American car manufacturers-who needs them?

[crawdiddy]

As far as I know, none of those agencies create economic growth. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Please don't stretch my words to say that none of those agencies have value. That is a different topic.

Fair enough.

Did someone say the government creates economic growth? Or are you stretching someone else's words?

What do we do when the unemployment rate is climbing, and the economy is spiralling down? Are you saying the government should sit back and wait for the economy to recover on its own?

This is an economic stimulus program. The idea is to jumpstart the economy. "Socialist power grab" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

 

[splitimageview]

Fair enough.

Did someone say the government creates economic growth? Or are you stretching someone else's words?

Not sure what you mean by this. I said the government does NOT create economic growth.

What do we do when the unemployment rate is climbing, and the economy is spiralling down? Are you saying the government should sit back and wait for the economy to recover on its own?

This is an economic stimulus program. The idea is to jumpstart the economy. "Socialist power grab" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

When the government takes ownership, what is that called?

What creates economic activity is incentive. Cut capital gains taxes to zero for some time frame, say two years. Think that will put money back into the stock market? I'd say so, in a heartbeat it would.

Cut the corporate tax rate which is the highest in the world. Why send jobs overseas? Keep them here, by giving employers incentives. Right now the incentive is to export the jobs, because the tax rates are lower elsewhere.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[crawdiddy]

Cut capital gains taxes to zero for some time frame, say two years. Think that will put money back into the stock market? I'd say so, in a heartbeat it would.

Oh, so it's trickle-down economics you're promoting? I think George Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics.

Somehow, I'm thinking we tried that for 12 years under Reagan and Bush, and then another 8 years under the latest Bush. Reagan promised to balance the budget by cutting taxes. Guess what? It didn't work. Reagan added more to the National Debt than all the Presidents who came before him.

Are you following the lead of Rush Limbaugh, and hoping Obama will fail to improve economic conditions?

 

[splitimageview]

Instead of replying with a canned response, how about addressing my comment?

Does zero capital gains and lower taxes create incentive or not?

Creating incentive is just part of the equation. Stopping the massive government spending spree is the other part of the equation, which politicians of both the elephant and donkey parties seem to have forgotten.

I'm sorry I have no clue how to get politicians to stop wasting money... My solution is for there to be so much economic activity that it at least offsets the spending spree, which is what happened from 2002 to 2007, in fact. Then we just need to kick out all these politicians who can't seem to manage a budget.

 

[splitimageview]

As a follow up, the Reagan years had the greatest economic growth in history, following a few years of high inflation, unemployment, and ridiculous interest rates. The growth was all caused by lower taxes. What Reagan didn't do right, as you pointed out, was reign in spending.

What we have now is the complete opposite: negative economic growth (i.e., shrinkage), and the largest spending in history...if big spending was bad under Reagan, how can spending that is multiplied beyond that level be good now?

Someone please tell me how this can possibly work...

 

[Olsen]

A very interesting discussion, this.

And, - of cause, it was moved by the moderators. I find it striking that it is the Americans here, - first of all the moderators, that are so much against just any political discussion. It seems to me that America is a culture where political discussions is not part of the ordinary social life.

Curiously enough, this country, free of any civilized political discussion is a 'one party state' (well, two, sort of), have their 'jails packed with political prisoners', 'run consentration camps' - pratically all over the world, where people are held without a trial, and 'torture' is frequent. In this country the government 'executes prisoners' and runs a juridical system where innocent people are encouraged to admit crimes they have not done. And... The nation in question is bankrupt.

Isn't it about time that ordinary Americans tried discussing - æhum - politics...? I would say, it's urgent!

 

[bmattock]

Isn't it about time that ordinary Americans tried discussing - æhum - politics...? I would say, it's urgent!

Says the non-American citizen.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

A very interesting discussion, this.

And, - of cause, it was moved by the moderators. I find it striking that it is the Americans here, - first of all the moderators, that are so much against just any political discussion. It seems to me that America is a culture where political discussions is not part of the ordinary social life.

Curiously enough, this country, free of any civilized political discussion is a 'one party state' (well, two, sort of), have their 'jails packed with political prisoners', 'run consentration camps' - pratically all over the world, where people are held without a trail, and 'torture' is frequent. In this country the government 'executes prisoners' and runs a juridical system where innocent people are encouraged to admit crimes they have not done. And... The nation in question is bankrupt.

Isn't it about time that ordinary Americans tried discussing - æhum - politics...? I would say, it's urgent!

Here we go ...

BTW, what's with the quotation marks? Are you implying that America runs concentration camps or that people say it does? Both? Neither?

 

[crawdiddy]

A very interesting discussion, this.

And, - of cause, it was moved by the moderators. I find it striking that it is the Americans here, - first of all the moderators, that are so much against just any political discussion. It seems to me that America is a culture where political discussions is not part of the ordinary social life.

