• 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

Slippery Slope said:
Yeah, how could that possibly work. I mean, we wouldn't want labor to have the upper hand over corporations... they might actually have to pay higher wages for the good of the country. Yeah, better to just keep allowing corps to turn our country into a third world labor market.
Click to expand...

Again: higher wages does not prosperity make.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Really? I think maybe you should take a history lesson. ALL nations have tariffs. This includes the USA which has had tariffs since it's founding.
Click to expand...

The higher the tariffs, the worse their economy will be. You still don't get it, but competition is an amazing thing.
 
Slippery Slope said:
No. Their government gives them money to cover the cost. It's called subsidizing.
Click to expand...

I would love to see proof that the Japanese government is paying for American's health insurance that work at American auto plants.

I'll be waiting.
 
Slippery Slope said:
I did answer which is what you responded to. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like you've answered all the questions on this thread. :roll:

Really? What union(s) are you thinking of in NY?
Click to expand...

All of them.
:rofl yeah, better to have stupid people so they can be easily controlled and believe whatever nonsense they are told.. like, your wages are just fine, you don't need a better standard of living.
Click to expand...

I've already answered this bigoted response of yours. Try again.

I'm not the one saying things like ford workers bicker while toyota workers are all euphoric...
Click to expand...

You obviously don't work with UAW workers very often.
 
Gill said:
I would love to see proof that the Japanese government is paying for American's health insurance that work at American auto plants.

I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...

He still refuses to acknowledge that:
1. Subsidization is inherently inefficient.
2. By subsidizing one industry, another industry is made weaker.
 
phattonez said:
The higher the tariffs, the worse their economy will be. You still don't get it, but competition is an amazing thing.
Click to expand...
Oh I get it, just like you got how silly it was of you to denounce tariffs before flipping to acknowledge the fact that tariffs DO exist and HAVE always existed in this country. Now of course, you'd like to adjust your argument to say it's high tariffs that are a problem. Great so could you tell us which tariffs you believe to be harming the economy?

I say it's a lack of tariffs that is doing the real damage.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Oh I get it, just like you got how silly it was of you to denounce tariffs before flipping to acknowledge the fact that tariffs DO exist and HAVE always existed in this country. Now of course, you'd like to adjust your argument to say it's high tariffs that are a problem. Great so could you tell us which tariffs you believe to be harming the economy?

I say it's a lack of tariffs that is doing the real damage.
Click to expand...

I never changed my argument. Tariffs are still a bad idea. Don't try to :spin: me.
 
Gill said:
You should know.
Click to expand...

Single Payer Health Care Would Help Auto Industry | ePluribus Media

While training issues are less of a problem here in Connecticut, because we have a decent educational system, healthcare is cited as a major issue for Toyota's decision to chose Ontario as the location of a new factory for their Rav-4s slated to open in 2008:

"The level of the workforce in general is so high that the training program you need for people, even for people who have not worked in a Toyota plant before, is minimal compared to what you have to go through in the southeastern United States," said Gerry Fedchun, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, whose members will see increased business with the new plant.

Acknowledging it was the "worst-kept secret" throughout Ontario's automotive industry, Toyota confirmed months of speculation Thursday by announcing plans to build a 1,300-worker factory in the southwestern Ontario city.

"Welcome to Woodstock - that's something I've been waiting a long time to say," Ray Tanguay, president of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada, told hundreds gathered at a high school gymnasium.

The plant will produce the RAV-4, dubbed by some as a "mini sport-utility vehicle" that Toyota currently makes only in Japan. It plans to build 100,000 vehicles annually.

The factory will cost $800 million to build, with the federal and provincial governments kicking in $125 million of that to help cover research, training and infrastructure costs.

Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.
Click to expand...

Yes I would know because I've been ignorant about many things throughout my life, the difference is that I am willing to change my position with better evidence. Are you?
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”- Rene Descartes
 
Gill said:
All of them.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought, big hat, no cattle.

I've already answered this bigoted response of yours. Try again.
Click to expand...
Bigoted? I'm sorry if you dislike the truth.

You obviously don't work with UAW workers very often.
Click to expand...
People are people and behave as such. You can't provide any statistic that shows UAW workers are more angry or more lazy or anything else. Can you? Do you have a side by side comparison of the productivity of a UAW and no Union worker?
 
phattonez said:
He still refuses to acknowledge that:
1. Subsidization is inherently inefficient.
2. By subsidizing one industry, another industry is made weaker.
Click to expand...
First off I never said that foreign countries pay directly the health care benefits of the worker. Japan doesn't cut a check to cover john the line workers premium. They subsidize over all costs as well as manipulate their currency. One thing I've discovered that I was unaware of is how much a state pays an automaker to open a plant in their state. From Big subsidies including giving money directly to them to cover initial building expenses to big tax incentives.

1) I don't know about insufficient, perhaps you could elaborate on that one.
2) How so? Can you give an example?
 
Slippery Slope said:
1) I don't know about insufficient, perhaps you could elaborate on that one.
Click to expand...

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.

2) How so? Can you give an example?
Click to expand...

Japan subsidizes its car industry right? 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.

This is why we don't have to worry about other countries subsidizing industries. It will all be even in the end.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Yes we already know that you lack the ability to understand socioeconomic/community ties or empathize. You've already admitted that and we discussed it.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Why are tariffs bad? Please explain.
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Get it now?

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.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Yes I would know because I've been ignorant about many things throughout my life, the difference is that I am willing to change my position with better evidence. Are you?
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”- Rene Descartes
Click to expand...

Why then, do they still build plants in the US, if Canadian workers are more efficient?
 
phattonez said:
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. 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.

Get it now?

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.
Click to expand...

You might as well be trying to explain Trickle Down Economics to ole slippyslope. Better off banging your head against the wall.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Yes I would know because I've been ignorant about many things throughout my life, the difference is that I am willing to change my position with better evidence. Are you?
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”- Rene Descartes
Click to expand...

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...
 
Erod said:
You might as well be trying to explain Trickle Down Economics to ole slippyslope. Better off banging your head against the wall.
Click to expand...

I hear there is a point where you start liking it...sort of like the runners high. No more pain, and you can just run and run and run, or bang, and bang, and bang.....:2razz:
 
UtahBill said:
I hear there is a point where you start liking it...sort of like the runners high. No more pain, and you can just run and run and run, or bang, and bang, and bang.....:2razz:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Truth Detector said:
Not me, I got screwed buying airline stock; that was enough to keep me away from airline stocks, retail stocks, restaurant stocks and manufacturing stocks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
winston53660 said:
Just curious did any body around here own GM stock?
Click to expand...

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.
 
winston53660 said:
Just curious did any body around here own GM stock?
Click to expand...

I bought some Ford stock at about 1.90, sold it at 3. something. Huge mistake. It went up to 8 the next few days. I would have made a huge profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom