American car manufacturers-who needs them?

[Olsen]

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. We are in this sh** together. The pig and all....

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."

It could well be that I am poorly informed about political discussions among Americans. I haven't been over there since 91'. - I hope I am mistaken.

I have nothing against a heated discussion, and I will easily tolerate that someone get too heated. This we have to accept when discussing political issues. I have always found the few 'political' discussions here at RFF both civilized and informative. I am a strong believer in that 'the Net' is an excellent highway of two-way information across the Atlantic. Unparalelled in history.

A weakness with just writing to each other as we do here, we miss a few points of expression. First of all, English is not the mother-tongue to many of us here. Like myself. And we can't see each other's faces. Is he angry - or sarcastic - or just trying to be funny...? Or, all at once.

I will try my best not to be a troll, - but I have a lot of nations on my attention list. But we can't blame Fidel Castro for Guantanamo, can we? Further; the thing is about Guantanamo; you Americans can do something about it. We can't.

Nor have I ever 'bashed' ordinary US citizens. I have pointed to, over and over again, that this f... financial crisis, is something we, - ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic, are both the sufferers of.

 

[Micky D]

They are not nice people - never were.

You know them do you?

So kill them.

Yeah, whatever.

 

[bmattock]

That any 'terrorists' - freedom fighters really, like George Washington, go back to 'terrorism', is not the typical pattern.

If the US Revolutionary War had been fought like, say Al Quaida fights, it would have worked this way:

1) Declare war. Not independence, war. Threaten the British and order them to leave the British colonies in America.
2) Send over operatives to Britain to place bombs in civilian passenger vessels.
3) Place bombs in British government buildings, restaurants, anywhere civilians congregate.
4) Begin to assassinate suspected British sympathizers in the colonies, including their families. Cut off their heads.
5) Do not take military prisoners, but torture them to death and cut their heads off, parade their bodies through the streets.
6) Refuse to fight, but simply place monstrous bombs by the side of roads the British army will travel over, blowing them to smithereens - along with any other civilians or non-combatants in the area.
7) Convince others to join Washington's cause by appealing to their religious views and telling them that God wants them to die killing the British.
8) Strap bombs to American soldiers and their wives and children, and send them into British camps and British-occupied civilian establishments, to blow themselves to bits.

Yeah. George Washington was QUITE the terrorist.

 

[bmattock]

You know them do you?

Yes. They were combatants, picked up on the battlefield, engaged in warfare against US troops. Not nice people.

Yeah, whatever.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Micky D]

Yes. They were combatants, picked up on the battlefield, engaged in warfare against US troops. Not nice people.

P.O.W.s then?



God bless America.

 

[Micky D]

Continue amongst yourselves, I'm finished.

 

[bmattock]

P.O.W.s then?

I did say that in my opinion, they should have been treated like POWs or like criminals and given due process.

God bless America.

I certainly hope so, not that we've done anything to deserve it lately.

 

[bmattock]

Continue amongst yourselves, I'm finished.

Ever notice that people who quit in a huff always have to show you their nice shiny huff before they get in it and drive off?

 

[Olsen]

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.

What does history say about this?

Practically the whole Norwegian government in 46' had been prisoners at Sachsenhausen, Germany during WWII. Did they turn into maniacs? No. They cooly sat down with their ex captors - the Germans, and made trade agreements, state visits and became their allies through NATO.

The mental powers of German POWs that sat more than 10 years after WWII in Siberia were not in a state that motivated to terrorist acts against CCCP.
Those who escaped alcoholism wrote a book about it.

Etc.

 

[gdi]

It could well be that I am poorly informed about political discussions among Americans. I haven't been over there since 91'. - I hope I am mistaken.

I told you you are wrong - don't squander your hope like Narvik's pension fund.

I have nothing against a heated discussion, and I will easily tolerate that someone get too heated. This we have to accept when discussing political issues. I have always found the few 'political' discussions here at RFF both civilized and informative. I am a strong believer in that 'the Net' is an excellent highway of two-way information across the Atlantic. Unparalelled in history.

A weakness with just writing to each other as we do here, we miss a few points of expression. First of all, English is not the mother-tongue to many of us here. Like myself. And we can't see each other's faces. Is he angry - or sarcastic - or just trying to be funny...? Or, all at once.

Your intent here is obvious, any time there is a thread leaving any potential opening for you to come insult the US, you jump right in.

I will try my best not to be a troll, - but I have a lot of nations on my attention list. But we can't blame Fidel Castro for Guantanamo, can we? Further; the thing is about Guantanamo; you Americans can do something about it. We can't.

Nor have I ever 'bashed' ordinary US citizens. I have pointed to, over and over again, that this f... financial crisis, is something we, - ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic, are both the sufferers of.

Of course you bash us, by implying we are too unaware, stupid, or disinterested to be concerned about our - or world- politics. And by calling us an uncivilized nation due to the relatively rare (as opposed to life or other imprisonment) implementation of the death penalty. I assume - you have other "nations on your attention list" for that reason? Or are there other things that warrant inclusion on your list of the un-civilized?

 

[bmattock]

What does history say about this?

Practically the whole Norwegian government in 46' had been prisoners at Sachsenhausen, Germany during WWII. Did they turn into maniacs? No. They cooly sat down with their ex captors - the Germans, and made trade agreements, state visits and became their allies through NATO.

The mental powers of German POWs that sat more than 10 years after WWII in Siberia were not in a state that motivated to terrorist acts against CCCP.
Those who escaped alcoholism wrote a book about it.

Etc.

They were not religiously-motivated terrorists who thought that you could get to heaven by blowing yourself up in the presence of civilian enemies.

In addition, their wars were over. There was no struggle to go back to.

And as we see, the terrorists who have been released from Gitmo are going back to their old ways.

So it's not quite the same.

 

[Olsen]

I told you you are wrong - don't squander your hope like Narvik's pension fund.

The Narvik pension fund? never mind that!

There is flowing steady stream of cash from Norwegian pension funds and Norwegian governmental coffers (Norwegian tax payers, that is) to US financial institutions, - et al. Ranging from Lehman Brothers and CitiGroup. Norwegian pension funds are one of the really big loosers in the financial mele' of Wall Street.

Further, we have just ordered 6 new Hercules transports from you, for our military. A huge investment for a nation half the size of Ohio. Without having you to face competition. An illegal act, by our government, both according to our own law and EU regulations. Generous, he?

We even have decided to buy this new fighter jet from you. An investment larger than our 10 year plan modernizing our complete national railway system. The competitors, the Swedes and the Brits, are furious and call it foul play, and shouts 'corruption'! So do I.

Norway, a tiny nation of 4,7 million inhabitants (stupid, sure!) is one of the largest holders of US Treasury Securities (link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt ). We are the 11th largest creditor to the US government. And our pension funds are all filled with GM and Ford shares.

Reassuring, he?

We'll go down with'ya!

 

[Olsen]

They were not religiously-motivated terrorists who thought that you could get to heaven by blowing yourself up in the presence of civilian enemies.

In addition, their wars were over. There was no struggle to go back to.

And as we see, the terrorists who have been released from Gitmo are going back to their old ways.

So it's not quite the same.

It is close to the same. The Norwegians in German - Nazi, captivity were socialists. Most of the German POWS in Russia were nazis. The Russians even tried to 're-educate' them. - I really hope that the prisoners at Guantanamo were spared having to listen to tapes with Milton Freedman!

Jonny Cash I can take.

 

[40oz]

I for one like my American Ford. And let's not ignore the fact that every car maker is asking their gov't for money. Or near enough to "every" as to make it the same thing. Ford isn't, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong at GM and Chrysler - the credit markets are gone. GM had spent the last few years spending money on new models and buying out labor contracts. Chrysler is coming off a separation from Daimler, and obviously if there was a huge amount of cash sitting around in Chrysler accounts, Daimler would have kept them.

So enough about what car companies needing loans. How about what Wall Street is asking for in handouts? Sure, buying into a failed business isn't charity. It's throwing good money after bad. At least the cost of the auto maker loan program is minimal compared to the money pit that is Wall Street. Seriously, if those guys can't keep in the black, wtf are they doing in those top positions in banking and finance anyway? Did we graduate a class of morons a number of years back? It sure seems like it.

 

[crawdiddy]

I really hope that the prisoners at Guantanamo were spared having to listen to tapes with Milton Freedman!

Milton Friedman?

