wannabess00

iTrader: (1)

Ya know, whether any of us agreed or disagreed, before you came along this conversation was quite intelligent and a little more civil...So how about you stop complaining about others personally attacking you while you personally attack others by calling them stupid or idiots or left wingers(as if to suggest an inferior ideology and therefore dismissive) and just respectively throw your .02 and move the convo along

Wimimc

iTrader: (2)

AFAIK Andrew Jackson was the only president to relieve us of our national debt.

and as mentioned, the fall of our automotive industry would have affected many things, wouldn't it have affected Toyota, Honda, etc as well?

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

I'm done with the guy...but I will say that i'm fascinated to find out how long he will continue this...more and more members are calling him out, yet he still digs himself deeper and deeper. Most average fools would have quit by now.

This site can be just as entertaining as it is informative.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

Arrogant generalizations, that pretty much defines your last posts. Anyone can read about a collapsed government and blame it on a political agenda but you see what you want to see as opposed to what's really there, just to strengthen you own delusions. Are you blind to what countries out there are flourishing with agenda's that you so vehemently oppose? Show your sources, with PROOF not lousy ascertains that they failed because you know better and this is why...


How come when Communism and/or Socialism "fails" it's the system's fault but when Capitalism fails it isn't the system fault? Your SOOO quick to label and attach someone to a party movement or political stance that you proclaim to be a failure and oppose, yet when something fails in a system that you believe in it's not the system's fault but an individual company or person's fault? Shouldn't it be the same standard for both?
Either apply your logic to both sides or don't apply it at all. Looking back at history with blinders on doesn't help you sort out right from wrong any better than had you not looked at all.

It'llrun

It doesn't matter if I make a generalization or not. There's no rule that says I have to know exactly the way I should word something so as to satisfy or impress another. The facts remain, regardless what we do or do not like about them. Capitalism does work, no question, and socialism does not, as we've seen by a number of failed states(nations) over the years while capitalist states thrive.

Capitalism and socialism aren't really political agendas. They are ultimately a direction for economy taken by entire nations, though typically chosen by politicians or dictatorships, etc.

Agendas aren't the issue we're discussing, again, economies are... I don't have to like an agenda for it to work for a nation. I do, however, have to recognize what does work best, or I'm all but entirely doomed to repeat what does not.


You've said I'm arrogant, but it seems the problem here is you're failure to understand, not my arrogance. More on this over this and the next two parts of my response.

The most important recognition to our reality in this regard... Our nation has been "failing" because our government has "decided" to REMOVE what works, which is capitalism. They've implemented laws, rules and regulations, and their own short-sighted ideas to help themselves. Most importantly, they've chosen to spend tax dollars on SOCIALIST programs, which ultimately always fail. Before we had all these rules, etc. installed into our lives, capitalism was gaining ground. So, our "progressive" leaders reacted by setting up systems to STEAL our income before we ever even earned it, creating programs to help the poor(as directly opposed to them helping themselves) which took away from the "haves" simply to give to the lazy(in most cases), thus driving up the cost of living and down employment(because companies had less from which to pay employees). Socialism and Communism specify that everyone is to pay for everyone, and look at the level of production those countries have as opposed to ours... EXclude China because they've actually shifted their system much more toward capitalism as we, and other nations, have shifted ours away.

They raised taxes, which didn't even exist until 1913 in America. Over time, this led to companies pulling out of America in favor of countries which allow them to keep more of their money and make their own decisions with it instead of having to send it places they didn't want it going.

Under capitalism, by definition, a company or person IS responsible for their own actions... Of course it's not the fault of a capitalist goverment when someone or a company fails, as they've stayed out of it. As stated above, the other two aren't subject to capitalistic rules, but rules dictating the government decide for the entire country.

It seems apparent you don't actually know the definitions of the 3 types of economy(not political agendas, although those drive decisions at some point), we're discussing here and I think that's why you're confused about my points. Logic requires we understand the system, at least a little bit, before we attempt to see why one works better than another. Thomas Edison provided a great example of this problem. He decided that his electricity system was great, and in so doing, completely discounted that of Nikola Tesla... Problem was, Tesla's AC idea was far better for a large group than was the DC system the ever intelligent Edison chose.