Isn't it about time that ordinary Americans tried discussing - æhum - politics...? I would say, it's urgent!

The moderators have not stepped into this discussion yet. (Thank you, mods. )

Of course etiquette dictates that politics and religion are off limits for polite discussion. However, Americans will broach the subject of politics. I'm not sure why this particular forum is so averse to political discussion.

And, by the way, I welcome the opinions of our overseas colleagues. The global economy is affected by current conditions anyway.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Of course etiquette dictates that politics and religion are off limits for polite discussion..

Dear Dan,

Not outside the US, at least in intelligent polite society.

Nor in the US either, except among the stupid or frightened, in my limited experience (married to an American 27 years, living in California 5 years, a year or more in visits since I met my wife).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Olsen]

Here we go ...

- Are you implying that America runs concentration camps or that people say it does?

'Me implying'? 'People say'? The US government admits that it runs Guantanamo. That's a good ol'fashioned consentration camp. Prisoners are held - under US authority, direct or indirect, without facing trial - in consentration camps, in both Iraq and Afganistan. Possibly other places too.

 

[Olsen]

First, it's a loan, not a gift. A loan, not a gift. A loan, not a gift. I repeat myself because people keep saying 'bailout' which is BS. A bailout is a gift. This is a loan. Repeat - this is a loan. One more time: this is a loan.

Second, this should not be a surprise. The amount requested previously was clearly stated as just the operating capital that was needed to get through the end of 2008. It did that. No one said that was the entire request, and no more would be requested after that. If you're surprised by the new request, you have not been paying attention.

Third, when the US car manufacturers go bankrupt, so do their suppliers - many already have. And they do not just supply to the US car industry, they supply to all the foreign car manufacturers that make cars in the US as well. US unemployment figures are bad - in Michigan they're much, much, worse. When that trickles out into the rest of the rust-belt that produces car parts and then companies that supply raw materials to car parts manufacturers, etc, you'll be looking at nationwide doubling of unemployment figures. We have been saying we're nowhere near Great Depression-level unemployment figures - this would put us not too far from those numbers.

Fourth, as you might have noticed. Toyota, which was previously not as affected as GM, Ford, or Chrysler, is also going to do layoffs and is now losing money too. Car sales are down. Chrysler workers won't be going to work for Toyota - Toyota is laying off, too. Did all the fired Kodak workers go to work for Fuji?

Fifth, the other governments around the world are either already or getting ready to support their sagging automotive industries as well. Japan has done it for years, when they were introducing cars to the US to compete with our vehicles. We Americans have typically let other governments prop up and support their industry to compete against our industry, in our country, while providing no such support for our industry - hardly fair and clearly biased towards foreign governments. We hate our own manufacturing base, and we punish them every chance we get by handicapping the race against them. Now they're on the ropes and we're deliriously happy. What is that about?

And finally, how large is that Stimulus Package? And what percentage of that goes to car manufacturers? It's all a gift - not a loan - from the American taxpayer to whomever. And for what? To create jobs, ostensibly.

And that's a good thing, right, while a loan - at interest - to a segment of the market that keeps a huge portion of the population employed is a bad thing?

Right. We love us a nice give-away to create jobs, but we hate us a much smaller loan package to keep jobs. That makes sense. Oh, no, wait, I mean it makes no sense at all.

We will pony up 700 billion for banks who got us into this mess, and all we do when we find out they ordered up a bunch of new executive jets and paid billions in bonuses is say how naughty they are and cough up some more money for them. But let the automotive industry - which may have gotten itself in trouble, but certainly did not, oh I dunno, SINK THE FREAKING ECONOMY ride to Washington in a private jet and oh dear lord it's the freaking Apocalypse.

We bail out the criminals who did this too us, and refuse to help the industry that, while they did not do well, at least did not do this to us, and whose jobs could keep us from doubling our current unemployment percentage.

Yeah, that's some smart thinking, that there.

This is very well put.

Those believing that it is a free market out there where governments does not support/subsidize their domestic industry - because it is illegal according to GATT/WTO/EU/USA laws should wake up to reality. Both German and Japanese car manufacturers have had much of their product development costs covered by the tax payers. - Just as US weapons industry can have their development costs covered by 'development contracts' etc.

Back in the late 80' early 90' California threatened to implement very stringent emission regulations from cars. Both the Japanese and German car manufacturors went to their governments 'in panic', and made the Japanese and German tax payers cover the cost of developing 'all new engines'. In reality, this program - mounting to several hundred of billions of German Marks, covered development of a range of other development programs. From lead free paint application to computer systems serving production planning etc. The US government of George bush 'the elder' protested, back then. But it did not look good when Bush sj. brought with him all the top brass of the US car manufacturers to Japan, of which one (Lee Iaccoca) earned more than all the Japanese car executives made together. Which points to one problem with US car makers.


