New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Hey ! I'm AOC and I just cost New York 27 Billion in Tax dollars !

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I am a "stickler" for the facts, the truth, and logic. YOU are the one suggesting that Packard's disappearance, after management ruined the brand during an expansion in auto sales by abandoning the high end auto space (because they were having their heads handed to them by…wait for it…GM's Cadillac brand), for the mass market auto space (where again…wait for it…GM already held a major share with their Chevrolet, Pontiac and Buick brands) and they couldn't grab hold, effectively becoming a brand without a constituency is the reason why GM would have "disappeared" in a bankruptcy resulting from management getting themselves into a cash crunch as a result of high fixed costs resulting from a bad union deal (rather than bought in bankruptcy by PE who could resurrect it as a non-union company), in a time when the entire auto industry was temporarily contracting in an economic slow down, after years of good sales goosed by home equity loans and pricing incentives - despite the fact that their major brands still held on to a solid share of a (temporarily) diminished market.

I'm the one arguing that the two situations are different - you are the one suggesting they are analogous. If they were it implies that Packard would have survived and thrived if the government had only stepped in and kept them alive - which is as absurd as suggesting that GM would have disappeared permanently simply because of a temporary cash crunch brought about by a bad union contract (that could have been dissolved in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy) amid a temporary slow down in overall auto sales.
You only pay attention to details that seem to support your opinions. Packard probably would have survived with new management and a line of credit. They had a substantial quality problem caused by an inability to retool because they were out of cash.

GM would not have survived because even the guy you suggested might bail them out had bought Ford at $8 and sold out at $2. If he shared your optimism for a recovery, he'd have kept his positions and made a ton of cash when it hit $17 in 2014.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You only pay attention to details that seem to support your opinions. Packard probably would have survived with new management and a line of credit. They had a substantial quality problem caused by an inability to retool because they were out of cash.

GM would not have survived because even the guy you suggested might bail them out had bought Ford at $8 and sold out at $2. If he shared your optimism for a recovery, he'd have kept his positions and made a ton of cash when it hit $17 in 2014.
Packard never really had that great of a brand, so I don't share your opinion that their chances were they would have survived (any more than the Edsel did). Their cars were overly pretentious and clunky at a time when Americans' tastes shifted to sleek, higher performance models.

As for Kerkorian, he sold out because management ignored his efforts to reshape their business model, not simply because he had lost money on his ownership stake. He took his capital to another opportunity where he could exert his influence (that was his operating model - he was never a "Buffet-like" passive investor). So if he had the chance to buy GM for pennies a share and own the whole thing lock, stock and barrel (and resurrect it as a non-union company), it's quite likely he'd have done so in a heartbeat. And if he hand't, someone else would have. You've proven quite clearly that you are clueless about business and economics, so no one in their right mind is agreeing with you when you insist GM had no chance at survival as a non-union company after a chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. The only ones saying that are the stupid and the anti-market big government economic interventionism apologists - which one are you?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Packard never really had that great of a brand, so I don't share your opinion that their chances were they would have survived (any more than the Edsel did). Their cars were overly pretentious and clunky at a time when Americans' tastes shifted to sleek, higher performance models.

As for Kerkorian, he sold out because management ignored his efforts to reshape their business model, not simply because he had lost money on his ownership stake. He took his capital to another opportunity where he could exert his influence (that was his operating model - he was never a "Buffet-like" passive investor). So if he had the chance to buy GM for pennies a share and own the whole thing lock, stock and barrel (and resurrect it as a non-union company), it's quite likely he'd have done so in a heartbeat. And if he hand't, someone else would have. You've proven quite clearly that you are clueless about business and economics, so no one in their right mind is agreeing with you when you insist GM had no chance at survival as a non-union company after a chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. The only ones saying that are the stupid and the anti-market big government economic interventionism apologists - which one are you?
Kerkorian bought Ford at $8 and gave up on auto investments when he sold those shares at $2. You seem to think that GM could have gone into bankruptcy court without a plan to emerge from bankruptcy. They'd have needed billions from investors and nobody came forward to offer a plan. The best you can offer is that "someone" would have. Your argument skips right over the icons that have failed. Lehman? Certainly someone would want that brand name. Think for a moment on all the companies that are gone now. Shopped at a Montgomery Ward's lately?

