• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM goes bankrupt and gets nationalised

I just sold all my GM shares, although if it dips back to the mid .50's i would be very interested. The taxation capabilities of holding majority stake in GMGMQ is worth more than a billion dollars.

Yeah I got totally outa GM then made some quick trade the last day they were in the in the DJIA. Down to .58 up to .74 I think it was.
 
Oh I know some guys that made a mint on airline stocks when oil was dropping. I even did pretty good on some quick trades with GM.

I bought a bunch of United Stock after 9-11; they screwed their shareholders by declaring the common stock worthless then re-issued a new common stock.

I did make some money selling off my American stock though.
 
Yeah I got totally outa GM then made some quick trade the last day they were in the in the DJIA. Down to .58 up to .74 I think it was.

Should have held man, i believe its worth about 2.50 a share by the June 20th calls. Sold it today @ 1.71:cool:
 
I didn't say insufficient, I said inefficient. The most profitable sectors are the ones that should have the most money. By giving money to other sectors, you're hindering the growth of the best by propping up the worst.
Sorry, I meant inefficient buy typed insufficient. But Tariffs do not take money from one sector and give it to another. Tariffs raise the cost of imports to deal with governments that artificially devalue their currency and protect internal jobs. So if we put a tariff on, say, radios from japan to make them cost the same as radios made in America then the consumer can choose between quality instead of price AND you employ Americans. Without the tariff the japanese radio is cheaper and not necessarily better.

Japan subsidizes its car industry right?
I'm glad you agree.

Well to get the money to subsidize it, other companies must cover that in taxes. Other companies lose money while the car industries gain money. Hence it hurts the other sectors. There is NO WAY to avoid that. Loans, inflation, etc. They will all hurt the other sectors.
Wrong. The people of japan are taxed to cover for the subsidies. This has little to do with the USA outside of the artificially lower cost for the japanese product.

This is why we don't have to worry about other countries subsidizing industries. It will all be even in the end.
You're wrong, other countries do subsidize their industries creating an artificially lower cost product which puts US companies at a disadvantage.
 
Sorry, I meant inefficient buy typed insufficient. But Tariffs do not take money from one sector and give it to another. Tariffs raise the cost of imports to deal with governments that artificially devalue their currency and protect internal jobs. So if we put a tariff on, say, radios from japan to make them cost the same as radios made in America then the consumer can choose between quality instead of price AND you employ Americans. Without the tariff the japanese radio is cheaper and not necessarily better.

I didn't say that tariffs take money from one industry and put it to another. Subsidization does that, but not tariffs. But what tariffs do is destroy any incentive for American corporations to be as good as foreign competition.

Wrong. The people of japan are taxed to cover for the subsidies. This has little to do with the USA outside of the artificially lower cost for the japanese product.

They'll have less disposable income. It's the same effect. The money is used for the car companies, so they have less money to buy goods from the other industries.

You're wrong, other countries do subsidize their industries creating an artificially lower cost product which puts US companies at a disadvantage.

But other industries will have an advantage.
 
What community ties do you think are more important than providing for your family?
Do you want to pay unemployment and welfare and food stamps indefinitely to those who won't MOVE to where the work is?
Empathize? you mean subsidize.....
I already have siblings who want me to subsidize them, siblings who won't get off their lazy butts and make a personal effort to take care of their own needs....no way will I support them, so why should I care about non-relatives?
I'm sorry that you have lazy siblings. They are do not represent the general public. But no, I don't want to "subsidize" those people, I want them to get their jobs back. You know, the jobs that have been outsourced to other countries.

Like I said, you don't understand nor empathize with others and their plight because all you can see is your own situation and your own ability.
 
With a tariff, you tax imports. This means that everything from overseas will be higher than they otherwise would be. This gives American companies an advantage.
EXACTLY. We want American companies to have an advantage so that we can maintain American jobs. Otherwise you have the situation we are currently in.

If an overseas company makes something better, but has to charge more, then people will still be inclined to buy those American products. American companies will have no incentive to match the production of foreign firms because the tariff is protecting them. We lose efficiency and production because of that tariff.
That's just not true. American companies are always trying to make better products through competition. But the competition should be between American companies first. This is why every country has tariffs and why we used to have tariffs.

Plus when you put up a big tariff, other countries will do the same. This directly hurts our exports. Look up Hoover's ordeal with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and how it failed miserably.
They already do put tariffs on American imports. Duh.
Smoot-Hawley was a problem because of it's timing and the rate of increase. Today the USA is the worlds market place. Other countries WANT access to our markets and would harm themselves by playing the game they did in 1930.
 
You might as well be trying to explain Trickle Down Economics to ole slippyslope. Better off banging your head against the wall.
Trickle down economics... :rofl yeah, we're paying for it now. Trickle down economics DON'T WORK. :2wave: I could explain it to you but it would be like banging my head against the wall.
 
very good advice,
it took months of arguing with a pro-union coworker in Idaho that he was being shafted by his union, he was a very smart hard working tech and getting the same pay as poor techs, or lazy techs. We had I&C techs who were union, and reactor instrument techs who were not, practically the same job.
But once I pointed out 2 of his coworkers as prime examples, he started to see the light. Soon after, he bid on, and won a position as a Reactor Instrument tech....more money, and no union dues. A truly competent work force (combined with intelligent management) can do better, in most cases, without a union...

OH NO!!! NOT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE... I'm sure you showed him all the finer points of how horrible the union is. :roll:
 
Really? I haven't pushed it to the point of the second wind yet. Might give it a shot.....tomorrow.

It is nauseatingly frustrating that you actually have to debate the simplicities of tarrifs, taxes, unions, etc, with the hardcore liberal. I can't imagine life through those eyes.

Then again, I often wonder how Hitler could possibly get an entire nation of to follow him down that path to destruction, too.
You'll be talking to yourself if the best you can do is make ad homs.
 
They raise the cost of a product to the consumer.
And give then a job so they can afford that product.

They provide a shelter for a small politically influential group at the economic cost to the rest of the population.
What group are you referring to?

They don't work.
Yes they do which is why we have some (very few) and why other countries have them.
 
EXACTLY. We want American companies to have an advantage so that we can maintain American jobs. Otherwise you have the situation we are currently in.

We will always have jobs, but tariffs make us less efficient. We won't compete.

That's just not true. American companies are always trying to make better products through competition. But the competition should be between American companies first. This is why every country has tariffs and why we used to have tariffs.

Competition makes you better. Why would you want to exclude yourself from that competition?

They already do put tariffs on American imports. Duh.
Smoot-Hawley was a problem because of it's timing and the rate of increase. Today the USA is the worlds market place. Other countries WANT access to our markets and would harm themselves by playing the game they did in 1930.

Not really. We were the center of manufacturing back then too and other countries still put up their own tariffs.
 
I don't know, you tell me... a fact is a fact whether or not you agree or understand it.

Mercedes is building in Alabama. To prove something as fact, you will need much proof. To prove it is false, one instance of proof is sufficient. Understand? :lol:
 
Trickle down economics... :rofl yeah, we're paying for it now. Trickle down economics DON'T WORK. :2wave: I could explain it to you but it would be like banging my head against the wall.

We're paying for artificially low interest rates set by the fed that led to an unsustainable boom because we weren't saving as much capital as investors were lead to believe. A crash was inevitable with all of the artificial growth. It's the fault of government intervention, not some tax policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom