Victory Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The guy in there now gave how many million or billions to GM
He gave GM nothing. He loaned them money during a credit crisis. If he had not, then not only would GM and Chrysler have failed, but all their suppliers would fail. That would also take down Ford which is why its CEO also encouraged Congress to loan its competitors the money.

Ford had secured its financing prior to the bottom falling out of the banking industry. Nothing magical about it or their CEO, just luck.

and the pathetic labor unions?
What does this mean? Are you just parroting something you heard?

We definitely need a change
If you prefer to live as a slave, then I'd say you're correct.

Perhaps you should learn a little about economics and history and tune out the am talking heads from time to time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
The guy in there now gave how many million or billions to GM and the pathetic labor unions? We definitely need a change


Sent from my Motorcycle iPhone app
While the current group can't be free of blame as they were in charge when it happened, the process was started well before the current batch. Lesson? They're all nitwits. President Obama swore in around mid January and this bailout occurred just a week or so later, starting months before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Ford had secured its financing prior to the bottom falling out of the banking industry. Nothing magical about it or their CEO, just luck.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Perhaps you should learn a little about economics and history and tune out the am talking heads from time to time.
You can't completely discredit Ford's CEO as he did have a large role in their not needing the bailouts. Ford failed fiscally years before and realized they needed to change their business in a drastic way out of necessity. He was a major catalyst in that.

As for economics, I find that comment ironic given the title used for this thread. The article didn't really have a whole lot to do with job exports, but a glut of manufacturing jobs is a sign of a weak economy. There will always be some, but the stronger an economy, the more it moves to being service based versus goods (manufacturing) based.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
All hail the GOVERNMENT... Without THEM a huge company(s) would have reorganized or have been sold and a different company would have emerged, one that might make cars people want... TERRIBLE, oh the horror... All hail GOVERNMENT.

Now back to your regular programing... The Story of the Lemmings, or How to lose America in four short years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
The labor unions are costing America jobs. When a person operating at a location is not allowed to plug in his machine and has to wait for the electrician to put a plug in an outlet I lose respect for that system. When collective bargaining saves the jobs of teachers who are failing to meet even the minimum requirements or have disciplinary action and should not be around kids, yet the city is forced to pay them for 2 years because the union says they can't be fired I have issues. Unions had a time and a place, that time has passed. I was forced to join a union against my will to work at a grocery store, they took union dues I couldn't afford to pay all so I had the privilege of working a job they didn't help me get.

So what GM failed and Chrysler as well. They would have done exactly what happened, filed for bankruptcy protection, reorganized and well ended up where we are now, but without tax payer dollars. The airlines do the same thing every few years because new regulations and rising fuel costs kill them. I have worked for automotive suppliers when things go bad, we just sold to someone else. Found new work and moved on, took a bit and yes some lost jobs only to get them back. Just because something fails doesn't mean it's totally bad. Sometimes things fail to make way for new and better things.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
You can't completely discredit Ford's CEO as he did have a large role in their not needing the bailouts.
Yes, he secured their line of credit before the bottom fell out. I don't think that was due to any genius, just a matter of fortuitous timing.

Ford failed fiscally years before and realized they needed to change their business in a drastic way out of necessity. He was a major catalyst in that.
Hey, I like the Focus and the Mustang too.

As for economics, I find that comment ironic given the title used for this thread. The article didn't really have a whole lot to do with job exports
No, it was about a class of executives who were making a fortune from any easy (if slightly treasonous) business model.

, but a glut of manufacturing jobs is a sign of a weak economy. There will always be some, but the stronger an economy, the more it moves to being service based versus goods (manufacturing) based.
That is a major fallacy, brought to you by those who want to plunder your wallet.

Economics is nothing more than the study of trade. Pretty simple really, you make me a bear skin rug and I provide you a sack of green beans.

Ahh, but because this is not a particularly efficient means of trade, govt's came up with the idea of using currency as a common vehicle to trade goods and services.

Now let's think about how wealth is created. Say I dig up a chunk of earth. It has some value. Next, lets say the person who buys it, processes it by extracting the minerals. The contents of that piece of earth now has some value greater than the previous value. Next let's say the minerals are sold to Ford who makes a camshaft out of them. That camshaft now has a value greater than the minerals.

This is how wealth is created. Not only has value been brought to the economy though the creation of this tangible good, but it is lasting as that camshaft may be a useful and trade-able good for years to come.

You can play out this scenario with any goods producing job you like. Now let's think about services.

Suppose I cut your hair. There is no value created. I give you money and in return, I don't have to push the hair out from my eyes. This is not a wealth creating endeavor. It is a luxury and there is nothing wrong with it, but it does not create a country's wealth.

Existing prosperously as a service economy may be possible *if* you can find a wealth creating nation to buy your services.

For instance, if the people of Germany (a very industrious, wealth creating nation) used Greece as its exclusive vacation destination. A portion of the wealth created by Germany could be transferred to Greece for use of their beaches and Waverunners.