Sure it does, so you should look... If you'd look, you may note the clear and vast differences between capitalism and the other two forms of economy.

Once you understand the definitions of the 3 forms of economy(and yes, even government) in question, you may not be in such disagreement with me after all.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

Government interference in the market is not true Capitalism. So when Capitalism fails, it isn't because Capitalism failed - it is because Capitalism wasn't allowed to work as designed.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

What countries have failed and suffered due to Socialism? How many countries are flourishing now due to their socialist agenda?

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

The Government intervenes only when our best interest, that of the health and prosperity of the nation, is at risk. Capitalism is a cyclical system, recessions and depressions are it's way of cleansing itself, absolutely. Some depressions are bigger than others, but at what point is it ok to watch not just companies but whole industries fail just to keep true to an ideal? If GM was allowed to fail, which I'm not that opposed to, another manufacturer would have stepped in and filled the void, but at what cost?
Again...at what COST to us as a country??
Ignoring what would have happened to our economy, un-employment, over-taxed social programs and resulting growth in poverty, what or who would have prospered from a collapse like that? Not small start up American companies, Not our economy and certainly Not us as a country. The most likely scenario is that one or a combination of the big foreign manufacturer's would have taken up the slack. Countries who's economic, political, and interests are much different than ours and they would not allow our economy to recover when they can feast on what originally had been American jobs and American industries. The collapse of the auto industry would have reuslted in a mass exodus of jobs, something that has been happening anyways, just this would have accelerated the pace by quite a huge amount.
In a closed economic system capitalism is a fantastic system, as evidence as to how we got to be as powerful as we once were. But in a free trade system (something we pushed for) where the vulnerabilities of capitalism can be exploited it isn't as fool-proof of a system as everyone makes it out to be.

When things go right, people want the government to keep their noses out of their business, when things go wrong, people immediately turn to the government for help. It's one or the other, you can't have it both ways.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I have been somewhat living with that fear ever since VW (and later Honda and Toyota) first set up an assembly plant here in the late '70s/'80s. There was some upside to that, but there was also room for plenty of downside as well.





True.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

There is not a single economic system that can survive over the very long term. All systems that have been created and tried by humankind have failed or will fail. It is because of human nature (greed, selfishness...etc) that all past systems have failed, and why, for all intents and purposes, capitalism has now failed also. No matter what the government did, it was a failure...capitalism DID NOT WORK. By the time they even got to the decision the system had already failed...at that point it was what to do to save our economy. I don't think that either solution will(would have) work(ed). We basically went with one that bought us time. The economy is ok (read: not great) now because they dumped all that money into our automakers. However, as soon as energy prices hit the same highs they did back in '08 (and they are well on their way now), we'll be right back in the hole again and all the banks will be screwed again. It's going to be a nasty pattern from here on out until the end.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

To add and clarify: I think GM and Chrysler should have failed, absolutely. They did not deserve to be bailed out by the government, nor should most any company that has a poor business plan. But I think the term "Too Big to Fail", is also an accurate description of the thought process that led to them being bailed out. It was a decision based less upon GM and Chrysler than it was about everything and everyone connected to it.


To some extent, I roughly agree but would never have phrased it as such, nor in such all-encompassing absolute terms. I think most systems are inherently fine and sound, it's the application, implementation and follow through that is flawed, i.e. people.

Don't agree with this. Capitalism hasn't failed, nor is it over yet either. It (capitalism) needs to evolve to not only suit the needs and structure of our free market economy but also to work well with states who don't apply our economic ideals/philosophies. Either it does that or our country will continue to slowly get cleaned out by other markets.
And our economy didn't tank because of the energy market in 08' nor will it tank when prices climb once again. The reason for the economic collapse was brought on in part by de-regulation of certain markets and the greed and packaging that soon ensued.