Nor is USA free of tarifs. Nor is USA a free market for all import from all countries. This is a far reaching issue - material for a brickstone of a book. So, don't cry yourself to sleep over there.

 

[crawdiddy]

Dear Dan,

Not outside the US, at least in intelligent polite society.

Nor in the US either, except among the stupid or frightened, in my limited experience (married to an American 27 years, living in California 5 years, a year or more in visits since I met my wife).

Cheers,

R.

I certainly agree, Roger. Curiously, the one place where the political discussion taboo seems most absolute, is when standing in line at the polling place.

 

[bmattock]

'Me implying'? 'People say'? The US government admits that it runs Guantanamo. That's a good ol'fashioned consentration camp. Prisoners are held - under US authority, direct or indirect, without facing trial - in consentration camps, in both Iraq and Afganistan. Possibly other places too.

I agree. And they should not be held there. They should be executed.

Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as "returning to the fight" and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

 

[Micky D]

They should be executed.

Before or after trial?

 

[Olsen]

I agree. And they should not be held there. They should be executed.

That any 'terrorists' - freedom fighters really, like George Washington, go back to 'terrorism', is not the typical pattern. The few cases followed by European press, that have been released from Guantanamo here in Europe (Sweden and GB) went right to mental hospitals....

I agree that individuals suspected of 'terrorism against innocent civilians' should face trial as criminals. If their targets were soldiers in a military action, they should be treated as POWs. But regardless of their deeds, they should not be executed. Governments of civilized nations should not execute people. Regardless.

 

[gdi]

A very interesting discussion, this.

And, - of cause, it was moved by the moderators. I find it striking that it is the Americans here, - first of all the moderators, that are so much against just any political discussion. It seems to me that America is a culture where political discussions is not part of the ordinary social life.

Curiously enough, this country, free of any civilized political discussion is a 'one party state' (well, two, sort of), have their 'jails packed with political prisoners', 'run consentration camps' - pratically all over the world, where people are held without a trial, and 'torture' is frequent. In this country the government 'executes prisoners' and runs a juridical system where innocent people are encouraged to admit crimes they have not done. And... The nation in question is bankrupt.

Isn't it about time that ordinary Americans tried discussing - æhum - politics...? I would say, it's urgent!

You are very poorly informed - political discussion, argument, and bloviation is alive and well in the USA. Not a day goes by that I do not have a spirited discussion on these topics.

But that is in the real world. And the discussions, while sometimes heated, remain respectful. My view of photography forum political discussions is that they tend to be far less productive with many " 'nuff saids" and simplistic platitudes, and insults directed at one or another political party or figure.

Also, many times, and particularly when you, Olsen, decide to enter into a politically related discussion, it reachs the lows of simply bashing the US and its citizens. I would posit that many intelligent and civilized would-be participants simply choose not to pick up your troll's gauntlet.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

 

[crawdiddy]

I am an American. I'm a native Texan. I am certainly NOT an America-basher. But, I cannot defend Gitmo prison camps or torture.

We're supposed to be a nation of laws. Our leaders are expected to follow those laws. And when we torture prisoners, we're no better than the terrorists.

The end does not justify the means.

 

[gdi]

I actually agree with everything you said, Roger - except the bit about the loan being a bailout.

A loan may well 'bail out' the auto industry, but it is no giveaway, and that's what the term has been taken to mean. The banking 'bail out' is much more of a "Here's a big stack of cash, best of luck to you" giveaway.

I don't think it is disingenuous to insist on the use of the proper term, simply on the basis that the people who *are* using the term 'bailout' to apply to the auto-sector loans are those who would like it not to happen, and they use it as an emotionally-charged weasel-word to make it seem like some monstrous free money giveaway to the auto industry, when it isn't.

While I am not opposed to providing help to the US Auto industry, in fact I think it makes a lot of sense, it is proper to use the term "bailout". It is commonly used in this context - these are preferential loans given to the companies to prevent their bankruptcy. Bailout doesn't have to mean a pure giveaway.

However, I do think the term implies that they will be lifted from their precarious situations and I don't believe these loans do that. I was really hoping to see something done to incent people to buy cars as well as pulling them back from the brink - cash-wise.

 

[bmattock]

Before or after trial?

What trial?

I don't like what we've done (America, I mean). I think due process is important, and everyone's rights under the law must be respected. They should never have been in Gitmo to begin with. They should not have been tortured. They should have been either treated like prisoners of war or like criminals, and afforded due process based on that.

But now, six or seven years of internment later, they're destroyed. We did that. They are not nice people - never were. They did that.

We can't let them go. They will be a danger to us the rest of their lives. We can't keep them locked up like animals, we are supposed to be better than that.

So kill them. And do not do this again. No more prisoners without rights, forever in limbo.

I'm not happy about it. I just don't see any other solution.