In the US, we have few such services. We largely service ourselves with retail stores, police, military etc. No wealth creating country is going to pay us for any of that.

Hence, we run big deficits to keep the charade running and depend on foreign nations to invest their currency with us, because we are safe i.e. we have big guns.

I hope this helps you understand why I say that your service economy statement is bogus.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
While the current group can't be free of blame as they were in charge when it happened, the process was started well before the current batch. Lesson? They're all nitwits. President Obama swore in around mid January and this bailout occurred just a week or so later, starting months before.
You are correct. Bush started it and it was one of the few things he did right and he deserves credit for it. Thanks to him, one of our few wealth creating industries is still alive and well today.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
All hail the GOVERNMENT... Without THEM a huge company(s) would have reorganized or have been sold and a different company would have emerged, one that might make cars people want...
The problem is that you don't have a very deep understanding about things, so you are easily manipulated by talking heads. It wouldn't have been just GM or just Chrysler, but likely all of their suppliers. And that in turn would take down Ford and possibly a few Asian makers too. This at a time when unemployment was over 10%.

I hope you take time to read my bit about how wealth is created so you have a good understanding as to where your teacher's salary is derived.

BTW, were you riding motorcycles back in the early 80s when Ronald Reagan put tariffs on all motorcycles larger than 750cc to save Harley?

TERRIBLE, oh the horror... All hail GOVERNMENT.
Says the man who is very happy to cash his gov't provided check every month. :D

Now back to your regular programing... The Story of the Lemmings, or How to lose America in four short years.
It was nearly lost after just eight years of conservative governance. Today, we are doing pretty darn well by those standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
It was nearly lost after just eight years of conservative governance. Today, we are doing pretty darn well by those standards.
He did not govern as a conservative. What he said, and what he did were two different things. Proof of that is Medicare part D. What was that, like the second largest entitlement program in the history of our country ? Conservative my foot. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
It is funny you mention you had to join the union. You choose to. No one forced you. You have a decision to be a scab. Yes i am in the uaw. I work for case new Holland. I have seen a complete turn around. Where we are getting more fabrication in house. Which helps jobs out. I have been there over a year and watched over 200 employees get hired.
So with that said maybe you had a bad experience with a union but i wouldn't say they are all horrible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
That is a major fallacy, brought to you by those who want to plunder your wallet.

Economics is nothing more than the study of trade. Pretty simple really, you make me a bear skin rug and I provide you a sack of green beans.

Ahh, but because this is not a particularly efficient means of trade, govt's came up with the idea of using currency as a common vehicle to trade goods and services.

Now let's think about how wealth is created. Say I dig up a chunk of earth. It has some value. Next, lets say the person who buys it, processes it by extracting the minerals. The contents of that piece of earth now has some value greater than the previous value. Next let's say the minerals are sold to Ford who makes a camshaft out of them. That camshaft now has a value greater than the minerals.

This is how wealth is created. Not only has value been brought to the economy though the creation of this tangible good, but it is lasting as that camshaft may be a useful and trade-able good for years to come.

You can play out this scenario with any goods producing job you like. Now let's think about services.

Suppose I cut your hair. There is no value created. I give you money and in return, I don't have to push the hair out from my eyes. This is not a wealth creating endeavor. It is a luxury and there is nothing wrong with it, but it does not create a country's wealth.

Existing prosperously as a service economy may be possible *if* you can find a wealth creating nation to buy your services.

For instance, if the people of Germany (a very industrious, wealth creating nation) used Greece as its exclusive vacation destination. A portion of the wealth created by Germany could be transferred to Greece for use of their beaches and Waverunners.

In the US, we have few such services. We largely service ourselves with retail stores, police, military etc. No wealth creating country is going to pay us for any of that.

Hence, we run big deficits to keep the charade running and depend on foreign nations to invest their currency with us, because we are safe i.e. we have big guns.

I hope this helps you understand why I say that your service economy statement is bogus.
No, it's not a fallacy/bogus. I will, however, admit that it was a bit over simplified. Obviously, our nation as a whole is not entirely service oriented as far as "goods" are concerned. As the wealth is created and grows in the method you've discussed, things evolve and less goods creation happens and more service takes it place. And, as with most everything in life, this becomes cyclical. Not only that, but it builds up itself over and over and over again. Obviously, the goods are where it starts. But it's all intertwined.

Much like in your over simplified example with Germany and Greece. In terms of economy (and many other things, really), you can't always look at the US as a country in the same manner you would look at other countries. The sheer size (land, population, GDP, etc) alone dictates that. Each state, to an extent, has it's own gooberment, set of laws, economics, taxes, strengths, weaknesses, etc. You have to break it down to something more comparable. And, in that regard, it does work. i.e. States such as MN, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, ETC...those would be Germany. States like Arizona and Florida would represent the likes of Greece.

