Sorry but you’re in the wrong type of country for that. As has been repeated many times, true libertarians are looking for places like somalia.

You can then be a pirate should you desire, and nobody tells a pirate when his bedtime is.

No matter what “Agenthex” or other Obama worshippers say to justify it, it’s still theft.

The United States was established by people who wanted to limit the power of government to those things that were absolutely necessary.

You just badly contradicted yourself.

The people who established the United States also wrote it’s constitution.

Said constitution specifically authorizes the existance of USPS as a government run entity (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7). So, no, the people who established the United States did not want to limit the power of government in the manner you just said they did.

One thing that gets lost in this is that the D2 subsidy is also partly for the makers left out.

A collapse of GM may very well mean the same for many parts manufacturers which the remainder depend on. So even if they didn’t bail out GM, they may have to bail out those suppliers anyway so they remain solvent for the rest of the industry.

-
Geeber, I wish the government (or an objective think-tank of some kind) would crunch the numbers on the cost to taxpayers of a bailout vs. total liquidation and double digit unemployment in the heartland (and the indirect social cost of all the social consequences that would likely result from it, ex. crime rates, alcoholism).

It’s a pointless exercise anyway since the argument is all will be fine with the power of the free market to magically find the optimal solution.

-

I guess you’re completely unaware of the development of the development of the auto industry in this country in the early 20th century, then…?

What a failure that would’ve been without a widespread network of roads to drive on, huh?

Now all you need to complete the challenge is find places where auto is blooming without public roads.

No, the point was that taking less money from business and more from the fed is hardly the free market mantra. No wait, it actually is in reality.

-
As I said, Michigan offers them, too…and it is a donor state. So, for that matter, does New Jersey and New York.

Of course, that’s just competing who can be the greatest parasites! The most subsidized states win!
-

Please show me the number of Chinese vehicles sold in the United States, or where Hyundai dominates any market segment in this country. They are making headway in the rental car market, but that’s hardly the path to world domination.

Do I really need to re-iterate the success of Korean conglomerates on the international stage? Or the rise of china?

And where’s your free market paradise to counter these examples?

-

You are aware that India is growing rapidly, and Somalia is hardly a libertarian country…?

India is “growing rapidly” because they happen to speak english which comes in handy in the US service sector, not due to industrialization. And Somalia is quite libertarian, but libs’ll never admit to it since their one true paradise only exist in their head.

-

Sorry, but I have better things to do than search through the threads for your posts.

For such audacious assertions, there must be some in this very thread. Or you can just own up to making stuff up.

-
A better and ultimately more productive exercise for you would be to stick to one argument.

Sure, I’ll even let you pick one. I generally think many examples are good, but more depth on one is fine, too.
-

Sorry, but that wasn’t me. Your memory appears to be faulty. I did not have the exchange with you.

You are right on this, it was wsn. See? you can be right. I do make mistakes at times. So take the any number of simple challenges, and show everyone the correctness of your point of view. It must be trivial with the sheer number of conservatives claiming success for their ideas.

Has anyone seen an uglier, more overpriced car than the current Camry? How can they expect to sell it over a Mazda or Honda?

GM will survive. They have better looking, more desirable cars than Toyota (dead man walking).

Sorry, but I have better things to do than search through the threads for your posts.

A better and ultimately more productive exercise for you would be to stick to one argument.

agenthex: I remember once asking you to read similar cases to spot the differences to educated everyone here, and you didn’t reply.

Sorry, but that wasn’t me. Your memory appears to be faulty. I did not have the exchange with you.

That’s nice, but it doesn’t prove that they are offering these deals because of they receive more federal dollars than they pay. Alabama, for example, cannot divert Department of Defense money to pay for industrial development.

As I said, Michigan offers them, too…and it is a donor state. So, for that matter, does New Jersey and New York.

agenthex: Or korea’s. Or china’s. Basically from zero/nothing to domination in dog years (they got unions, too, btw, except china).

Please show me the number of Chinese vehicles sold in the United States, or where Hyundai dominates any market segment in this country. They are making headway in the rental car market, but that’s hardly the path to world domination.

agenthex: Basically any place with successful industry requires substantive government support. You can compare with nations with less central planning like india, or that libertarian paradise somalia.

You are aware that India is growing rapidly, and Somalia is hardly a libertarian country…?

agenthex: I’m quite well aware of their idiotic theories, especially since they seem so fond of flaunting their simplistic one-lines. The problem is that there are pretty much no examples of their successful application.

