| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 1:46:36 PM | congress didn't need to pass a law to fire the ceo of gm ...
he was fired by the board of directors under advise not by.
failing to follow the advise would have cancelled the loans.
the bailouts are loans ... not free money
the advise in managment of the corporation is governing and advise...
no laws are necessary
it is a method of safeguarding the investment of the loans.
all loans to companies in or on the edge of bankruptcy have strings and stippulations.
just because the government has made those over an investment bank making them... bfd. [big fkn deal] .... its not illegal ... its not immoral and it may mean that the loans will eventually get paid back.
the transfer of GM common shares to Motors Liquidation Corporation is a bit of a rip for the poor little guy but bankruptcy would have pretty much made them worthless anyways. [I lost money too ... ya don't have to be an American to invest in losers]
The same thing is happening to Allen-Vanguard [a maker of military transport vehicles] but its by a private investment firm forcing the company to make the common shares worthless for the sake of the new financing.
The little guy gets ripped off again. [Vanguard didn't even have to decare bankruptcy to do it]
then there are the stolen pension contributions from Nortel ...
firing some jerk at the head of GM and limiting salaries is small potatoes to the crimes and immoral acts of corporations and bankruptcy games they play. We need a bigger shake up than has happened so far to really fix the problems.
The bail outs .... well ... most of the money is still being waited for in this country and the Banks aren't lending out the money they have gotten. There is a big part of why the recovery isn't happening on schedual.
Dumping the jobs and letting the pensions go bust at GM would have caused enormous hurt and anyone thinking it would be better is fooling themselves.
[just think Domino effect] | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 1:54:20 PM | Hey thorb
If you think that the executive branch of the US govt. had no effect on whether or not the CEO of GM no longer kept that job, you are delusional. You can paint it anyway you want, what happened was that the executive wanted him OUT, and he was GONE.
Sort like saying that Tony Soprano had no hand in a persons demise, when all he did was to order it....................
As far as why the economy isn't rebounding......... tell me, what is the unemmployment rate, and which direction is it heading? AND, how do you have a recovery without jobs?
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:35:28 PM | Slade, Rep Frank just introduced an admendement to the Tarp. Latest Major Action: 1/22/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. Source www. loc.gov (thomas). You submitted a press release. From what I've read of what was passed into law there was no such languge.
Bluesman, I have to admit error. I was going from memory. I will be more careful and actually present my sourcing material. Point you.
Sly US vs. Lopez was a case reguarding a public (government) school, therefore the interstate commerce clause would stand to reason. A public school is bulit funded and run by the state, and federal government. As you know it was a question if the safe schools act was unconsitutional.
However, if we want to look at our arugement we are talking about the government not regulating interstate commerce by conducting commerce. I would argue that this is an this would fall under rule 64 of the federal proceedure, of sezieing persons or property.
Rule 64. Seizing a Person or Property
(a) Remedies Under State Law — In General.
At the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.
(b) Specific Kinds of Remedies.
The remedies available under this rule include the following — however designated and regardless of whether state procedure requires an independent action:
arrest;
attachment;
garnishment;
replevin;
sequestration; and
other corresponding or equivalent remedies.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule64.htm | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:23:45 PM | Hey thorb
you wrote:
"Dumping the jobs and letting the pensions go bust at GM would have caused enormous hurt and anyone thinking it would be better is fooling themselves."
That is the type of thinking that brought you TARP, and other abominations. Just so you have a little bit of an example of what should be happening, and what would have happened on a much larger scale if GM had gone under completely, look up "Fisker".
They have bought, albeit with govt loaned money -no story is perfect-, an old GM plant and plan to build high performance hybrid cars. AND, here is something that will give you a woodie for certain........ THEY KEPT THE UNIONS!!!!! HOW COOL IS THAT?
The car itself is a great looking car, and promises very good performance, plug in hybrid, 300 mile range, and is even named correctly..........
the KARMA.
