for clunkers" program here in the States. Turn in your 10+ year old car, get $2k from Obama towards a new American car of a certain +MPG and manufacturer pedigree......

Not debating the who/what/why/when and where of the "cash for clunkers" program, but it will help the auto companies for a while.

There was such a program in the first budget back in February 2009--$4500 for vehicles 2002 and older that got less than 20 mpg. But it didn't make it out of Conference Committee.

Considering that the new standard for cars is 35 mpg, all that incentive would do is cause people to buy cars they can't afford to keep in gasoline. The cars are cheap, but keeping gas in 'em is going to cost twice what it would in a new car. Maintainence costs will be considerably higher as the technology changes...

Help like that citizens don't need. It'll help the auto industry at the expense of the consumer. If they aren't able to survive in a capitalist society, a true capitalist would let them fold. It's supply and demand. Market forces dictate the terms...

Isn't that what Republicans have been saying for eons?

(04-29-2009 08:48 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If they aren't able to survive in a capitalist society, a true capitalist would let them fold. It's supply and demand. Market forces dictate the terms...

Isn't that what Republicans have been saying for eons?

Yes, we basically all said when this thing started, that if they have ran them selves into the ground by being like Obama and sucking at being Financially Astute, then let them fall down like big dominoes.

Stop bailing out every tin-horn that comes running at you begging for bail-out money and then you get so arrogant that you "Socialize and Commutize Private Industry and now the White Owns the American Auto Industry and Runs it from the Oval Orifice".

Let them fail ... they HAVE FAILED and won't be worth spit now that the Fed Owns Them and Controls Them.

Hitler HAD HIS OWN AUTO COMPANY too !!!!!

Shout Out now Robert, take up for your Little Half Blood Prince ... he needs the help if a teleprompter is not in line of sight.

.

(04-29-2009 06:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, not at all. I'm more in line with Malthus than Ricardo on the rent issue, but I'm a huge proponent of free trade, and basically agree with Ricardo's concepts of competitive avantage and comparative advantage. In Recardian terms, the problem I see is that we are doing nothing to stimulate a comparative advantage anywhere except retail and service, and even there the only significant advantage we offer is proximity to a large market. This was enough to attract manufacturing, too, when we were clearly the world's largest market and transportation issues were more difficult. But in today's global economy, with the EU and huge emerging markets elsewhere, and with the amount of value you can move around the world overnight by packing a 747 with electronics, the old restrictions on location don't apply.

I'm not nearly as concerned about jobs sewing Nikes going to Thailand as I am about jobs building robots going to Ireland. They clearly hold the comparative advantage on the former, but we should be able to hold the comparative advantage on the latter and we don't. Socialists like to point to the former whenever the subject arises, because they don't want to deal with the issues raised by the latter.

Ok, now you're just depressing me. I have to confess that I don't know the difference between Malthusian and Manichean. After reading the wiki page on Malthus, it seems like Mach would've avoided a lot of grief in another thread if he'd simply said "I'm a Malthusian" (aside from the fact that half of us may have thought he belonged to an obscure Persian religion, it more elegantly states his expressed feelings).

Malthus looks interesting, and it seems like he's gone in depth with some of my intuitive thoughts on population and economics. It's funny that I thought of overpopulation as a modern problem, but the problems of modern day Ethiopia probably isn't that much different from feudal Normandy except that we have millionaires that write songs about it to try to solve the problem.

I tend to view modern day India as comparable to pre-industrial England in that it has a very stratified society with a lot of poor, and India really seems poised for good economic growth. Some of the Indian politicians that I've heard seem to be liberal economists (liberal as in Austrian school). It's a very weak comparison in a lot of ways, but I see them as the next great superpower.

(04-29-2009 09:39 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-29-2009 06:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, not at all. I'm more in line with Malthus than Ricardo on the rent issue, but I'm a huge proponent of free trade, and basically agree with Ricardo's concepts of competitive avantage and comparative advantage. In Recardian terms, the problem I see is that we are doing nothing to stimulate a comparative advantage anywhere except retail and service, and even there the only significant advantage we offer is proximity to a large market. This was enough to attract manufacturing, too, when we were clearly the world's largest market and transportation issues were more difficult. But in today's global economy, with the EU and huge emerging markets elsewhere, and with the amount of value you can move around the world overnight by packing a 747 with electronics, the old restrictions on location don't apply.

I'm not nearly as concerned about jobs sewing Nikes going to Thailand as I am about jobs building robots going to Ireland. They clearly hold the comparative advantage on the former, but we should be able to hold the comparative advantage on the latter and we don't. Socialists like to point to the former whenever the subject arises, because they don't want to deal with the issues raised by the latter.

Ok, now you're just depressing me. I have to confess that I don't know the difference between Malthusian and Manichean. After reading the wiki page on Malthus, it seems like Mach would've avoided a lot of grief in another thread if he'd simply said "I'm a Malthusian" (aside from the fact that half of us may have thought he belonged to an obscure Persian religion, it more elegantly states his expressed feelings).

Malthus looks interesting, and it seems like he's gone in depth with some of my intuitive thoughts on population and economics. It's funny that I thought of overpopulation as a modern problem,

But that fact indeed disproves Malthus' writing. People have been making claims about overpopulation for centuries, and despite rapid growth, humans have survived and even thrived.

There is no doubt that Malthus was an influential writer, however his ideas are evidenced to be flawed, and their persistence is a travesty. Oddly enough, I find this to be the case as well w/ Freud and even Darwin, while in contrast few people know much about someone like Faraday.

(04-29-2009 09:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But that fact indeed disproves Malthus' writing. People have been making claims about overpopulation for centuries, and despite rapid growth, humans have survived and even thrived.

This is quite true ...

Even with all the Disease, Starvation, Murder, and other horrors on the Continent of Africa, their population is Calculated to Rise within just a few short years to "2 Billion Living Souls" !!!!!!!

I mean how in the heck are they able to do that ????

Just think what Africa's population would be if it were not Plagued with Every Kind of Horrible Death you can Dream Up and all the other 5th World Issues Africa Faces.

Africa would have "5 Billion People" living on her RIGHT NOW !!!!!!!

I don't see how and I have to wonder how many dead bodies are stacked against the calculation of living ones in this equation ..... think about that for a second and it ought to simply floor you.

But "Thrive They Do" ...

.

(04-29-2009 08:48 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If they aren't able to survive in a capitalist society, a true capitalist would let them fold. It's supply and demand. Market forces dictate the terms...
Isn't that what Republicans have been saying for eons?

Not really. That's what republicans said historically. But it sure isn't what Shrub said. He started this stimulus approach that Obama is bastardizing.

Republicans were saying that in 1994, and they got pretty good results with it. They lost their way between 1994 and 2001, and they've lost pretty much everything else since then. A party whose prime tenets are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-war, pro-deficit and spend, and pro-bailing out Wall Street is neither the historical republican party nor a party that I can support.

The only people I hate worse than republicans are democrats.

Well then, maybe Africa would be a great place for American auto sales.

Case in point. Jeep has contracted their Wrangler to an Egyptian company that makes Wranglers for the military and for private sales.

Strip the Jeep to nothing but four tires, an engine and the iconic body, and you would think that there should be a market for Jeep in every single African country from Algeria to South Africa.

Granted, the vast majority of African's could never afford a new model, but the parts market alone would be a cash cow.....

(04-29-2009 10:54 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Well then, maybe Africa would be a great place for American auto sales.

Case in point. Jeep has contracted their Wrangler to an Egyptian company that makes Wranglers for the military and for private sales.

Strip the Jeep to nothing but four tires, an engine and the iconic body, and you would think that there should be a market for Jeep in every single African country from Algeria to South Africa.

Granted, the vast majority of African's could never afford a new model, but the parts market alone would be a cash cow.....

Yes, but if it's made in Egypt that does virtually nothing to create jobs here.

(04-29-2009 09:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  But that fact indeed disproves Malthus' writing. People have been making claims about overpopulation for centuries, and despite rapid growth, humans have survived and even thrived.
There is no doubt that Malthus was an influential writer, however his ideas are evidenced to be flawed, and their persistence is a travesty. Oddly enough, I find this to be the case as well w/ Freud and even Darwin, while in contrast few people know much about someone like Faraday.

For the record, I disagree with a lot of Matlhus. I'm just more comfortable with his concepts of rent than I am with Ricardo's.

(04-29-2009 09:31 AM)Tripster Wrote:  Hitler HAD HIS OWN AUTO COMPANY too !!!!!

The company was called Volkswagon, which means "the people's car" in German, and the car designed under Hitler's direction is the most purchased car in world history. That's a great example to use when talking about auto industry failures...