You want to argue dogma...government should never intervene. I'm pragmatic about it. Given the more than 4 million jobs lost in 2008, another million if GM and Chrysler went under was unacceptable. When you add up the costs of a million people being out of work in the way of increased unemployment checks, lost income tax etc...vs the $11,000 per job that it ultimately cost...it was a good deal.

Again, a couple of points you've ignored. Nobody was saying they'd be interested in buying GM at the time. If someone had come forward while GM was in chapter 7, it would have been years before legal challenges would have been resolved. GM would have been shut down for quite a while and possibly resumed manufacturing at a much resumed capacity. The impact to the economy could not have been positive at a time when the economy was already in the shitter.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Kerkorian bought Ford at $8 and gave up on auto investments when he sold those shares at $2. You seem to think that GM could have gone into bankruptcy court without a plan to emerge from bankruptcy. They'd have needed billions from investors and nobody came forward to offer a plan. The best you can offer is that "someone" would have. Your argument skips right over the icons that have failed. Lehman? Certainly someone would want that brand name. Think for a moment on all the companies that are gone now. Shopped at a Montgomery Ward's lately?

You want to argue dogma...government should never intervene. I'm pragmatic about it. Given the more than 4 million jobs lost in 2008, another million if GM and Chrysler went under was unacceptable. When you add up the costs of a million people being out of work in the way of increased unemployment checks, lost income tax etc...vs the $11,000 per job that it ultimately cost...it was a good deal.

Again, a couple of points you've ignored. Nobody was saying they'd be interested in buying GM at the time. If someone had come forward while GM was in chapter 7, it would have been years before legal challenges would have been resolved. GM would have been shut down for quite a while and possibly resumed manufacturing at a much resumed capacity. The impact to the economy could not have been positive at a time when the economy was already in the shitter.
So why is 4 million lost jobs okay and 5 million "unacceptable?" If I was the 4 millionth lost job at Billy Bob's Barbecue, is that better or worse for the economy than the five millionth job lost at GM? Or better or worse for the economy than the first "saved" job from a massive government intervention, for that matter?

If you add up all the lost GDP from the "secular stagnation" that ensued and the debt ran up from all the lost tax revenues from new businesses that never got started and (good) jobs that were never created, I assure you it adds up to way more than that $11,000 per "saved" job. But you only count what is seen and conveniently ignore that which is not seen.

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Which is why you serially demonstrate your cluelessness about economics.

You don't know what would have happened if GM had been left to the markets to sort out. Claiming you do only makes you look even more out of touch than the usual out of touchness you exhibit here on a regular basis). I have news for you, the economy has been "in the shitter" since GM was bailed out (and that's not a coincidence).

Screen Shot 2018-07-29 at 6.14.43 AM.png
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So why is 4 million lost jobs okay and 5 million "unacceptable?" If I was the 4 millionth lost job at Billy Bob's Barbecue, is that better or worse for the economy than the five millionth job lost at GM? Or better or worse for the economy than the first "saved" job from a massive government intervention, for that matter?

If you add up all the lost GDP from the "secular stagnation" that ensued and the debt ran up from all the lost tax revenues from new businesses that never got started and (good) jobs that were never created, I assure you it adds up to way more than that $11,000 per "saved" job. But you only count what is seen and conveniently ignore that which is not seen.

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Which is why you serially demonstrate your cluelessness about economics.

You don't know what would have happened if GM had been left to the markets to sort out. Claiming you do only makes you look even more out of touch than the usual out of touchness you exhibit here on a regular basis). I have news for you, the economy has been "in the shitter" since GM was bailed out (and that's not a coincidence).

View attachment 42212
1. You don't know what would have happened if GM had been left to the markets to sort out. Claiming you do only makes you look even more out of touch than the usual out of touchness you exhibit here on a regular basis). I have news for you, the economy has been "in the shitter" since before Lehman went under....