Frankly, your crankshaft example is the perfect example for why I'm right and my statement is not a fallacy. You simply didn't expand far enough. The goods are the catalyst, but nowhere near the pinnacle or the end. The goods are the natural resources which are mined. Then refined. Then made in to a crankshaft. But tell me...at the large scale we're talking about here, who transported all of that? Who kept track of it? Who sold it? Who designed it? Who'll service it? Who repurposes it? Who disposes of it? One product...many services. The more of the latter one has, the more robust the economy.

A better example would be somewhere like Brazil. Only a developing country with a huge export of coffee (1/3 of the world's). They don't see a whole lot from it and export the vast majority of this product. For the most part, it ends there for that country. But, other countries like the US consume this product in mass creating both large and small companies based on them. And again, these companies in turn hire other services from sales to marketing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
It is funny you mention you had to join the union. You choose to. No one forced you. You have a decision to be a scab. Yes i am in the uaw. I work for case new Holland. I have seen a complete turn around. Where we are getting more fabrication in house. Which helps jobs out. I have been there over a year and watched over 200 employees get hired.
So with that said maybe you had a bad experience with a union but i wouldn't say they are all horrible.
Not all are good, not all are bad. I half agree with the statement that unions have outgrown their usefullness. I would say, more than outgrowing their usefullness they've outgrown themselves. They served a very strong purpose in the past and can still be an integral part of the work force. But what works for one industry or even company will not always work for all of them. I've seen some good unions...I've also had my life threatened as a child by members of a union (my father was a foreman who was supporting the union workers...but some apparently felt that wasn't enough since he can't be union). Ultimately, it's the people running it that will make it great or ruin it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Frankly, your crankshaft example is the perfect example for why I'm right and my statement is not a fallacy. You simply didn't expand far enough. The goods are the catalyst, but nowhere near the pinnacle or the end. The goods are the natural resources which are mined. Then refined. Then made in to a crankshaft. But tell me...at the large scale we're talking about here, who transported all of that? Who kept track of it? Who sold it? Who designed it? Who'll service it? Who repurposes it? Who disposes of it? One product...many services. The more of the latter one has, the more robust the economy.
Perzactly! And not only those services you mentioned but insurance, food, lodging, police protection and so on. They are all spawned from the wealth created by the production of the good.

Now let's take another simplistic example. Suppose we import everything and we have lots of truckers, salesmen, and so forth. Where does their money go when they need a good? When they are out of money what will they do for the other countries who are producing their goods? Can you see how becoming dependent is a very bad thing?

I don't disagree that a country with a large service economy is one that is ostensibly wealthier, I'm arguing that a service economy had better damn well be backed up by a wealth creating, goods producing economy or it is nothing more than a house of cards.

A better example would be somewhere like Brazil. Only a developing country with a huge export of coffee (1/3 of the world's). They don't see a whole lot from it and export the vast majority of this product. For the most part, it ends there for that country. But, other countries like the US consume this product in mass creating both large and small companies based on them. And again, these companies in turn hire other services from sales to marketing.
Our currency is more inflated. We have huge numbers of gov't workers drawing salaries they could never make in the real economy. And think of all the seemingly ordinary jobs cops, firemen, military, teachers et al in the US retiring between age 38 and 50. Think of all the 30 and 40 year pensions and free medical. Think of all the billions that go to fund big defense contractors to build weapons of use to no one.

If it wasn't for Asian generosity, allowing us maintain such massive debt to pay for all that kinda thing, the days of Americans buying $4 cups of coffee would have vanished long ago. If we imported coffee from Brazil we'd export some good to them in equal measure if the system were to be kept healthy.

Other countries run their finances a little more conservatively...

But I digress, the examples I give are simple to show the underlying economics, throwing gov't largesse into the equation is beyond the scope of this discussion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
He did not govern as a conservative.
Not in the classical sense for sure. When I think of a classical conservative, I think of a Ron Paul. A guy who is for getting gov't out of our personal business, using our military for defense as a last resort, and attempting to balance expenditures with revenue.

Such conservatism is pretty much dead today.

Modern or neo-conservatism has taken hold. Their belief system is to use military as a means of creating a false nationalism which allows them to raid the kitty. Anyone dissenting is an obvious an obvious traitor yaknow.

"You're either with us or with the terrorists."
-GWB

They are also known for disparaging education and promoting religion as a valid alternative.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2004/02/18-01.html

And let's not forget they are born to benefit their elite contributors at the expense of working people. You knew there was a reason Mitt Romney pays a lower federal tax rate than you, right?

"Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."
-GWB

What he said, and what he did were two different things. Proof of that is Medicare part D. What was that, like the second largest entitlement program in the history of our country ? Conservative my foot. :rolleyes:
Entitlement enshmitlement, it was a give away to insurance companies and drug companies. The people it was supposedly there to help, largely ended up screwed.

No Jay, I'm afraid GWB and the members of congress ran the country as modern conservatives for eight long years. Almost enough time to cause the whole damn country to implode.

Maybe in November, America will allow them to finish the job. Nothing like a little drama to spice up our lives...
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top