It'llrun

What? We've gone from not understanding the most basic differences in the economies to wanting a list of failures? One step at a time, Monsignor...

Ever heard of Canada? It's not doing so well. How about Great Britain? Again, not well. France? Nearly in total shambles, as are several other Euopean nations... If those listed won't do, look into Greece.

As to which are doing well... I can't think of any. Type it into your browser and see... Seriously, give it shot. I'm just telling you I see failure after failure all across Europe and basically everywhere there's not capitalism being used as the basis of the economy.

Honestly, if you believe that, you're only fooling yourself. Our government has been intervening in nearly every aspect of our lives, getting progessively worse for the past 98yrs... Today it's much worse than it was then.

That's the deal with all economic systems.

1st, consider where GM and Chrysler would likely be WITHOUT the tax system as terrible as it is... If you can answer that one(and nobody really can), you'll be on your way to not wondering "at what point" anymore because you'll be convinced the government is the reason for their woes, not the cure.

Who cares what cost? Really... Who cares, and why? The ONLY thing that matters is, they'd do it. Of course, if the gov't is that "person" we have problems. As we all know, those folks can hardly manage to dress themselves, let alone run a successful business.
Okay, you really wanna know... I can't answer because, #1 I don't know. #2, it wasn't "allowed" to happen, so instead we suffer longer. Consider this though... Had someone stepped in, the price for the vehicles may well have lowered. That aside, the real odds would be on GM filing bankruptcy and renegoatiating their thousands of contracts. They'd probably have come back at a quicker pace and be stronger for it.

How do you know?

Not so. Under our current laws, GM could've filed bankruptcy and retained control of the company.

Idonno man... Several GM vehicles have been made outside America for ages and still managed to use American labor somewhere along the way.

Sure it is, because that leads to better pricing for everyone, even on products not made in America. I don't like NAFTA personally, but our system can still work, as long as WE work to keep our advantages in technology and desire to excel. Anyway, America's capitalism has never been closed. It's just been choosy.

The 1st part is true. The 2nd part is not. I've not met anyone who wants to work but also thinks they want the government to be in the way or standing there waiting to save them. Most people want the government out of the way, period, in good times and bad. When my business was struggling, I wanted 1 thing more than anything else... The government to GET OUT of my way. It's every bit the hindrance it claims not to be and generally is utterly useless in the help department. Nothing new there.

buddha845

iTrader: (3)

Guys.




It was aliens

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

To get technical, yes. But I was saying the same thing in much simpler terms. I'm talking not about Capitalism, Socialism, Communism...etc in theory, but in practice. In theory, and in purest form, all three work great. But NONE work in the real world, and all for the same reason - us.

Here's what confuses me about what you said. Above you took my comments as pertaining to capitalism theory. But here you are advocating that capitalism has to evolve to survive. So would that not mean that you agree that capitalism in it's current form has failed? I mean that's what I was getting at. Pure capitalism has given way to the free-market economy, which many still try to stamp the capitalism name on. However, as such, it has failed. So it seems to me that what you are saying without realizing it is that capitalism both in pure form AND in it's current evolved form has failed...right?

Also it seems to me that what you said about our form of capitalism evolving further to mesh with the world market would change it to the point where it would no longer qualify as a capitalist system.

But it does seem to me like we are heading to a point where I would agree with you - it's not really capitalism that has failed, it's the world's influence on our capitalist society and it's resulting system that has failed.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

Excellent points (in my opinion).
It appears as if capitalism and "free trade" has worked a little better for some nations than it has for others.
If an American citizen were to disagree, I would then ask them to try opening up a business in Japan LOL.

It sort of reminds me of something I tend to bring up once in a while during these types of discussions, the U.S. during the post war 1950s and 1960s.
I wasn't around yet to see it/live it first hand but from what I've read and what I've been told it was a most prosperous and lucrative time to live in this great nation.
The husband's/dad's income alone was usually enough to sustain the household so the wives/mothers didn't need to work like they do today resulting in kids that were overall more disciplined/closely watched and got into less trouble/less criminal activity (a little social commentary thrown in there ).
Many people owned their own homes.
There were more jobs available.
Opening/maintaining one's own business was less cost prohibitive and even more likely to succeed as well.
Fewer homeless people.
Etc.

