Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Bankrupt Assertion

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

brotio — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:52:52 -0000

Also, Seth,

I'm a performance nut myself and love the rumble of a V-8, the bigger the better, and nobody does it better than Chrysler, Ford and GM. I'd love to see them fix their problem, but it ain't Toyota.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

brotio — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:49:17 -0000

Seth,

The biggest obstacle to affordable performance is the government, which with its CAFE standards has decreed that blood is cheaper than oil. And now His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I has decreed oil to be evil.

Kiss your Corvettes and Mustangs goodbye. Mierduck and his buddies in Washington don't think you should have them.

The biggest obstacle to Michigan-based automakers being profitable is a union that is actively opposed to increased productivity.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

sethstorm — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:05:49 -0000

Do you support taxing Americans who work (in America) building cars and trucks for Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and others to bail out the Michigan automakers?

Yes. Doubly so when they wish to get rid of a market for affordable performance. Even more so when they speak of turning on their own in the South.

No thanks, I'll skip the golf cart transplants. Start making some muscle without exorbitance, then they can have a case against a bailout.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Smith — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:33:59 -0000

Big-3’s effort of technology improvement is inferior to other forgin company,especialy in the field of manufacturing technology.

In japan,cars body are made from more high tensile strength steel.Tradeoff between lightening and toughness is solved.So car weigh becomes lighter about 15% for vehicle fuel efficiency.

But forming cost of high tensile steel costs much when leaving just as it is,because damage of stamping die for body forming becomes very much.So more durable tool steel for cold stamping die use is developed by Hitachi Metals.

It is thought that there is also a cause which bankruptcy of big-3 may occures in the accumulation of a peripheral

technology in USA.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

John Konop — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:03:14 -0000

Time to Bailout Main Street

To the surprise of very few who have been paying attention, the Wall Street bailout has had little positive effect on making credit available to businesses or individuals. The $350 trillion in TARP funds already made available, plus the almost $1 trillion in loans directly from the Federal Reserve, have only been used to replace capital already recognized as lost, or to buttress balance sheets in anticipation of the write-offs to come as the economy slides deeper into recession.

Also to the surprise of no one, every industry, trade group, union, state government, and municipality lobbyist has formed a long line in order to get “their share” of the bailout. The federal government will continue to write checks to every interest group possible before they do what they presumably already know needs to be done: make credit available directly to the American people and small businesses via temporary government backing of basic credit facilities.

We need to drive the economy via consumer behavior. The following plan lubricates the wheels of the economy by making available sensible, properly leveraged credit.

An old axiom of government is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite over-reaction. This is the current situation in our credit market. Failure to regulate leverage has lead to a current environment where lenders expect to be over-regulated. Only customers with spotless credit are able to make purchases. Yet, due to the economic downturn, many people with good jobs, down payments, and the ability going forward to repay loans will have blemished credit.

There are many who share blame that got us into this mess. But the solution is to reward good future behavior. The blame game can continue until the end of time, but we must lay a foundation to get us back to a market-based, productive economy once again.

http://controlcongress.com/...

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

cpurick — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:43:53 -0000

Muirgeo:

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision.

Well, I guess it would start with a groundswell of economic literacy. Then, whenever libtards like yourself opened their mouths with your fallacious Marxist nonsense, suddenly a whole lot more Americans than just us would think, "What a f'n useful idiot."

It would be nice to society's education level raised to the point where your stupidity is recognized for what it is -- simple economic ignorance.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:06:16 -0000

It seems that many leftists tend to project.

Are the rocks edible and do the mountain springs flow with lemonade?

No, libertarians oppose socialism.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

brotio — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:40:02 -0000

Oops, I violated my own rule about referring to statists as 'liberal'. The Muirducks of the world are about as committed to liberty as Uncle Joe Stalin.

That should be Leftardland, where government is always loving and benevolent and needs to be all-powerful and all-knowing so that it can grant our every wish.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

brotio — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:32:11 -0000

Muirduck,

From my post of Dec 16, 2008 9:38:04 PM: You believe choosing to unionize (or not) is too important an issue to trust to a secret ballot - that it really, really NEEDS a union organizer standing over your shoulder reminding you that he knows where you, your wife and kids live. Do you also support the elimination of the secret ballot in other elections, such as for president?

I'd really like to know how you feel about abolishing the secret ballot in other elections. You live in a solidly socialist part of the country. Wouldn't you like to KNOW that your neighbors are voting for the right guy and be able to do something to those who don't, just like the union knee-cappers hope to do?

"Are the rocks edible and do the mountain springs flow with lemonade?"