2. Who said 4 million lost jobs was ok (under the Bush administration). It was a downward spiral, much like 1929 to 1933. We hit 25% unemployment while the government did nothing. We were losing 750,000 jobs per month by the time Obama was sworn in. Anything he did was going to take months to take effect as shown by the fact that by the stimulus kicked in we'd hit 10% unemployment and an unemployment rate of 10%.

3. You stake your "logic" on that which is "not seen"....meaning what is a figment of your imagination.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
1. You don't know what would have happened if GM had been left to the markets to sort out. Claiming you do only makes you look even more out of touch than the usual out of touchness you exhibit here on a regular basis). I have news for you, the economy has been "in the shitter" since before Lehman went under....

2. Who said 4 million lost jobs was ok (under the Bush administration). It was a downward spiral, much like 1929 to 1933. We hit 25% unemployment while the government did nothing. We were losing 750,000 jobs per month by the time Obama was sworn in. Anything he did was going to take months to take effect as shown by the fact that by the stimulus kicked in we'd hit 10% unemployment and an unemployment rate of 10%.

3. You stake your "logic" on that which is "not seen"....meaning what is a figment of your imagination.
1. Actually it was in recession since before Lehman went under. I've already explained to you how the Bush Administration's decision to rescue Bear Stearns and then deny a rescue to Lehman (which I have also demonstrated was not in fact "bankrupt") was what sent the credit markets into lock up. You can suggest one bad government economic intervention deserves another, but you are being a fool. That is how recessions turn into depressions.

2. Which is a good analogy so thanks for pointing that out. What Obama did was double down on Bush's disastrous market interventions by any measure, just as FDR followed in the footsteps of ("father of the new deal") Herbert Hoover's. And in both cases, a long period of economic stagnation ensued. This isn't rocket science.

3. What is not seen is a normal economic recovery. Anyone still defending what the government has done to the economy the past decade (plus) has no clue about how economies work. Hint: they don't look like this:

Screen Shot 2018-07-29 at 6.14.43 AM.png

Everyone but you can look at that chart and "see" the actual economic performance since "Lehman." And I have news for you - they aren't seeing the "recovery" you claim Obama's policies engendered.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1. Actually it was in recession since before Lehman went under. I've already explained to you how the Bush Administration's decision to rescue Bear Stearns and then deny a rescue to Lehman (which I have also demonstrated was not in fact "bankrupt") was what sent the credit markets into lock up. You can suggest one bad government economic intervention deserves another, but you are being a fool. That is how recessions turn into depressions.

2. Which is a good analogy so thanks for pointing that out. What Obama did was double down on Bush's disastrous market interventions by any measure, just as FDR followed in the footsteps of ("father of the new deal") Herbert Hoover's. And in both cases, a long period of economic stagnation ensued. This isn't rocket science.

3. What is not seen is a normal economic recovery. Anyone still defending what the government has done to the economy the past decade (plus) has no clue about how economies work. Hint: they don't look like this:

View attachment 42213

Everyone but you can look at that chart and "see" the actual economic performance since "Lehman." And I have news for you - they aren't seeing the "recovery" you claim Obama's policies engendered.
1. So you agree with me that the recession was already under way long before congress passed Tarp or Bush & Obama lent the car manufacturers money to stay afloat...

You "explained"? That is funny. You attempted to make a point that the difference between the government action with re: to Bear Stearns and Lehman sent the credit market into lockup...Of course that is bullshit...but have at it.

2. In 1932 we'd reached the worst of the depression. The bank holiday Roosevelt declared allowed policies to be put in place to halt bank failures. We'd hit 25% unemployment. Was that due to the fact that Roosevelt had won the election and all those businesses decided to close? You do come up with some doozies. You are right that this isn't rocket science...it isn't a science at all. Your partisan politics are the basis for your economic theory. You think Reagan's recession/recovery is a model...in fact it isn't. Reagan/Bush quadrupled the national debt. His own stimulus was in buying up military hardware, expanding the active duty military...His unemployment rate hit 10.8% after 18 months in office and it stayed above 10% for 10 months. Take a look at how his booming economy hit the banks...


https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/01/bank-failures-by-year.html

So what happened before FDR declared the bank holiday...