How it works is that when a company folds, there are always assets, those are purchased at bargain basement prices, and the show goes on. It is never a zero sum game.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/29/2009 3:11:18 PM | Thorb
There's a GM plant in your part of the world right? We used to have one in Baltimore, that made the mini-vans. It was shut down and moved to Mexico. Another reason I'm not a big fan of NAFTA. My reason for asking, is does this influence your thinking? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/29/2009 9:33:25 PM | Honestly .... everything in my life influences my thinking ...
I have worked in the installation of robots in the auto industry for decades. My job actually decreases the number of workers these plants need .
I too have undergrad economics study under my belt and personal friends that are economists ... not that that really means anything.
Its easy to speculate on possibilities ... that didn't happen ...
they didn't happen.
we can only watch what is happening if we are lucky we will see how to guide it to a good result. The auto industry in general is a huge part of all of the north american economy . We have what was one of the original GM plants and a Fort plant and a Honda Plant and Toyota and Chrysler plants in my area.
The Canadian Government and Ontario Government is involved in the GM fiasco too.
They all felt the jobs and keeping the workers pensions solvent was very important.
and Not up for bargan basement sale like Paul K wants.
Government has been extorted into tax breaks by the promise of jobs
this is the same as giving money and remember the bailout is a loan
not like a tax break ... which is free money.
i can't stand redneck so called free market calls from people that don't really understand the economics.
I was a Dewey fan for a time ... but his economics failed
we are back to Keynes for the reason of going back to basics.
maybe we should go back to Smith for a bit ....
In reality they only uses these schools of economics for general advice and the think tanks barter with the money barons to come up with a policy that they think might give them some advantage over Europe and Asia. Its all a crap shoot.
the main problem I had with the Economics department at my University was how they thought they were a pure science and math formulas would tell them everything they needed to know to predict the future.... when they were in the faculty of social science .... they forgot the social part and that people make economics work and people can not be predicted by a math formula.
[they always had too many dummy variables to be accurate]
I left the department for other persuits and have since watched all their predictions go to shit. I feel they have proved my case against there general methods of designing the world. Let's let some social empathy take precident over business math and see if that works a little better.
Remember ... money is just numbers on paper.
and Government was ment to govern.
Can the Fox News B.S. ... it means nothing to the educated.
| |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/30/2009 11:20:08 AM | Hey thorb
Anybody that still holds out keynes as an example of what to do is VERY mistaken. Please show me ONE time when it worked.......... There aren't any examples. As a matter of fact, when implemented, those economies have not recovered, and didn't recover until different policies were implemented. That is plain history, not refutable.
The only thing that has brought any economy out of a slump has been to cut taxes, as that frees up money for PRIVATE ENTERPRISE to do more R&D, hire more people........ and guess what happens then? The economy rebounds. Notice I didn't say to eliminate taxes, which is where those who have no other argument want to assume that I am saying.
Do you know who implemented tax cuts as a way of spurring an economy most famously? It was JFK. He went to the New York Business Club, and gave a speach that mirrors EVERYTHING that Ronaldus Magnus said, everything that Laffer says, everything that great economists like Walter Williams say.
All that Keynsian economics theory does is take money from an economy that is faltering in the first place, and puts it in the hands of POLICITIANS, who take large amounts for themselves, give a little bit out, and then say............. See, we fixed the economy............ To all the poor saps who bought a car and used the "cash for Clunkers" program...... wait until you see what your accountant tells you about the taxability of the $4500.00 that the benevolent government "gave" you.......... Don't ever forget this; the benevolent govt. can only get money if a few ways, borrowing and taxing. BOTH of those ways come out of the money in circulation. And what does that do to an economy?
As far as a mathematical formula being correct in predictions of what will happen to an economy, YES, it can and does happen. EVERY TIME a tax cut was implemented, more money was collected by the treasury........ EVERY TIME. What I don't understand is why those who rail against government, also want that same govt. to save them. When a tax cut is implemented, the whole size of the fiscal pie GROWS. Very simple.
For those who think that the "stimulus package" actually helped, and we are actually coming out of the recession, tell me this: How can a recession end when unemployment is going UP?
One more thing, I have never watched Fox news, nor any of the official state news agencies, you know, ABC, CBS, NBC...................................... Just because Fox gets it right occasionally, doesn't mean that I get information from them.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:06:11 PM | Government control of private business and its implications should have been thought about more before any bailouts were given out.The bailouts them selves may represent the largest act of market intervention ever to occur in American history.
The private sector accepted the bailout loans from the American taxpayer.The government as a negotiator on behalf of the taxpayer has every right to put stipulations on those loans.
The biggest diversion from free market thinking was giving bailouts in the first place.
Public money should never be used to bolster the profitability of private business.
True free market thinking would have those companies fail .The situation should have been left correct it self .
The bailout craze has set a dangerous precedant for the long term and is one big dirty scam.Fear was played on to the public in regards to the economic "meltdown".History shows that markets run on a business cycle every 5-7 years a period of market downturn is obseved like clockwork(some are worse than others).So is the taxpayer to reward poorly run companies with taxpayers assistance every downturn from here on in.Five years from now GM will still be a poorly run company and they will have thier hands out again........garunteed.
There are taxpayers out there who can't afford a car or a share in GM .The taxpayer in general is now forced to reward mediocraty. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/30/2009 1:26:13 PM | Hey beefy
You couldn't be more right. These "bailouts" were sold to us partially on the premise that those now in office were so smart that they could circumvent the NORMAL up and down market cycles....... As an aside -- YOU CAN'T FIX NORMAL, but you can ruin it with "bailouts".
As I have said all along, this is one of the biggest power grabs in our history, and it has DOUBLED the national debt, IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR. However, this too is fixable. All they have to do is to NOT spend any more of the money alloted to "bailouts" that hasn't been spent, and give business incentives to do more R&D, more incentive to hire.........
The best way to give the ecnomy a swift kick in the A$$ to get it running again is to simply give all manufacturing entities a 3 month moratorium on all taxes, broken up in one month periods. Seeing how most business pays over 1/3 of everyting they make in taxes, and if they show a 5%profit margin, they had a good year. All of the money they save in taxes would go a HUGE way to refurbishing plants, new designs, HIRING. This will never happen as it would take power away from the whores in congress who live on our our money. Now I will sit back and read all of the posts of those who say that these businesses will only keep the money and distribute it to the few top filthy rich elite......................... and that the workers of the world should unite, pitchforks in hand, storm the castles and carry out the money grubber out on rails........... yay.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:41:25 PM | | I just heard on the news that the democrat sponsored healthcare bill will cost over one trillion dollars, take over one eighth of our economy, has 2000 pages which no one in the congress or senate has read, and contains more than 3000 new laws. Whether they are things we must now do or things we can no longer do, it is still 3000 lost freedoms. Will they really have time to study this thing before they vote on it? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:03:05 PM |
The best way to give the ecnomy a swift kick in the A$$ to get it running again is to simply give all manufacturing entities a 3 month moratorium on all taxes
Straight out of talk radio.
All this would do is give the wealthy a nice big fat gift. The wealthy received enough gifts over the past eight years--it is part of the reason we are in the mess we are in.
The best way to give the economy a swift kick would be not to lay the cash into the hands of the rich, as we have been doing with these bailouts; but instead, hand the dough over to the poor. The poor will spend it on all those things those manufacturing entities manufacture...well, what few entities still exist in the United States after the treasonous wealthy set up shop in countries where they pay so little that their employees must work two months just to buy that cheap plastic widget they just made.
What we really need in the US is some sort of shadow organization that exist to set things right. Every time a wealthy piece of crap or some fat sloth of a politician with his hands in the pocket of the health care industry, does something to screw someone or everyone over, they are made to simply disappear. Once enough of them are disposed of, the rest will act a little more respectful of others. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:35:11 AM | ^^^ That sounds like a great idea !! Where can i sign up to join the fat sloth disposal unit ?