No, Bush and Cheney were more diabolical than that. They were making them listen to Sarah Palin speeches.

 

[ebolton]

Did we graduate a class of morons a number of years back? It sure seems like it.

The complaints about American education often start with an observation that we are falling behind technologically. I think the events of the last 6 months show we need to be examining the worth of the education and/or MBA degrees our business schools provide. We may be much more deficient there than we are in math, science, and engineering.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Read The Black Swan, which explains exactly why MBAs and economists are for the most part worthless. Take a look at the author's site, too:

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

The man is a genius, and highly amusing to boot.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Olsen]

I think the events of the last 6 months show we need to be examining the worth of the education and/or MBA degrees our business schools provide.

Absolutely! I have an MBA from London School of Economics. In retrospect it is difficult to split between of what I was thought was pure 'political propaganda' and what was 'science'. One such political notion is that 'things are better run private'. Sure, it is best for those owning the private institutions that it is private. This touches the real political struggle is about; 'who shall own..'

Another is that 'tax reductions stimulate business'. It stimulate 'consumer business', but the money would just as well be more wisely spent if spent by the government.

And os on.


Milton Friedman is just another 'idea-freak'. Like Carl Marx. Typical for both of them is that neither of the ideas make anyone prosper, in the end.

 

[jonmanjiro]

Absolutely! I have an MBA from London School of Economics. In retrospect it is difficult to split between of what I was thought was pure 'political propaganda' and what was 'science'. One such political notion is that 'things are better run private'. Sure, it is best for those owning the private institutions that it is private. This touches the real political struggle is about; 'who shall own..'

Another is that 'tax reductions stimulate business'. It stimulate 'consumer business', but the money would just as well be more wisely spent if spent by the government.

And os on.


Milton Friedman is just another 'idea-freak'. Like Carl Marx. Typical for both of them is that neither of the ideas make anyone prosper, in the end.

Hmmm, reminds me of this:

(Permission to reprint is expressly granted!)
POLITICS IN DISGUISE
by Jay Hanson

A large percentage of the Nobel laureates in economics live in cocoons. -- E.O. Wilson

The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise ... economics is a form of brain damage. -- Hazel Henderson

Economics should be seen as politics -- not science -- for two reasons:

(1) Economists do not use the "scientific method". (2) The economist's agenda is explicitly "normative" (political).

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1 Observe some aspect of the universe.
2 Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3 Use the theory to make predictions.
4 Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5 Modify the theory in the light of your results.
Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ]

Economists will argue that "Economic systems are generally too complex to be replicated in a laboratory environment, so economists analyze the data."

But consider the POLITICAL heart and soul of economics: the "rational utility mazimizer".

"One of the peculiarities of economics is that it still rests on a behavioral assumption -- rational utility maximization -- that has long since been rejected by sociologists and psychologists who specialize in studying human behavior. Rational individual utility (income) maximization was the common assumption of all social science in the nineteenth century, but only economics continues to use it.

"Contrary behavioral evidence has had little impact on economics because having a theory of how the world 'ought' to act, economists can reject all manner of evidence showing that individuals are not rational utility maximizers. Actions that are not rational maximizations exist, but they are labeled 'market imperfections' that 'ought' to be eliminated. Individual economic actors 'ought' to be rational utility maximizers and they can be taught to do what they 'ought' to do. Prescription dominates description in economics, while the reverse is true in the other social sciences that study real human behavior." [p. 216, Thurow, 1983]

The reason that economists cling to nineteenth-century behavioral assumptions is because without them, they are out of a job!

It's a fact of life that economic theories can only be replaced by better economic theories. And since economists can not invent a better theory because of a fundementally-flawed world view, they work to make the world match existing theory. If economists told the truth, they would be unemployed.

The solution of course, is to junk economics, economists and start over:

"No compelling reason has ever been offered why the same strategy [of consilience] should not work to unite the natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. The difference between the two domains is in the magnitude of the problem, not the principles needed for its solution." -- E.O. Wilson
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow1.htm

 

[Olsen]

Hmmm, reminds me of this:

You hit the nail with this one. A lecturer I had said that you cannot succeed in the financial market if you haven't read Carl Marx best observation of Capitalism;
'Das Kapital'. Carl Marx's readings have been (and still is?) illegal at US universities, I have heard.