General Motors reported its highest profit in the history of the company. 2011 saw earnings of 7.6 billion dollars.Strong sales in the U.S. and China helped the carmaker turn a profit of $7.6 billion, beating its old record of $6.7 billion in 1997 during the pickup and SUV boom.
I wonder how this will be spun in the land where Barack X is president. Ah, I'll just wait for the comments below and I'll get my answer.
36 comments:
Well, that's to be expected because of the unfair advantage GM got from a government bailout. Sort of like the reason that American oil companies make so much money is that they get free oil leases and other government subsidies and tax breaks.
Government picks winners and losers in the economy every time any decision is made. Free railroad rights of way throughout the West? Big win for railroad barons. Big loss for stage coach drivers. Build a national highway system on the government dime in the 1950s? Big win for the car companies, oil companies and construction companies. Big loss for railroads and streetcars. Going to war in Iraq? Big win for General Dynamics, Lockheed, Boeing, Halliburton, etc. Big loss for the balanced budget.
The question is whether these decisions benefit more Americans in the long haul, or are just pork for the special interests. The collapse of GM at a time when millions of Americans were already losing their jobs could have been enough to send the country into a full-fledged depression.
Why didn't BX bail out Solyndra? The US needs green jobs more than internal combustion. How come normal bankruptcy laws were followed when clean energy needed help, and not for GM?
Because Republicans (like Bush) want to kill women and children.
What's the point Mark? We've hashed this out many times in the comments, and it always comes down to the same thing - you strongly believe that the bailout was a success. Those of us who don't agree with that have pointed out numerous reasons why it's not so great. Your responses to those reasons were always very unconvincing, generally falling under the "handwave" or "smokescreen" category of responses. Well, to be fair, you might not have any other type of response. Har har. (I'm just kidding man, once in awhile you say some coherent.)
Credit Obama or not, good for the USA as whole or not, it does mean Obama will very likely have a strong showing in MI come Nov. The Home Town Boy there is having trouble, and it should have been a given for Mitt. Running against Obama in MI when they were hit SO hard and how have some real jobs and money finally coming in is going to be tough for whatever guy the Right puts up.
FL on the other hand...Hmmm. O really needs FL, as well as MI and even Penn... This will be an interesting November.
The "other" JC.
Not that interesting. Barack the peace prized war-monger, or Romney the 'conservative'. You lose.
Barack gets four more.
You lose.
Wrong. We all lose.
It's not a matter of believing, Hap, it's a matter of fact. GM had the most profitable year in the history of their company. The reasons that you have pointed out are born more out of belief than facts. You don't think the government should act as it did as part of an ideological belief. This is sadly regardless of the factors that the situation presented.
More distressing is the amount of poor information that is out there regarding how GM was restructured and supported by the federal government. Once the talking point gets out there on right wing blogs, then it's "fact." Example: GM didn't go through "normal" bankruptcy. That's not really accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
As lame as the Repub presidential field is, I'm thinking that Obama gets a second term short of a severe economic downturn between now and the election.
So my hope is that the Repubs consolidate their House majority and take the Senate. At least split govt slows down the destruction that either party does when they control it all.
GM didn't go through "normal" bankruptcy. That's not really accurate.
They did not and a wiki article is hardly authoritative on that.
juris, It does indeed look good for Obama right now. I don't think any of the four can beat him in the fall.
Regarding the House, I think the GOP is going to lose 10-15 seats. It could be more as people are simply fed up with how they have handled themselves. The lowest approval on record? That's going to translate into lost districts. If they keep up with this birth control nonsense or other social issue hysteria, who knows how many more?
At this point, I think the best the Dems can hope for in the Senate is 50-50 with Joe Biden (assuming Obama wins) doing a lot of work. But again, the way the GOP is behaving right now, this could all change. What if some of the easy snags (Nebraska, North Dakota, Missouri) put up Tea Party candidates like Christine O'Donnell? I also think Elizabeth Warren is going to oust Scott Brown, bringing the Kennedy seat back home.
One thing I've also noticed is low voter turnout in the GOP primaries. That's not a good sign for anyone in the red column.