No, that would be in Libtardland, where government is always loving and benevolent and needs to be all-powerful and all-knowing so that it can grant our every wish.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

muirgeo — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:40:30 -0000

Off the top of my head, there would be no U.S. Empire. No U.S. troops based in other countries, no Iraq occupation, etc.

There would be no subsidies to any private interests.

There would be no war on drugs and prisons filled with drug offenders.

Will that do for a start?

Posted by: Sam Grove

I'm with you all the way so far. Are the rocks edible and do the mountain springs flow with lemonade?

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

cpurick — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:35:22 -0000

Muirgeo:

the way I see it liberty would be maximized for a small percent with everyone else left to grovel for their needs.

Is that what you useful idiots call "a job" these days?

Every one of you libtards has, somewhere in your family history, ancestors who risked their lives coming to America to get away from stupid statists like yourself. How proud they would be to see you now, George.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Methinks — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:49:47 -0000

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision. - Muirdiot

This is the 1,000,000th time this idiot has asked this idiotic question. The idiot has received multiple responses each time. His drug-addled brain obviously can't possibly understand any of the explanations because he slithers right back to ask exactly the same question again.

First of all Michael taxes are not armed robber. You agree to pay them by agreeing to live here and not relocate to a country more of your liking. - village idiot

Okay then. killing you is not murder, it's simply limiting your ability to repeat asinine drivel on other people's blogs because nobody will touch your blog with a ten foot pole. You agree to it by making an ass and a nuance of yourself here.

The United States taxes you where ever you live. It also reserves the right not to accept your renunciation of citizenship. It's gotten very USSR in that way. If it does accept your renunciation of citizenship, The U.S. levies a massive tax on all of your worldwide assets before it releases you from its grip. So, you basically can't agree not to pay taxes even if you don't want to live here or be a citizen anymore. You may not think this is robbery but any person with at least a solid double digit IQ doesn't see much difference.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Sam Grove — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:38:24 -0000

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision.

Off the top of my head, there would be no U.S. Empire. No U.S. troops based in other countries, no Iraq occupation, etc.

There would be no subsidies to any private interests.

There would be no war on drugs and prisons filled with drug offenders.

Will that do for a start?

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

ws1835 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:21:21 -0000

Additional thought.....

If concentration of wealth and power are of concern to you, then you are a poor student of history. There is no political system known to man that prevents the concentration of power and wealth. Even a full blown soviet system such as the old USSR or Cuba have huge concentrations of wealth and power. Such concentrations are simply a feature of human society going all the way back to the first warrior-kings.

However, it is worth noting that the rise of modern egalitarian societies in the western world paralleled the growth of mercantile economies and the economic rise of the middle class. Yes, that would be the by-product of evil capitalism. Western europe is highly regulated today, but still has a basically capitalist/mercantilist society.

So I guess if wealth/power concentrations are your concern, you should be arguing for as much modern capitalism as you can get.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

ws1835 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:14:16 -0000

Muirgeo -

You have cited medicare and social security as positive and productive social programs that benefit everyone and the everyone should gladly contribute to. And yet.....

Social security is one of the first (and greatest) American ponzi schemes. Did you know that the original targeted retirement age of 65 also happened to be the median life expectancy in the USA circa 1937.

Yep, that's right. From the beginning, your great social program was designed to only pay out to half of it participants. And now that today's retirees are facing means testing, we are headed right back to a situation where a good chunk of people contribute but never get a return.

Just a small tidbit in the hopes of prompting some reflection on your part. You don't appear to know much about the history and economics of social security even though it is one of the easiest to understand in terms of original intent and unfunded liabilities.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Oil Shock — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:10:54 -0000

And for Christ's sake that should be illegal. That's tantamount to bribery and overlaid with all sorts of conflict of interest.

Sure. If only we give more power to the politicians and bureaucrats, will they overcome the temptations of that power.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

muirgeo — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:43:50 -0000

cpurick or some one else,

What would your libertarian world look like. Please tell me what it is you envision.

Would wealth be more or less concentrated? Would the world economy expand or contract faster then it currently does? Would the middle class expand or shrink? Would poverty increase or shrink?

Would a child born to poor ignorant parents have a greater or lessor chance of escaping poverty? Would the environment be improved?

Would people die from starvation and easily treatable diseases less often? Would all the worlds property be owned by a fraction of the people or would everyone own property? Would some one like me who likes to go exploring wilderness for hundreds of miles have to ask permission to explore all the now privately held lands? Would every road be a privately owned toll road? Would there be countrys or just multinational corporations?

