1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Mar 2, 2012.

  1. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    I ask this in all honesty: Is anyone ever wrong? It can't ALL be chalked up to "different priorities." Someone who would prioritize, say, jet fighter construction during peacetime over research on emerging disease threats is wrong. Period.

    There's a lot of talk about the government "picking winners and losers." Well, aren't no-bid defense contracts doing exactly that, except much more unfairly?
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I could post something about putting the genie back in the bottle and it stopping ALL of the crony capitalism -- the noble gladhanding cranberry loves and the horrible stuff he doesn't find worthwhile.

    But we get closer every day to the point where it is going to be a moot conversation. Because it's not like the "subsidies" we are talking about get paid for with tangible income or assets. We are living a fantasy that will come to an end.

    We have a government that sells debt to fund trillions of dollars worth of spending every year -- KKR (or the war in Iraq) and Tesla, included -- And we have run the accumulated public debt (Federal, state, local) up to a number in the tens of trillions of dollars.

    We have a central bank that has suppressed interest rates for more than a decade now, and since 2008 has avoided dealing with the collapse on the back of the mania it created, by further manipulating the debt markets by buying up trillions of dollars of debt to drive up the value (and keep rates suppressed). ...

    That allows them to monetize the government's debt (and has created private credit bubbles all around us, too) and enable putting off having to face reality. If they stop rigging the interest rate markets tomorrow--or they lose control of their ability to rig rates at some point (where we are actually headed)--all hell breaks loose, and we will drown in our public debt. Sooner than most people want to believe.

    In the mean time, it's like feeding heroin to an addict. That combination of addiction to public spending and monetary manipulation that puts off its consequences, has enabled the people like cranberry (and his arch nemesis crancheney) to find more and more pet things that we have to publicly fund, which in turn has pushed the accumulated debt even higher. Like an addict, you want more of it -- and you find ways to get it until you either get clean or OD.

    And that is what is going to happen. It's like a spring that someone is pushing to keep compressed. When it uncoils -- and the harder you push, the more violently you should expect it to eventually uncoil -- there will be a panic and among other things (a lot of other likely consequences), rates will rise to reflect reality -. Either we will default on our debt at some point, which will force reality on us. Or we will avoid default and have to adhere to some fiscal sanity moving forward -- by necessity. And in a world of fiscal sanity, there aren't trillions of dollars of debt to tack onto the public balance sheet every year and Elon Musk isn't getting billions of dollars of public funds.

    So really, when I look at at this thread. ... I see conversation that reflects a relatively small period of time that in hindsight people will realize was a temporary fantasy world.
     
  3. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Pretty big unit of analysis issue there, MC. In your no-bid scenario, the decision to purchase some thing has already been made. Now it's just a matter of deciding who gets to do that which has already been decided upon. In the "picking winners and losers" complaint, the issue is that "the people" have decided to not purchase some thing (and, further, they've decided to purchase some other thing), yet their priorities are ignored.
     
  4. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Actually, a "no-bid contract" pretty much means the decision of who gets to do it has already been made, too. Even if it wasn't, who gets to decide why Lockheed Martin should do it instead of Northrop Grumman?

    This is the same complaint, just coming from a different "side." Which brings us back to the current system, where SOMEONE has to decide what the priority is. And, those shift depending on who's in power.
     
  5. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Awesome, Chicken Little. Do you have a timetable so people can plan accordingly for economic devastation?
     
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I am not predicting economic devastation. But if in your simplistic way of reading my posts that is what you took from it. ... Nope. I don't have a timetable. Just as I don't have a timetable for when you are going to post stupid things in response to me. I just have figured out with reasonable certainty that it is going to happen every so often.
     
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yes, that's what I took from it. Sounds awful.
     
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    What you took from that post was three sentence fragments that you bolded out of the context of the rest of the post to try to bog me down with your bullshit?

    Try reading the swaths that you didn't selectively bold. I was trying to say something and it wasn't "economic devastation."

    This actually explains a lot about you. In a "bold a few words every two paragraphs" world -- I can definitely see how you can create anything you want out of something. You can convince yourself that the things you wanted publicly funded were a result of the democratic process, but the things someone else managed to get publicly funded that you don't approve of were the result of the democratic process being subverted.
     
  9. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yes, it was your 6,785th rant about CRONY CAPITALISM and TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DEBT and THE FEDS SUPPRESSING INTEREST RATES and PRINTING MONEY!
     
  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Ragu gets zag-like angry on this topic.
     
  11. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Good thing he's made so much money he can wipe the angry sweats off his brow with $100 bills.
     
    LongTimeListener likes this.
  12. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Actually, if you want to make the case that there are certain investments that government is uniquely qualified/positioned to do, I'm right there with you. If those are the priorities of which you speak, you'll get no argument from me. Yet experience shows that this is the case for only a very, very few things. Further, no one 'round here has made that argument (well, you could say that cranberry has made that argument, but then again he seems to believe that government is the ONLY entity qualified/positioned to make any investment).

    For that near-universe of things for which government isn't uniquely qualified/positioned, you'll have a helluva time convincing me that the people -- who express their collective will every day in the myriad transactions they make voluntarily, with their limited resources, for their own benefit -- should have their obvious priorities cast aside by some "democratic" overlord.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page