Regarding your GM comment, if you have other "non-Brietbarted" information, please share.
At least split govt slows down the destruction
Define "destruction." If it's not accurate to say boiling pit of sewage, then what is a more appropriate characterization?
It does indeed look good for Obama right now.
I hope you are planning on giving due credit to the Republican presidential field for that.
...bringing the Kennedy seat back home.
Fuck you, that's all I can say to anyone who describes a Senate seat as belonging to a fucking political dynasty. Fuck you til you bleed.
Regarding your GM comment
Name one other bankruptcy in U.S. history where the U.S. govt became a stockholder. I've given you "non-Breitbart" links - it doesn't matter to you; you have your belief and no facts are going to change that. But I'll humor myself: here and here: "But while the automakers are all posting strong results, taxpayers are still on the hook for billions of dollars."
Define "destruction."
What the Repubs did from 2000-06 and the Dems from 2008-10. Unlike you I don't trust any of them, and if they are plotting against each other they are doing less harm to the country as a whole. And don't give me that stupid, sanctimonious bullshit about how the Dems are the on the side of the angels - see this.
Alright, let's dispense with your silliness first.
Fuck you til you bleed.
When I said "back home" I meant the Democratic Party not the Kennedy family, dumb ass.
giving due credit to the Republican presidential field for that.
This raises a larger issue. Is there a candidate that can actually lead the GOP? I don't think so. It's a group of unhappy and angry people whose various factions don't like each other. They do well if there is low voter turnout (see: more old people comprise the voting rolls) in non presidential election years but how can they possibly hope to have a future when they are ideologically positioned as they are?
In short, they are ALL inept because of the nature of their party.
Regarding GM, your first link is an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. That's not "evidence" and it's also biased. I was looking more for you analysis on how you would've gotten around the fact that the credit markets were dry at the time the president implemented his policy which means that a privately financed bankruptcy would've been improbable. That means that GM would've been liquidated. What would've happened then at such a tenuous time for the economy and jobs? What I'm asking you to do here is think and not have an ideological reaction.
From your second link...
Still, advocates of the bailout say the success of the companies is proof that the bailout worked. The hit to the economy would have been far worse than the $15 billion or so that the bailouts might end up costing taxpayers, considering the estimated 1.5 million additional job losses, the closure of GM, Chrysler and many of their suppliers and the shifting of much auto production overseas if the companies had failed.
I agree. The president made the best choice given the circumstances and the outcome has been positive-far more than people thought.
and the Dems from 2008-10.
You mean cleaning up the giant fucking mess that was left by incompetents? The Democrats may not be on the side of the angels and certainly aren't perfect but at least they are attempting to solve problems...problems that laissez faire economics clearly caused. But this brings us back to the problem we always run into...you don't like it when the government solves problems.
This raises a larger issue.
You do realize that you argue that the party is fractured and in an ideological straight-jacket. If they were committed to a single ideology then they shouldn't have contentious factions. You just hate anything that isn't brand DEMOCRAT, and you really should be more honest (with yourself at least) about that.
My take on the biggest Republican problem is that they preached small govt for years and when in power do exactly the opposite. People do notice hypocrisy and the Repubs can't coalesce around a new theme. They sure as hell can't sell themselves as small govt or fiscally responsible - though it appears they will try.
In short, they are ALL inept because of the nature of their party.
Which reminds me a bit of Will Rogers on the Democrats (of his day).
a privately financed bankruptcy would've been improbable
Funny how your opinion is less opiniony then the opinion writer. But at least you admit, sort of, that this was not a normal bankruptcy. That's a start.
That means that GM would've been liquidated.
Speculation, but even if true - so what? How many car companies died off from the 20's through the 50's? Dozens upon dozens. Did the economy collapse because of that? The capital and labor that could not profitably be employed "as GM" would've gone to other parts of the economy that could use it. Instead you prop up a zombie because you are so committed to the status quo (or more appropriately - a reactionary vision of the glorious past).
You mean cleaning up the giant fucking mess that was left by incompetents?
No, they took a big mess and made it bigger. They haven't "fixed" a single thing - but your partisan blindness and general refusal to face facts out of accord with your beliefs prevents you from acknowledging that.