3. What your graph proves is that the economy improved steadily from the huge negative turned over by Bush to Obama. The economy doesn't turn on a dime. 2009 was thanks to Bush. Now look at 2017...Trump doesn't seem to be doing much to help things.

 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
1. So you agree with me that the recession was already under way long before congress passed Tarp or Bush & Obama lent the car manufacturers money to stay afloat...

You "explained"? That is funny. You attempted to make a point that the difference between the government action with re: to Bear Stearns and Lehman sent the credit market into lockup...Of course that is bullshit...but have at it.

2. In 1932 we'd reached the worst of the depression. The bank holiday Roosevelt declared allowed policies to be put in place to halt bank failures. We'd hit 25% unemployment. Was that due to the fact that Roosevelt had won the election and all those businesses decided to close? You do come up with some doozies. You are right that this isn't rocket science...it isn't a science at all. Your partisan politics are the basis for your economic theory. You think Reagan's recession/recovery is a model...in fact it isn't. Reagan/Bush quadrupled the national debt. His own stimulus was in buying up military hardware, expanding the active duty military...His unemployment rate hit 10.8% after 18 months in office and it stayed above 10% for 10 months. Take a look at how his booming economy hit the banks...


https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2018/01/bank-failures-by-year.html

So what happened before FDR declared the bank holiday...



3. What your graph proves is that the economy improved steadily from the huge negative turned over by Bush to Obama. The economy doesn't turn on a dime. 2009 was thanks to Bush. Now look at 2017...Trump doesn't seem to be doing much to help things.

You call it bullshit because you can't refute it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/federal-reserve-lehman-brothers-collapse

It was the mother of all policy failures (and that is why the credit markets locked up). Obama responded with a huge increase in government economic interventions (just like FDR). And stagnation ensued.

In both instances (the 1930s and the post-Lehman period) there was no recovery (I'm sorry, but that chart proves it). If you can't get GDP growth in excess of debt floated, you do not have "recovery" - period!
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You call it bullshit because you can't refute it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/federal-reserve-lehman-brothers-collapse

It was the mother of all policy failures (and that is why the credit markets locked up). Obama responded with a huge increase in government economic interventions (just like FDR). And stagnation ensued.

In both instances (the 1930s and the post-Lehman period) there was no recovery (I'm sorry, but that chart proves it). If you can't get GDP growth in excess of debt floated, you do not have "recovery" - period!
So you found an opinion piece on The Guardian that agrees with you and pretend that is proof. So on one hand you argue that the Bush administration should have bailed Lehman out and that they shouldn't have lent money to GM...make up your mind.

Lehman went under because they had a huge exposure to mortgage backed securities. Aurora Loan Services and BNC Mortgage were their own bad mortgage factories. They hid $50 billion in debt just prior to their audit and got an AA rating...just a week or so before declaring bankruptcy.

If they had adequate assets they wouldn't have gone through liquidation... They had a white knight with a Korean buyer...but screwed it up in an attempt to shore up the share price. They were leveraged at 31::1. Gee, what could go wrong?

I wonder why nobody stepped up to buy that Iconic brand (think GM)....
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
So you found an opinion piece on The Guardian that agrees with you and pretend that is proof. So on one hand you argue that the Bush administration should have bailed Lehman out and that they shouldn't have lent money to GM...make up your mind.

Lehman went under because they had a huge exposure to mortgage backed securities. Aurora Loan Services and BNC Mortgage were their own bad mortgage factories. They hid $50 billion in debt just prior to their audit and got an AA rating...just a week or so before declaring bankruptcy.

If they had adequate assets they wouldn't have gone through liquidation... They had a white knight with a Korean buyer...but screwed it up in an attempt to shore up the share price. They were leveraged at 31::1. Gee, what could go wrong?