The best way to give the economy a swift kick would be not to lay the cash into the hands of the rich, as we have been doing with these bailouts; but instead, hand the dough over to the poor. The poor will spend it on all those things those manufacturing entities manufacture
The cash for clunkers program seems to prove that point. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:31:50 PM | ^^^^^^
You would have to read the whole paragraph in order to get the statement in CONTEXT, but why bother when you have such and easy "gotcha"....... or at least you think you do.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:07:09 PM |
The cash for clunkers program seems to prove that point.
Does the cash for clunkers really prove that point?
At most this is going to be a short term 'boost' to the economy. Yes, there will be a surge in car sales because of this deal. So will the automotive industry maintain that when it is done? That is the key thing.
Also, are you putting the poor in a potential bad situation. If they are really poor they may not be able to afford a new car even with this cash incentive. After all, they are on shaky grounds in their finances. Yes, the deals are enticing and wil get those on the fringe to trade in for a new car. But I am more curious about how many can actually afford to keep up with the payments that will come with this.
Instead of trying to get the poor to spend more...maybe help them build a solid foundation financially so they can someday go out and buy a car when they can afford to. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:37:35 PM |
You would have to read the whole paragraph in order to get the statement in CONTEXT, but why bother when you have such and easy "gotcha"....... or at least you think you do.
I think maybe you need to read the whole paragraph there Rush. Post #86. Read it again. Basically what the post said was put the money into the hands of the poor because they will spend it. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/1/2009 7:36:23 AM | Hi ya'll. I want to return to the Kenyansian agruement for a moment. Paul, Ronald Regan actually applied part the this theory in Trickle Down economic theory. Remember he was an FDR Democrat first. The general idea is that you can have Defict spending (spend more then what is PROJECTED to be received in revenues). Keyans also argued for directed spending. This directed spending was on Public Goods, such as Defense, Infastructure (which we've ignored since), and manfucaturing. Regan as applied Laffer as well on the maginal tax rates. However, to understand Regan correctly you have to apply both theories. I would agree with Thorb that this isn't a one size fits all economic theory problem. Maybe if take all the best parts of all economic theory maybe I could become a laurate. Lol.
Now for the CARS, better known as cash for clunkers. The unintended consquence is that all the veichles that were taken in under this program were destroyed. This goes against the first princple of economics the elimination of waste. If I understand "Wealth of Nations" correctly by Adam Smith. These vechiles would've normally been returned to the economic system and rebought for those that can't afford a nicer newer vechile. Or for those of us that beleive in charity it could've been donated to the needy. Some do this for tax purposes. The CARS program is going to hurt the independent dealers, because there is less product avilable to them. Not only that it will artifically inflate the prices of used vechiles. Think about it an SUV used to be a bargan now they are overprice IMHO.
JSlade it is often true that poor spend it. However the trend is changing. Most people especially those of lower economic means are saving more often. The problem that I see with the injection of all this money in the economy, is the hyper-inflation that is comming. When you go to the grocers you can see this beginning. The problem is going to get worse. This means that our dollar will have less purchasing power. Couple this with the rise in the minium wage this is recipe for long term economic disaster. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/1/2009 4:44:41 PM |
And where in the Constitution does it forbid the government from setting terms for a loan?
The 10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Of course, this amendment is a thorn in the side of both Repuglicans and Demoncrats so they freely ignore it. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:03:54 PM |
Who is to blame? Us. Me, as much as anyone. Because we're not exercising our voting rights, and writing off to our MPs (Senators and Representatives for you in the US). We're just sitting on our bums and letting everyone play us for a patsy.
It doesn't matter who we elect. In most places it's very difficult to get on the ballot without support from the Repuglican or Demoncrat parties. You need a lot of money (especially to fend off frivolous lawsuits; ask Ralph Nader) and a strong organization. Even when elected you are isolated from the two parties unless you tow the line. You can even be isolated from your own party for not towing the line (ask Ron Paul). Any bill you want to introduce can be killed in committees run by Repuglicrats. The only way the system can be changed is through revolution, and Americans don't have the stomach for that. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:09:42 PM |
It certainly does pass. Nobody made a peep when the previous administration wadded up the constitution and used it for toilet paper.