...you don't like it when the government solves problems.
Wrong. I positively hate it when people believe they can solve a problem and that the intention to do so is more important than the result. That is you bubba, you don't care how it turns out as long as people believed it was the right plan. If you ever do admit it didn't work, it must be because we didn't try hard enough.
>It's not a matter of believing, Hap, it's a matter of fact.
Thanks for the laugh Mark. We know you better though. :) So according to Mark:
-It is a "massive success" that taxpayers are out 15 billion or so
-It is a "massive success" that the executive of the federal government (this is normally the purview of the judiciary) intervened in the bankruptcy to get the outcomes it wanted
-When asked why GM couldn't have gone through a normal bankruptcy without the involvement of the government, Mark invariably says that it would have meant the liquidation (which I think he is using as a synonym for destruction) of GM. This is nonsense. Even if GM were to be broken up into pieces and sold in a bankruptcy, which of course is not a given, what would happen? The profitable (ie economically efficient) parts would be picked up by other manufacturers, and would continue on. The inefficient parts would either be stopped as functioning businesses or sold off. In other words, the parts of GM that work would continue on. The parts that don't work would stop. Isn't that amazing? Resources stop being wasted in a bankruptcy.It's almost as if that is the whole intent behind bankruptcy!
-Regarding moral hazard (and this is a tough one for statists like Mark - he likes to pretend that moral hazard doesn't exist.) Other companies, seeing the government bail GM out, would start asking themselves, "hmm, it looks awfully profitable to lobby for chunks of taxpayer money." In other words, if it's ok to bail out GM, why not bail out everyone? Mark's response to this is to bring up his mythical measure of bailout-worthiness, interconnectedness, which apparently is only measurable by Mark and doesn't seem to exist anywhere as an actual, measurable, economic metric. Of course, it hardly matters - even if there was some measure that the government could draw a line in the sand with - "we will only bail out companies that are > 5687 on the interconnectedness scale!", it would just incentivize companies to get to be > 5687 so that they can demand bailouts too. Either that or they beef up their lobbying clout so they don't get left behind for the next round of bailouts. Both behaviors are rent seeking, which, if it wasn't clear to Mark, is not a good thing. I had to spell that out because you so often support rent seeking, you just call it other things to make yourself feel virtuous. Like government "investment" in green tech.
>privately financed bankruptcy would've been improbable.
Counterfactual - you don't know this, you're just asserting it because it sounds nice. I find it very doubtful that profitable pieces of GM would not be snapped up by competitors. Wasn't it you who was whining about all those huge piles of cash that companies were sitting on?
You see, all of Mark's spinning and absurd rationalizing is to avoid admitting something that I think he already knows but doesn't want to admit because it's important for him to believe that only those other guys do the crony capitalism thing - the intervention by the administration was done for political reasons rather than economic reasons. And that's what you are really supporting Mark, and you really ought to just come out and say it. You think it is just fine to allocate taxpayer dollars based on political pull. As long as the "puller" and the "pullee" are acceptable entities to you, of course. If it was the Bush administration bailing out Halliburton though, whooee, look out. Mark would be telling everyone how those damn Republicans are trying to destroy capitalism and eat puppies.
No, they took a big mess and made it bigger.
Really? Where? How? More doom and gloom about what happens when you embrace liberalism still?
That is you bubba, you don't care how it turns out as long as people believed it was the right plan.
And we're back to Projection/Flipping again. Yawn....
Belief doesn't enter into it with me. I look at results. Given what the president was handed, I'd say things are looking pretty good. It's not my fault that you and Hap here choose to believe in Barack X.
Counterfactual - you don't know this, you're just asserting it because it sounds nice. I find it very doubtful that profitable pieces of GM would not be snapped up by competitors.
So, you think that dry credit market at the time would not have been a factor at all? And that private investors, given the situation on the ground when Obama and Congress acted, would've played NO part in the bankruptcy? How terribly naive and, quite frankly, dishonest. Is your ideology that stringent that you can't admit basic facts about how much worse your decision would have been?