I wonder why nobody stepped up to buy that Iconic brand (think GM)....
It's not an "opinion" it is the result of an exhaustive study by a renown academic. They had assets (enough to support the government loans, according to Ball's research) but they were mispriced, because…wait for it…the government had bailed out Bear Stearns. So there was no reason for Lehman to take the low ball market price when it was offered by the Koreans. They decided instead to wait for the bailout that never came. The same thing that happened with GM, by the way, except in that case the bailout did in fact, come (thanks to the UAW/Obama connection).

All I am "arguing" here is that government is not the solution to economic problems. We have seen oodles of evidence to that effect. My point was they should have left Bear Stearns AND Lehman to the markets to resolve. By doing one and then not the other they created a situation where nobody knew what anybody's commercial paper was actually worth. And THAT is what caused the "crisis." Obama coming in and doubling down on Bush's interventionist agenda, as FDR had done with Hoover's interventionist agenda, is what has the economy in mired in a decade long "secular stagnation."
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It's not an "opinion" it is the result of an exhaustive study by a renown academic. They had assets (enough to support the government loans, according to Ball's research) but they were mispriced, because…wait for it…the government had bailed out Bear Stearns. So there was no reason for Lehman to take the low ball market price when it was offered by the Koreans. They decided instead to wait for the bailout that never came. The same thing that happened with GM, by the way, except in that case the bailout did in fact, come (thanks to the UAW/Obama connection).

All I am "arguing" here is that government is not the solution to economic problems. We have seen oodles of evidence to that effect. My point was they should have left Bear Stearns AND Lehman to the markets to resolve. By doing one and then not the other they created a situation where nobody knew what anybody's commercial paper was actually worth. And THAT is what caused the "crisis." Obama coming in and doubling down on Bush's interventionist agenda, as FDR had done with Hoover's interventionist agenda, is what has the economy in mired in a decade long "secular stagnation."
It is an opinion, one you agree with. You keep pushing the same bullshit. The government shouldn't have bailed out Bear Stearns and because they did Lehman failed....
Whether or not the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns...Lehman was going under.

In 2007, Lehman underwrote more mortgage-backed securities than any other firm, accumulating an $85 billion portfolio, or four times its shareholders' equity. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Lehman's stock rebounded, as global equity markets reached new highs and prices for fixed-income assets staged a temporary rebound. However, the firm did not take the opportunity to trim its massive mortgage portfolio, which in retrospect, would turn out to be its last chance.

Why did the Korean Development bank and Barklay's options fail? In the first week of September 2008 Lehman had exactly $1 billion in cash left. They were in solvent. Those assets of theirs were unable to provide liquidity for their day to day operations and investors fled to other firms.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It is an opinion, one you agree with. You keep pushing the same bullshit. The government shouldn't have bailed out Bear Stearns and because they did Lehman failed....
Whether or not the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns...Lehman was going under.

In 2007, Lehman underwrote more mortgage-backed securities than any other firm, accumulating an $85 billion portfolio, or four times its shareholders' equity. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Lehman's stock rebounded, as global equity markets reached new highs and prices for fixed-income assets staged a temporary rebound. However, the firm did not take the opportunity to trim its massive mortgage portfolio, which in retrospect, would turn out to be its last chance.

Why did the Korean Development bank and Barklay's options fail? In the first week of September 2008 Lehman had exactly $1 billion in cash left. They were in solvent. Those assets of theirs were unable to provide liquidity for their day to day operations and investors fled to other firms.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp
And you choose to believe the self serving navel gazing of paulson and Bernanke, two of the least introspective narcissists who ever lived. So. was AIG more or less bankrupt than Lehman Bros? How about Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, were they more or less leveraged on their mortgage paper?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It is an opinion, one you agree with. You keep pushing the same bullshit. The government shouldn't have bailed out Bear Stearns and because they did Lehman failed....
Whether or not the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns...Lehman was going under.