I’ve issued the challenge in several threads to compare successes, and no challengers thus far.

I guess you’re completely unaware of the development of the development of the auto industry in this country in the early 20th century, then…?

You should post examples of this, another challenge if you will. I know I haven’t done it, but maybe you’ll get lucky and someone else slipped up. Get to it!
-

You either need a new posting style, or more attention to accuracy.

Find the inaccuracies, please! I point out so many every day, return the favor.

-
You’re being disingenous, at best; this was hardly a traditional bankruptcy filing.

I remember once asking you to read similar cases to spot the differences to educated everyone here, and you didn’t reply.

-

There’s a trend here. Perhaps you can break it here very publicly and show us all the depth of free market ideology.

I see your point, but we are already beyond $30 billion, and I doubt that what we have invested in these companies will be enough.

By offering extremely generous “business friendly” deals, they are purposely lowering the potential tax intake overall for selfish gain, all the while leeching off other states. It’s quite simple math. I could provide the arithmetic if you’d apologize for being wrong afterward.

-

I would hardly argue that Toyota’s and Honda’s success is a reflection of Japanese economic policy.

Or korea’s. Or china’s. Basically from zero/nothing to domination in dog years (they got unions, too, btw, except china). Basically any place with successful industry requires substantive government support. You can compare with nations with less central planning like india, or that libertarian paradise somalia.

-

The free market doesn’t mean that there will be sunshine and roses for everyone all of the time.

But it also means that efficiency is improved over the long haul, as the factories used to produce products nobody really wants will either be shuttered

I’m quite well aware of their idiotic theories, especially since they seem so fond of flaunting their simplistic one-lines. The problem is that there are pretty much no examples of their successful application.

I’ve issued the challenge in several threads to compare successes, and no challengers thus far.

You certainly don’t know the purpose of this exercise; as it changes, based on the successful counterarguments proffered by other posters.

agenthex: Many posters here have already explained their primary goal, I recall doing it months ago, and some people are still too dumb to grasp it. GM’s success would only be icing on the cake, and the gov seems to be doing an optimal job of it thus far.

When we argued that GM could still fail, and we would be on the hook for all of those external costs, plus the money sunk into the company by the Bush and Obama Administrations, we were told that the “new” GM would not fail.

Some of us then showed that the “new” GM’s vehicles will be a difficult sell in a tough market, making the chances for long-term success dicey at best, so we are now being told that success isn’t the primary goal.

Well, that’s a relief!

I wonder what tomorrow’s rationale will be…?

agenthex: My posting style only works when being unerringly accurate.

You either need a new posting style, or more attention to accuracy.

agenthex: For example, this statement doesn’t make any sense. They used a bankruptcy court, had a great case, and pulled it off in record time. So what exactly is the issue here?

You’re being disingenous, at best; this was hardly a traditional bankruptcy filing. And it doesn’t change the fact that GM management could not take many of the actions you praise the Administration for forcing unless it did file for bankruptcy.

That’s a good point, but is anyone really saying that? They’re saying they have a chance, maybe, of coming out of this healthy, but if they don’t at least the government lessened the blow. If you think $30 billion is a lot of money, try putting every ex-domestic autoworker in this country on welfare, or try having them competing for menial jobs with the unskilled poor in a time of recession. Do you really want unemployment to rocket into the stratosphere in the industrial Midwest?

It is the difference between giving a cancer patient chemo and giving him a chance of turning out ok, and just saying “screw it” and going for assisted suicide right out of the gate.

When I read posts on this site from people who act as though GM and Chrysler are now the road to health, and this is already a big success, I realize that they are as clueless as those who initially thought Iraq would be a cakewalk.

That’s not the purpose of the exercise. Many posters here have already explained their primary goal, I recall doing it months ago, and some people are still too dumb to grasp it. GM’s success would only be icing on the cake, and the gov seems to be doing an optimal job of it thus far.

-

Completely off base, and shows total ignorance of the Clean Air Act, which has applied to General Motors facilities and products for several decades now.

My posting style only works when being unerringly accurate. You’re trying to make assertions in the same manner, but unfortunately they don’t make any sense.

-

Need I continue to mention that a bankruptcy court would have done the same thing?

For example, this statement doesn’t make any sense. They used a bankruptcy court, had a great case, and pulled it off in record time. So what exactly is the issue here?

–

I really would not have understood this if not for the graduate level economics courses I had in the past year while getting my MBA.

False modesty and argument from authority.

He makes a good point, tho. The whinos in this case (same group of people usually) are generally pretty ignorant of any econ knowledge.

–

as well as criticizing how the TARP has morphed from buying toxic assets to flush them out of the system into a tool for nationalizing finance and industry.

So basically they want the taxpayer to pay all the money and end up with no ownership. Predictable really from the self-serving greedy bastards.

I realize that hero worshipers need to magnify the deeds of their heroes

I remember when National Review was hawking bronze busts of George W. Bush, and how K-Lo over at their blog was practically having orgasms when Bush was on the flight deck on Mission Accomplished Day. Spare me.

Also: naming everything down to the toilets in federal buildings after Reagan. No sir, no hero worship there!

No hero worship or cult of personality there. Nope. None at all.

Political pressures? If the media was any deeper in the tank for Obama they’d get sucked into the undergravel filter. The Pres. has a 60% approval rating, and controls both houses of Congress.

I realize that hero worshipers need to magnify the deeds of their heroes, but Obama has dealt with very little political pressure over his nationalization of GM & Chrysler.

I really would not have understood this if not for the graduate level economics courses I had in the past year while getting my MBA.

False modesty and argument from authority.

Since the bureaucrats have the power of the state behind them, it’s hardly a fair competition.

Frankly your slavish admiration for bureaucrats is rather troubling in an Orwellian sense.

In terms of restructuring GM, the same people are still in charge, there’s been no change in GM’s corporate culture, the plant closures and model & brand euthanizing are the same things that RF, DeLorenzo and other GM critics have been saying for years, so what, other than putting up the money and dictating the equity distribution of New GM, are those bureaucrats doing that is new or a contribution?

What successful business ventures have any of the bureaucrats before whom you wish us to genuflect ever started or managed?

When a bureaucrat, in his official capacity (Einstein, after all, was a bureaucrat in the patent office), develops a Corvette ZR1, or even a Tata Nano (which has some very clever engineering to keep the costs down), or makes any kind of technological innovation, I’ll consider the possibility that a bureaucrat can school anyone on anything other than red tape. Almost all of NASA’s innovations were the product of contractors.

As for what conservatives say, mainstream conservative opinion (National Review, Weekly Standard, and the like) has been almost uniformly opposed to bailing out the auto industry, as well as criticizing how the TARP has morphed from buying toxic assets to flush them out of the system into a tool for nationalizing finance and industry.

I blame the Senate Republicans. They could have had a deal with congressional oversight.

You need to understand the difference between people investing their own money and government investing taxpayer money in a failed enterprise.

agenthex: Nobody ever said this was guaranteed to work, so you’re wrong again.

Odd, as you seem to be proclaiming it a success already in earlier posts, congratulating the government for work well done and arguing that it has shown more competence than the management of GM has. (Never mind that a regular bankrutpcy court would have done the same things – that’s the relevant comparison. GM could only take many of these actions IN bankruptcy, so please stop congratulating the Administration for taking steps that GM management COULDN’T take without a bankruptcy filing.)

The ultimate test is whether this works – i.e., GM is profitable and gaining marketshare in the coming months and years, not whether you agree with the actions of this Administration.

agenthex: In fact, the topic of discussion was whether this was even relevant, so off track yet again.

No, it is relevant. Sorry, but you can’t change the argument just because you don’t like it.

agenthex: The government already does this in the form of pollution, another externality (which even ardent conservatives have stopped decrying, btw). So by ignoring and dodging prior points you only continue to be wrong.

Completely off base, and shows total ignorance of the Clean Air Act, which has applied to General Motors facilities and products for several decades now.

Incidentally, if you are really worried about pollution, you would advocate shutting down all of its plants (shuttered plants don’t pollute) and ceasing the production of all GM vehicles (less polluting vehicles pouring forth from factories and on to our roads).

agenthex: This must be the kind of idiotic prediction you mentioned.

Unlike you, I characterized it as a prediction, so I haven’t passed off one of my predictions as a fact.

agenthex: Need I continue to mention that the current folks in charge have made good on every claim they made? Did anyone, even their supporters, ever believe they’d clear chrysler out in a month? The incompetents need to stfu and watch the pros do work, maybe they’d learn something.

Need I continue to mention that a bankruptcy court would have done the same thing?

agenthex: Did you also forget the point about subsidies for pretty much every form of transportation in the US? I originally only posted it to mock the AMTRAK fools. So even in the worse possible case, it’s par for course.

You must really be desperate if you are casting subsidies for AMTRAK (which is a de facto monopoly) in the same light as government aid for GM and Chrysler.