Lots of people did. Were you sleeping for the past 8 years? | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:27:06 PM |
To all the poor saps who bought a car and used the "cash for Clunkers" program...... wait until you see what your accountant tells you about the taxability of the $4500.00 that the benevolent government "gave" you
What they gave people is more debt. Before the Clinkers program people owned their cars free and clear. After Clunkers these people now have loans for the new cars that they have to pay off. Who really benefitted from the Cash for Clunkers program? The banks of course. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/1/2009 5:49:43 PM | Considering that the Fed runs the American economy and robs the American taxpayer, this thread might have been better titled "Private Business control of government."...
Which reminds me... Has anyone watched "The Money Masters"? | |
|
| |
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 7:02:14 AM |
The only way the system can be changed is through revolution, and Americans don't have the stomach for that.
Sadly, it appears you are right. Government has become like the weather; everybody grumbles, but nobody does anything about it. I guess they're afraid of the big screen TV getting broken. | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 11:32:32 AM | Hey Gadget
We are about to have a minor disagreement. When Keynes promulgated "directed spending", he did so because according to him, it was GOVT. spending that would bring an economy out of a recession, depression at that time, and the problem with that train of thought is that the govt. has to get the money from somewhere to spend in the first place. Laffer couldn't be more right about lowering the marginal, capital gains rates in order to collect more in the treasury. An added benefit to doing as Laffer suggests is that it will kick start the economy.
Now I know that you will have those that automatically start screaming about how you need taxes in order to do what is being done........ To those of you, chill. Nobody ever said that we don't need any taxes at all, what Laffer espouses is a resonable low rate that doesn't kill business. AND, it has worked everytime it was tried.
Gadge, one thing to remember is that Reagan WAS a FDR democrat to begin with, but his explanation was that he didn't leave the party, the party left him. A good thing to remember is you mistakenly think that we haven't been drifting to the left.
Paul K | |
|
| Government control of private business.....
Posted: 11/2/2009 1:19:52 PM | RE Msg: 91 by gadgetdoc:
Hi ya'll. I want to return to the Kenyansian agruement for a moment. Paul, Ronald Regan actually applied part the this theory in Trickle Down economic theory. Remember he was an FDR Democrat first. The general idea is that you can have Defict spending (spend more then what is PROJECTED to be received in revenues). Keyans also argued for directed spending. This directed spending was on Public Goods, such as Defense, Infastructure (which we've ignored since), and manfucaturing. Regan as applied Laffer as well on the maginal tax rates. However, to understand Regan correctly you have to apply both theories. I would agree with Thorb that this isn't a one size fits all economic theory problem. Maybe if take all the best parts of all economic theory maybe I could become a laurate. Lol. I just caught this bit. I don't always agree with economists. But directed spending is something that I've thought about often. If we have directed spending, then taxation becomes directly related to spending, and spending becomes transparent, which means no-one can skim off the top, and no-one can argue that money is being skimmed. You also cannot argue that the government isn't spending enough on X, Y or Z, because you can see where it's coming from, and if it's not enough, then the people should pay more. It makes budget allocation easy for government, and taxation, because no-one can argue with it, and because its transparency makes it easy to work out how much is needed based on how much needs to be done. It's a win-win for taxation and spending. But, it's a lose-lose, for corrupt politicians, for making deals with companies that will only function if you give them bakshish (kickbacks), and for military spending that needs to be kept "hush-hush".
RE Msg: 92 by CountIbli:
The 10th Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Of course, this amendment is a thorn in the side of both Repuglicans and Demoncrats so they freely ignore it. Isn't that unconstitutional? What is this? You have laws, but only the laws you choose to obey? | |
|
Home
login 