There's a lot of spinning going on here, Hap, but it ain't by me. As usual, you accuse me of doing the exact fucking thing that you are doing. And your ascribe your own side's faults to the intentions of the Democrats ("it was all political.")
Sadly, the brainwashing job that has been done on you will never allow you to see that there are people in government that actually do things to fix problems and help.
Really? Where? How?
The deficits of the Republican years (00-06) were bad enough, since 2008 it has only gotten worse. Of course you will deny reality until it takes a big bite out of your ass. Even you have said the deficits need to come down (that is when you aren't arguing that they don't matter). Childish and dishonest indeed!
Yawn....
Yes, you are indeed that predictable and boring.
Belief doesn't enter into it with me. I look at results.
Unbelievable how dishonest you are; to yourself and everyone else. Do you really think you fool anyone (other than yourself)?
You never test your beliefs against results. If you did and retained your beliefs it would indicate that you were completely insane. So, rather than chance that, you just ignore the results. That is what I mean by immunity to cognitive dissonance.
Another accurate description of yourself. It's like you are trained to always attack with what is, in fact, your greatest weaknesses.
Most profitable year in their company's history, juris. That's not a belief, that's a fact. $15 billion that the bailouts might end up costing juxtaposed with the estimated 1.5 million additional job losses, the closure of GM, Chrysler and many of their suppliers and the shifting of much auto production overseas if the companies had failed. Facts, not beliefs.
Any chance for some humility given these facts? It wasn't beneath the Economist.
http://www.economist.com/node/16846494
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/mitt-romney-and-car-industry
Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.
Yet the doomsayers were wrong. Unlike, say, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who used public funds to support Renault and Peugeot-Citroën on condition that they did not close factories in France, Mr Obama has been tough from the start. GM had to promise to slim down dramatically—cutting jobs, shuttering factories and shedding brands—to win its lifeline. The firm was forced to declare bankruptcy. Shareholders were wiped out. Top managers were swept aside. Unions did win some special favours: when Chrysler was divided among its creditors, for example, a union health fund did far better than secured bondholders whose claims should have been senior. Congress has put pressure on GM to build new models in America rather than Asia, and to keep open dealerships in certain electoral districts. But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. On the contrary, his goal has been to restore both firms to health and then get out as quickly as possible. GM is now profitable again and Chrysler, managed by Fiat, is making progress. Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.
Another accurate description of yourself. It's like you are trained to always attack with what is, in fact, your greatest weaknesses.
Another of your defenses against cognitive dissonance. Just like how you can argue that deficits should be lower and that they don't matter. A rational human being would be embarrassed by that - but not you.
Most profitable year in their company's history, juris.
Having a bunch of your debt wiped out - extra-legally - helps I'm sure. Imagine if you had held some of those corporate bonds that Obama made worthless - might you have a different view? I wonder if they are also paying the biggest tax bill in their history. You don't suppose they got cut a sweetheart deal on corporate income tax do you?
GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures
Do you note that M - your own quote says it was not normal. In fact it defied bankruptcy law, putting the rule of politics above the rule of law. That will have consequences in the long run that you will rue. It is a very bad precedent. You don't care about that, you only care about what is right in front of you at this moment.
Unions did win some special favours
No shit, but of course you don't highlight that, do you?
Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.
Sure if the stock price roughly doubles before any U.S. held stock is sold. Would you care to bet on that? Even if the tax payer does break even, we lost an important aspect of our legal system - the President can over-ride it and his blindly loyal followers won't complain.
Yay, Mark found an article that agrees with him! Well, that settles it, huh. (I do find it funny that the economist article says "well, he's only used bailouts for political ends a little bit. Just a little. That's ok, right?") So just so we're clear:
15 billion lost by taxpayers: ok by you
political intervention: ok by you (oh, sorry, just a little itty political intervention)
prevent horse and buggy structure from being changed significantly: ok by you
moral hazard: no comment
I think that sums up your position. Now, out of curiosity, are you capable of conceiving that someone else might look at that list and weight the various parts a little differently than you? Or are you still going with your little "my views are facts!" belief? Eh, who am I kidding. This is Mark. Ivory tower hubris will always win the day here.
>Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.