In 2007, Lehman underwrote more mortgage-backed securities than any other firm, accumulating an $85 billion portfolio, or four times its shareholders' equity. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Lehman's stock rebounded, as global equity markets reached new highs and prices for fixed-income assets staged a temporary rebound. However, the firm did not take the opportunity to trim its massive mortgage portfolio, which in retrospect, would turn out to be its last chance.

Why did the Korean Development bank and Barklay's options fail? In the first week of September 2008 Lehman had exactly $1 billion in cash left. They were in solvent. Those assets of theirs were unable to provide liquidity for their day to day operations and investors fled to other firms.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-collapse.asp
Look, let me wrap this up. Your position here is defender of the big government interventionism that was deployed in the wake of the "financial crisis." It is the Fed/Treasury/Academia/Keynesian viewpoint that says that the only way the recovery could have been better is if we had employed even MORE fiscal, monetary and regulatory interventions. Damn those lousy Republicans for keeping Obama and his band of merry bureaucrats from delving even deeper and more broadly into market controls, transfer payments, edifice building, etc.

That, of course is specious reasoning. It is anti-logic that requires one believe that the economy is incapable of recovering without such interventionist tactics. Which we know is simply not the case. It has done so on numerous occasions across time. And in fact, the only two times it didn't recover for a decade plus after the recession, were the times activist progressive Presidents (FDR and BHO) took it upon themselves to grow government, take control of large swaths of the economy, pass massive increases in regulation, and publicly scold capitalism for being so uncooperative.

At some point you have to just add two plus two and get four.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Look, let me wrap this up. Your position here is defender of the big government interventionism that was deployed in the wake of the "financial crisis." It is the Fed/Treasury/Academia/Keynesian viewpoint that says that the only way the recovery could have been better is if we had employed even MORE fiscal, monetary and regulatory interventions. Damn those lousy Republicans for keeping Obama and his band of merry bureaucrats from delving even deeper and more broadly into market controls, transfer payments, edifice building, etc.

That, of course is specious reasoning. It is anti-logic that requires one believe that the economy is incapable of recovering without such interventionist tactics. Which we know is simply not the case. It has done so on numerous occasions across time. And in fact, the only two times it didn't recover for a decade plus after the recession, were the times activist progressive Presidents (FDR and BHO) took it upon themselves to grow government, take control of large swaths of the economy, pass massive increases in regulation, and publicly scold capitalism for being so uncooperative.

At some point you have to just add two plus two and get four.
In the 1930s it was a world wide depression...but none of those countries had experts as smart as you....got it. Basically, every country other than Japan was severly impacted and according to you, all they needed to do is nothing at all....Of course...25% unemployment in the US was not a real problem and would have snapped back in just a few more weeks...oh, shit...then FDR got elected. The fact that the banks were failing in huge numbers and taking the depositor's cash with them? Meh.

The result in Germany was a fascist government in a near civil war with the communists. Spain was a shooting war. The US could have been.

In 2007 both republicans and democrats were panicked. If only they'd have called you, you could have saved all that trouble. o_O

I guess nobody else thought to call you either. I wonder why.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
In the 1930s it was a world wide depression...but none of those countries had experts as smart as you....got it. Basically, every country other than Japan was severly impacted and according to you, all they needed to do is nothing at all....Of course...25% unemployment in the US was not a real problem and would have snapped back in just a few more weeks...oh, shit...then FDR got elected. The fact that the banks were failing in huge numbers and taking the depositor's cash with them? Meh.

The result in Germany was a fascist government in a near civil war with the communists. Spain was a shooting war. The US could have been.

In 2007 both republicans and democrats were panicked. If only they'd have called you, you could have saved all that trouble. o_O

I guess nobody else thought to call you either. I wonder why.
Right - you think government is the answer to every economic problem (and not the cause). Thanks for (re)emphasizing my point. The "world wide depression" in 1933 was the result (as it almost always is) of the loose money policy by the fed (does the term "roaring 20s mean anything to you?) and the inevitable crash that ensued from all the mal-investment that engendered. Do nothing, the markets clear, and the economy recovers. That is what Andrew Mellon was telling Hoover. Hoover ignored that advice and instead spawned what came to be known as the "new deal" interventionist agenda, which managed to stave of the recovery until after WWII.