I would think we as a nation might look back to that era and see what has changed and maybe even what needs to be changed back in order to potentially restore that (overall better?) way of life.
Off of the top of my head, two key factors come to mind.
Exports exceeded or at least equaled imports.
And likely 95% of the vehicles (and their contents) on the road were designed, manufactured, assembled and transported within the continental North American borders.
From that U.S. auto industry of yesteryear there were a lot of people employed, a lot of taxes paid, a lot of health costs covered and a lot of food placed on a lot of tables.
Just sayin'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

To say that is a gross generalization.

Yup!! It's a dirty word on here but it's time for Hybrid's!!
Then again that's the status quo of life, if people/things/whatever can't adapt to change they/it dies.

Exactly!! At least that's where I stand!
Funny thing is we pushed for this with all the trade agreements we made!

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)

I have heard of Canada. Forbes lists it as the 2nd happiest country in North America, the number one country?? Costa Rica...(a country that also has strong socialist networks). I guess that's what you call a country failing and suffering due to socialism is it?

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/wor...lup-table.html

You also realize that we (US economy) are the catalyst for the current state of the world economy right? We fall, we take half the worlds economies with us! Those that had more invested in us fall harder... So maybe putting 2 + 2 together might be a good idea before claiming all across Europe there's nothing but failure.

Ok fine, here's my "shot"...

How bout Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/i...ountries.html#

At least 5 of the top 10 countries have complete social services ranging from Health care to education and everything in between.

And 7 of the top 10 countries are in Europe, not sure how that qualifies as failure after failure!


They probably wouldn't exist, kinda hard to have cars without infrastructure, which is also a socialist agenda...
America has never been and never will be a PURE capitalist country, we've more roots in Socialism than you of all people will ever admit.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Governmentsuccesses.htm

I care, because it's called making an informed decision.

You don't know, yet we suffer longer... You obviously failed to understand the whole objective of sorting out GM's and Chrysler's mess.


And after GM filed bankruptcy, what would have happened to it's creditors and suppliers? Yup, most of them would of filed for bankruptcy too, and then some of their respective creditors would also file bankruptcy and pretty soon instead of having a nation of individuals filing bankruptcy for defaulting on loans and causing bank after bank to go under, you'd have an entire industry filing bankruptcy, and you'd have bigger problems than just banks going under.

You either don't care (more than likely) or just plain chose to ignore how big an impact GM, Chrysler and eventually Ford would have caused had they gone completely under.


Capitalism as a whole has many merits but it also has it's downfalls...one of which is the creation of monopolies and corporate greed. GM, Ford and Chrysler bought up all their competition until all that was left was three HUGE companies that made our economy vulnerable. Why work harder when you can just buy the competition out? And products became less about value as it did making a profit. No system is perfect, they all have flaws and they all have great points. Even you can surely see that!


Yes that may be your opinion but it does not represent the majority and as a whole what I said is very true. When things go bad political interests goes up. It goes up because people want to know what the government is gonna do about it to make it better and why it was allowed to get to that point int he first place. When things are good people generally leave the government to their own machinations as long as it doesn't effect them.

Blakbird24

iTrader: (24)

It is a generalization, but I stand by it. If you ask me, it's been proven already.

...and now it will stay this way because some big deal players stand to lose ALOT of money if those agreements are rescinded.

Notice how while all this money is being dumped into fixing things, NOTHING is being done about the actual problems (like agreements that give other countries trade advantages, and the way energy futures are traded...which is largely the cause of the situation we are in). Too many big cats have too much money in these things to allow them to go away.

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

Yeah! screw those companies that took bailouts. I'm going to buy a car from a manufacturer that didn't take one. That way I can have a product that was made as cheaply as possible in order to keep the company afloat. /sarcasm.

Spoolin

iTrader: (8)