When was this written? Looks like awhile ago (August), because this is not remotely true. The stock will need to double to make that happen. I'm quite certain that Obama won't dare sell the GM stock between now and the election, knowing that the view of tossing 15 billion down the drain won't look too good. Wait, I'm sure he wouldn't hold onto the stock for a crass political reason like that, would he Mark? Btw - why exactly is it that the federal government owns GM stock, anyway? Does that seem at all.. odd to you?
>So, you think that dry credit market at the time would not have been a factor at all?
No, but I don't think this is a black and white question. (Surprise surprise, Mark is trying to make this binary.) Was credit tighter? Yes. Would that have entirely prevented GM from being efficiently liquidated, if it came to that? No. Put another way - wow, credit was tight in those years. How ever did people buy homes? Or certain corporations make payroll? The way Mark tells it, nobody, anywhere, could get a loan for anything. I'm afraid it's not quite that simple, and you should know better than to try to make it an a or b. You should, but you don't.
>And that private investors, given the situation on the ground when Obama and Congress acted, would've played NO part in the bankruptcy?
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Whether private investors played a part in the bankruptcy would have a lot to do with how the bankruptcy played out, whether it kept GM together and simply allowed it to renegotiate some of its more onerous legacy costs, or whether it was split up and sold off.
>And your ascribe your own side's faults to the intentions of the Democrats ("it was all political.")
Oh? Which side is that? I have little doubt that the Republicans would have bailed out GM for political reasons as well. Unlike you, I don't wrap a bunch of my ego up in believing that I belong to a tribe of altruistic statists.
Two long paragraphs about GM...wow...this is a really sticky issue with you, isn't it? I submit that the reason for this is that it is an ideological breaking point. What will you do then?
Let's take a look at your points..
15 billion lost by taxpayers: ok by you
political intervention: ok by you (oh, sorry, just a little itty political intervention)
prevent horse and buggy structure from being changed significantly: ok by you
moral hazard: no comment
Hmm, let's see...in order (we have) childish dishonesty, opinion/Barack X fantasy, childish dishonesty, and a right wing catechism. When you are ready to have a discussion that includes ALL relevant information (aka critical thinking), I'll be here. I will say that your first one made me laugh out loud as it reminded of how Sean Hannity starts his discussions..."So, you're with the terrorists..."
I think that sums up your position.
No, it's a gross mis-characterization missing several key points.
Now, out of curiosity, are you capable of conceiving that someone else might look at that list and weight the various parts a little differently than you?
Of course, if you or they address all of the facts and not pretend some don't exist. I haven't seen that from you yet in your analysis of GM.
Looks like awhile ago (August), because this is not remotely true.
That's why I linked the more current piece which addressees Mitt Romney's silliness. They haven't retracted their prediction nor their apology and still say that it was a good idea, considering the choices he had.
Btw - why exactly is it that the federal government owns GM stock, anyway? Does that seem at all.. odd to you?
No, but then again, I'm not given to paranoid fantasies nor do I believe that Barack X is a real person.
The way Mark tells it, nobody, anywhere, could get a loan for anything.
Another mis-characterization. And comparing GM to a person or small business getting a loan is silly.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
What I'm saying here is that had GM not been bailed out with taxpayer money and taken their chances with private investors, how could we have been certain that these investors would've acted in our national interest? Or if they even would've been America owned companies?
I think...actually, that's a lie...I KNOW you are letting your ideology blind you here from seriously considering the implications of what would've happened had we not bailed them out. Until you demonstrate some even handed thinking on all of this (and not slip into several of Boaz's 14 points), it's really pointless to have further discussion.
Hey M please check the spam filters, I have some posts that disappeared. Thx.
extra-legally
So, this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization
is all a lie?
In fact it defied bankruptcy law, putting the rule of politics above the rule of law.
Show me where they did that and how. No Brietbart or Erickson, please. Where does the wiki link get it wrong?
Stunning Success but apparently not for taxpayers or old investors...
Where does the wiki link get it wrong?
Who knows who is editing that - that's the problem with wiki and why it shouldn't be taken as authoritative. You do understand how wiki works, don't you? Anyone can say anything and unless someone happens to see it and cares enough to change it - it stands (no matter how wrong).