If AMTRAK goes away, there may not be rail service in those areas. If GM and Chrysler go away, there will still be plenty of cars for people to buy.

agenthex: This is the core of the misunderstanding. There is this dumb concept within the free market philosophy that free enterprise will always produce optimal results.

The misunderstanding is your ignorance of the benefits of free market represents.

The free market doesn’t mean that there will be sunshine and roses for everyone all of the time.

Under the free market, bad companies get punished, and that means that some people may lose jobs or investments.

But it also means that efficiency is improved over the long haul, as the factories used to produce products nobody really wants will either be shuttered, allowing the resources to be employed more efficiently, or taken over by some person or some organization that will do a better job of utilizing them.

agenthex: You will note that pretty much all the successful industrial nation have more or less centrally planned policies to tackle the future (just look at the competitors who’ve overtaken the d3).

There is no proof that their success stems from the home country’s policies…note that Japan, for example, has experienced an economic slump for well over a decade. I would hardly argue that Toyota’s and Honda’s success is a reflection of Japanese economic policy. And the Japanese government agency in charge of the auto industry initially tried to discourge Honda from making cars.

They succeed in spite of the home country’s policies, not because of them.

France has a much more centrally planned economy than the U.S. does, and, the last time I checked, there were no Renault, Peugeot or Citroen dealers in the U.S.

Most Japanese and German automobile companies have been moving production to either the U.S. or Eastern Europe, to escape the high cost of doing business in the parent country.

agenthex: It really takes something special to persist poor ideas that have just been shown to be provably wrong on about everything.

When you prove other posters wrong, please let us know, because your posts certainly haven’t provided any evidence of achieving that feat.

agenthex: Just to pile on even more about how ignorant (and wrong) the free marketers are, the transplants are in states which are federally subsidized.

The “subsidies” come in the form of military bases located in those states, the fact that most of them have federal waterways, disaster relief and Social Security and Mediare payments, because many are retiree havens.

They aren’t getting money to spend on industrial development. So, try again!

You also do realize that Michigan, for example, has offered subsidies and and tax abatements to GM and Ford when they upgrade facilities within its borders? Even though it has been a “donor” state regarding federal spending?

agenthex: Remember the OTS issue I dropped in another thread because I didn’t want to embarrass geeber too much? You should look up who they were allow to regulate for a laugh. Hint for the lazy: it’s all geeber’s favorite banks and whatnot.

Thanks for today’s laugh. You’ll have to do a much better job if you want to embarrass me!

Boring me, on the other hand…you’re doing quite a good job of that!

Just to pile on even more about how ignorant (and wrong) the free marketers are, the transplants are in states which are federally subsidized.

So, “business-friendly” to free marketers actually mean being parasites on the whole country, just like they’re forcing the banks and GM to be now.

Of course they’ll pretend to want to prevent this, but that’s just because like most crackpots, they can say whatever they want when there’s nothing on the line for them.

-

BTW, sorry MBA-haters, but most of those responsible for this economic crisis did not have MBA’s contrary to the popular talking points. They were just the most visible and easiest to blame.

No, a lot of them did have MBA’s. But who cares about the edumacation when there’s money to be made.

-

the fact that the gov’t is doing better than them isn’t really an accomplishment.

It’s not just them. These are record pace breaking re-orgs compared to any private industry. I have to admit being a bit amazed myself.

I’d like to know who is to blame for the “all the Founders were homogeneous in their beliefs, and all were Jeffersonian” trope so I can flame them. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were for central banking, a centralized federal government, massive government supported infrastructure projects, protective tariffs, deficit spending, and what would be today called an “industrial policy”. You know, “statist” stuff. They were also more pro-military while the Jeffersonians hated, hated the idea of a standing army, but conservatives claiming his legacy gloss this last bit over.

Also, those who slam Amtrak haven’t been on it. For A-to-B trips over 150 miles and under 400, it’s much more pleasant than flying (and, depending, can be more so than driving as well).

This is the truth that so few get. Fortunately Obama gets it and is a president that is wise enough to do the right thing in the face of negative perception and political pressures. I really would not have understood this if not for the graduate level economics courses I had in the past year while getting my MBA. Not slowing the death could have resulted in a slippery-slope economic catastrophe that makes the one we’re in now look mild. Had it not been for the existing recession, the government could have let GM just die without any government bailout.

BTW, sorry MBA-haters, but most of those responsible for this economic crisis did not have MBA’s contrary to the popular talking points. They were just the most visible and easiest to blame.