Yes, politicians of all stripes "start to panic" when the economy gets bad, because know-nothings like you demand that they "do something" when, in fact, they already have (and doing more only makes it worse).

You wonder why they ignore the facts and respond knee-jerkingly to the know-nothings like you? Duh! They aren't about to admit the truth, and thanks to know-nothings like you, they don't have to...
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Right - you think government is the answer to every economic problem (and not the cause). Thanks for (re)emphasizing my point. The "world wide depression" in 1933 was the result (as it almost always is) of the loose money policy by the fed (does the term "roaring 20s mean anything to you?) and the inevitable crash that ensued from all the mal-investment that engendered. Do nothing, the markets clear, and the economy recovers. That is what Andrew Mellon was telling Hoover. Hoover ignored that advice and instead spawned what came to be known as the "new deal" interventionist agenda, which managed to stave of the recovery until after WWII.

Yes, politicians of all stripes "start to panic" when the economy gets bad, because know-nothings like you demand that they "do something" when, in fact, they already have (and doing more only makes it worse).

You wonder why they ignore the facts and respond knee-jerkingly to the know-nothings like you? Duh! They aren't about to admit the truth, and thanks to know-nothings like you, they don't have to...
I wonder why you ignore the facts. FDR inherited 25% unemployment and a banking system near collapse. Those are facts. Bank failures dropped to almost none after the bank holiday. Unemployment improved every year up to 1938 when congress started cutting programs to save money....they quickly gave that up.

You say that all FDR had to do was nothing. So who would have hired all those unemployed people? Companies had no customers. Nobody was buying anything at all.
Germany embarked on a rearmament program...and built a nationwide highway system...that was their stimulus. No countries were in recovery until after 1933...

So from 1929 for at least 4 years the global economy was shit, but you could have fixed it in a couple of weekends, eh?
 

EatTheRich

President
NC #39
New York State tax rates are set by legislative process, in Albany.

What Governor Cuomo and Mayor Deblasio did was to circumvent the will of the people.
Not some incidental, de minimus infraction. $Literally $Billions of $dollars were at issue.

And why? For 25,000 jobs?
For 25,000 costing $3 $Billion, that's a $cost to the $tax $payer of $120K per job.
That's quite likely over a year's salary on median, for the jobs on offer.

But I understand.
You don't mind $gifting $Billions to $Billionaires.
Perhaps someday if you ever study $fiscal $conservatism, and the fundamentals of ethical principle, you'll learn why this was a bad deal for New York.
They could have given 25,000 people $120,000 each in welfare and done more good to the economy (since a dollar spent on welfare creates more jobs than a dollar spent anywhere else).
 

EatTheRich

President
Do you have any "facts" as to why he was ousted? I am interpreting the events using logic. You DO know that Obama stood a hundred years of bankruptcy law on its head to protect the UAW, right?

Where did that money go? Mainly, it went to paying off debts owed by GM and Chrysler, and – in an historic distortion of our bankruptcy proceedings – to securing the pensions and livelihoods of UAW workers. It turns out the real debt was that of Mr. Obama to organized labor, which had ponied up some $400 million to help him defeat John McCain.

The Obama administration strong-armed the auto companies’ creditors into accepting undeniably unfair terms – terms that saw pensions obliterated for non-union workers but saved for those carrying a UAW card. Terms that saw non-UAW shops close but UAW factories stay open. Terms that doled out ownership in GM with political favoritism as a guiding principle.

These charges are not at issue. In the government-managed reorganization of GM, bond holders (secured bond holders, who normally are at the top of the pay-out chart) were given equity in the carmaker at a price of $2.7 billion per one percent ownership. The government ended up paying $834 million for every one percent it claimed; the UAW paid only $629 million.


https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/10/17/Obamas-Auto-Bailout-Was-Really-a-Hefty-Union-Payoff
Paying workers what they are CONTRACTUALLY OWED for their labor is not a “payoff.” It is a simple matter of respecting property rights.
 
Top