You quoted the Economist that the bankruptcy was not normal. I've posted other links indicating the same - and yet you keep referring back to wiki and presumably only because it says what you want to hear. Hellooo M-Fly!?!? Pull your head out, will ya?
Name any other bankruptcy where the U.S. govt became a stock holder.
When I read a wiki article, I verify the information with links provided below the listing. Then I usually check one or two other sources. If they check out, I post the wiki link and expect that people will note the supporting sources below the article and do what I do.
Sadly, you are becoming OCD about one little bit of information as you are wont to do when we have discussions like this. In this case, it's the word "normal." It seems to me that you are trying very hard to find some sort of kernel of evidence that you can point to that will make you less insecure about what happened (see: your ideology about government not working in reality), that it was the best choice given the circumstances, and that it was successful.
So, dispute the facts presented in the article. While you are at it, compare what happened with GM with what happened with the S&L scandal
Well Mark, not much to respond to. Your post is just one long avoidance strategy except for the very end.
>and a right wing catechism.
Aww, so I take it that means you're not going to tell us how to measure interconnected-ness? Just kidding Mark, we know you don't have a way to measure it, you just threw it out hoping nobody would notice. Also, I'm very interested to know how moral hazard is a right wing catechism, as opposed to a straightforward economics concept. Like I said though - you are ok with crony capitalism and big business rent seeking as long as the sides are ones you approve of. I did have to laugh about your complaints regarding mischaracterization - given that 90% of your argument with other people relies on mischaracterization, I find myself unsympathetic, especially since you didn't bother to explain how I mischaracterized you. Is this like "ad hominem", where you call things you don't like ad hominem without understand what it means and how it is applied? Anyway, as you are fond of saying, I'm just repeating what you said back to you. You just don't like it.
>What I'm saying here is that had GM not been bailed out with taxpayer money and taken their chances with private investors, how could we have been certain that these investors would've acted in our national interest? Or if they even would've been America owned companies?
A good example of Mark's habitual use of pretty-sounding language to mask his sloppy and vapid thinking. What is our national interest re: GM? Who defines what that interest is? Why is it important that private investors act in whatever that interest is?
>Until you demonstrate some even handed thinking on all of this
More accurately, until you let go of your reflexive beliefs that government intervention is wonderful because you say it is, conversation is fruitless.
>seriously considering the implications of what would've happened had we not bailed them out.
Ah yes. Boiling pit of sewage. Right? It's amazing how confident you are about counterfactuals. I suggest you read up on the phrase "creative destruction." It's a fairly important part of the capitalism you are trying to destroy. Er save.
When I read a wiki article...
I suppose you actually expect us to believe that codswallop?
The reason I harp on that point is one, it is important (any time the President subverts the rule of law that is important) and two, it is an incontrovertible fact (which you refuse to accept as it doesn't match your narrative/frame/story - whatever bullshit term proggies like to use). It is a perfect example of why we fail to communicate. I understand that, but you apparently don't.
You really ought to consider joining the reality based community - it is an interesting place.
Your post is just one long avoidance strategy
I'm not the one incapable of having a critical discussion. You illustrated at least half of Boaz's 14 points in your responses...probably more, honestly.
And much of your response above is on me and my "problems" not the actual issue itself. For example, given the choice between the taxpayers being down 15 billion dollars or higher unemployment/further erosion of GDP, what would you choose and why? Or, in your opinion, was there a third choice, given ALL relevant information? Being a leader (and being an adult) means that you have to choose between two pretty crappy choices. The president chose the least shitty one and it ended up costing (so far) a tenth of what the S&L bailout cost us and that was over 20 years ago.
Hmmm..it's almost as if you have no "there" (due to your ideologically intransigence) so it's all
"we know you don't have a way to measure it"
or
"given that 90% of your argument with other people relies on mischaracterization"
or
"A good example of Mark's habitual use of pretty-sounding language to mask his sloppy and vapid thinking."
and this one, the irony of which made me chuckle
"Is this like "ad hominem", where you call things you don't like ad hominem without understand what it means and how it is applied?"