Tell me how it all works in your wonderful liberty maximizing world because I'm pretty sure the way I see it liberty would be maximized for a small percent with everyone else left to grovel for their needs.

I really don't think you've all ever thought this through to any detail. I find it hard to believe you would want to set up a society where the risk of being a groveler increases substantially while the likelihood of finding maximum liberty and freedom would diminish dramatically.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

cpurick — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:23:06 -0000

You are the one with faith in an ideology that exist NO WHERE in the real world

That strawman has been well covered, loser.

"On the rarity of laissez-faire, Muirgeo confuses reality with what is just or desirable. Tyranny and misery have been humanity's lot through most of history. Does that mean it was foolish or wrong to strive for freedom? The rarity of freedom tells you nothing about whether it will work."

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

muirgeo — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:20:34 -0000

No. Your views represent economic and political ignorance. A lot of people also used to believe the earth was flat. So what? It was still wrong. As are you -- repeatedly.

Posted by: cpurick

Sorry dude. You are the one with faith in an ideology that exist NO WHERE in the real world....well maybe in Djubti or Ethiopia....but other then that NO WHERE. And yet you persist in believing it the best way to arrange society with absolutly not even a single small bit of evidence to support your claim. THAT's IGNORANT.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

muirgeo — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:11:51 -0000

Madoff contributed regularly to the democratic coffers.

Posted by: Oil Shock

And for Christ's sake that should be illegal. That's tantamount to bribery and overlaid with all sorts of conflict of interest.

Lobbyist should not be able to contribute cash or anything of value to public officials and every meeting with public officials should be on public record.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Chris — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:24:12 -0000

Muirgeo --

"I would argue that GM problems are more a result of AIG's actions and their effect on the economy then on GM's management structure and it's own internnal problems."

That could be true, but I doubt it -- GM and Chrysler were on life support before the burst. But, in any case, so what? Is the standard "we bail out *everybody* negatively affected by the crisis"? That seems to be a recipe for disaster.

If I had my way, none of them would get bailed out, and the chips would fall where they may. But, since I can't have my entire way, my second choice is to at least prevent the bailouts from spreading to the car industry. (And, after car makers, who else has their hand out?)

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

cpurick — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:15:17 -0000

I don't envy earned wealth but I'm convinced a huge amount of wealth is ill-gotten.

Irrelevant. The deadweight of the undeserving is less of a burden on society than the policies of those determined to guarantee "equality." In your quest to ensure that nobody gets unduly prosperous, you morons jeopardize everyone else's prosperity. But quite frankly, I believe that's been your goal all along.

They represent the views of a majority of people living in this country

No. Your views represent economic and political ignorance. A lot of people also used to believe the earth was flat. So what? It was still wrong. As are you -- repeatedly.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Jason Johannpeter — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:12:57 -0000

Muirgeo,

In your last post your reasoning is based on the fallacy of a hasty generalization. You're taking one example and then saying that it covers that entire group. That's a weak argument. You could make it stronger by citing multiple examples.

Additionally, it seems that you employ the straw man fallacy quite a bit too in your rebuttals. You're distorting your opponent's argument so that you can more easily attack it, then you destroy the distortion, and then claim that you've defeated your opponent's real argument.

These fallacies in reasoning seem to aggravate the other contributors. Solidify your reasoning and I suspect a more civil tone would emerge from the other participants.

Just some things to consider.

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

Oil Shock — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:50:46 -0000

Madoff contributed regularly to the democratic coffers.

If you search on youtube.com, you will find Evelyn Rothschild of the Rothschild dynasty blaming the current financial troubles on lack of regulations. LOL. I wonder why most of the parasitic rich wants more regulations. SEC was created to war on financial corruptions, have they succeeded? Where is the perfect police state?

Re: Bankrupt Assertion

muirgeo — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:27:51 -0000

"The wealth of the rich does not come at the expense of the hard working middle class. There is nothing to preclude all the "hard working middle class" from becoming richer too."

Here is your biggest piece of BS in your whole post. Wealth often has very little to do with value. Many are rich from scheming off the productive society. The recent arrest of Madoff the Hedge fund manager jack off is just the tip of the ice berg. I'm not convinced that there is a hedge fund manager out their who has made a positive contirbution to society. These guys steal from you and me and we get nothing in return but longer work hours to fill in the gaps of productivity they steal.

You're a damn schmuck defending these a-holes. I don't envy earned wealth but I'm convinced a huge amount of wealth is ill-gotten. For Christ sakes the current global financial collapse is clearly all about ill gotten wealth.

Quit crying like a baby to the blog owners. Ignore my post or deal with them. They represent the views of a majority of people living in this country in which YOU choose to live as well.