So, by pointing out these negative characteristics of me you AREN'T trying to negate the truth of my claim? In no way are you insulting me or belittling me in order to attack my claim regarding the success of GM and invalidate my argument? You are not being logically fallacious because your insults about my personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions?
Why is it important that private investors act in whatever that interest is?
Given the shifting power in the world today, I would hope that you would understand why this is important. Suppose the government was not involved and some of the private investors were BRIC based. How does that affect our geo-strategic position in the world? My goal here is to get you to set aside your ideology and think about the implications and the outcome of that scenario. It's a far bigger discussion than capitalism and creative discussion but I know what your trying to do here:)
reflexive beliefs that government intervention is wonderful because you say it is, conversation is fruitless.
So, I continue to point out the success of GM, how the president is not acting as you mis-characterize him, and detail the fallout from the other options and that's "belief?" Good Lord...
Hap, I'd like to see an analysis from you, given all relevant information at the time, as to what would've happened had the government not been involved in GM. Take into account the information presented in links from the Economists above and say why their assertions are false and the apology was unwarranted. Do it without offering any personal comments about yours truly nor any links to Andrew Brietbart.
I suppose you actually expect us to believe that codswallop?
Yes. Because it's the truth. Remember, juris, I'm the one who receives more scrutiny being that I'm an author on this site.
(any time the President subverts the rule of law that is important)
Not really true. Again, be honest. Refute the information in the link regarding GM. Specifically, how was it not part of section 363 of Chapter 11, Title 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code?
Here is the order of events regarding the Chapter 11 reorg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization#Chapter_11_protection
So, Judge Gerber also subverting the rule of law?
Not really true.
So the President and his Admin playing fast and loose with the law isn't important? Is that what you are saying? I guess because it is your team in power, huh. You sure didn't think much of Bush going around the law.
I don't fucking care about wiki - every other link we've discussed says the same thing - this was not a normal bankruptcy, the legal process was not followed (the more polite way of saying "subverted"). You have two choices: 1) you acknowledge that but argue that it was necessary, or 2) you prove that it did in fact follow the proper legal procedure (and therefore was not extraordinary). You don't get to argue both - doing so is childish and dishonest. Either you play in your own fantasy land or you deal with reality.
You sure didn't think much of Bush going around the law.
Did you hear me complaining much about his bailout of the auto industry or TARP?
this was not a normal bankruptcy, the legal process was not followed (the more polite way of saying "subverted").
Then the onus is on you to prove that, not me. You made the claim. Back it up. Also, I think you are talking about two different things here...what is "normal" and what is "legal." Again, I ask, how did Judge Gerber subvert the law? Also, your continued use of the word "normal" has a whiff of something...what is it?...oh yes...
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.
And, as per the usual, I reject both of your choices and say that it's both:) It was necessary given all the relevant information (large swaths of which you ignore due to ideological blindness and a truly amazing stubbornness to admit error) and it did follow proper legal procedures based on the information I have provided above. Now, it's your job to show me how the Ch. 11 timeline provided above is either wrong, illegal or both.
Either you play in your own fantasy land or you deal with reality.
That's some good advice for you as you get started in making your counter argument.
Then the onus is on you to prove that, not me.
Your own link (Economist) said so. How many times have you done that - linked to something that didn't actually support your point.
You have yet to show one other bankruptcy proceeding in the entire history of this country where the U.S. govt ended up a stockholder period let alone controlling. What is that word - unprecedented. Come up with that and I will gladly admit error.
Until then you can wallow in your partisan crap until even the flies won't land on you.
juris is right
Ah, but juris, you're shifting the argument. You've made quite a big deal out of this bankruptcy subverting the law. How? I've provided the relevant details on the bankruptcy. You are still refusing to make your case. So far, your case is more comments about me and some dick waving. That's not an analysis of the legal facts nor does it come close to addressing the plethora of other economic evidence about GM.
Your denial of reality does not alter reality one bit. It just shows you as an idiot demanding that we indulge your fantasy. I know you don't fool anyone else, and I don't think you even fool yourself, really.
Post a Comment