View Poll Results: Which statement best reflects your opinion of the GM "thank you" ad?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's perfectly fine and appropriate.

    10 33.33%
  • It's ok but inaccurate. American's didn't voluntarily bail out GM

    5 16.67%
  • It's 100% inaccurate. The Gov. inappropriately bailed out GM.

    3 10.00%
  • It's a joke. The Gov. overstepped its bounds using tax money to buy an auto company.

    8 26.67%
  • Other (write in / explain)

    3 10.00%
  • Tarter sauce.

    1 3.33%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

  1. #21
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    I chose other. GM would have done much better to take the money that they spent on that ad and give it to their shareholders, which would be the tax payers. They owe us a whole lot more than that.

    I love how Obama keeps saying his bailout worked because now the taxpayers are getting back 13b of their 50b investment. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a dime yet. And we won't because Obama already spent that 13b again several times. I don't want a "thank you" from GM. I want our 50 billion dollars back.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  2. #22
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Everytime I see the ads, I always wonder how much did it cost us to produce the said ads. The only news I care about in regards to GM is that when the money is actually paid back, not put into some escrow account.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  3. #23
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,111

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Perhaps the opinion of the Nobel Prize winner in the field of economics means something
    considering it's Paul Krugman, who long ago traded in his economic credentials for his political hack ones, then no, it doesn't really

    but it does make for occasional entertainment for those of us who watch his acrobatics:

    Krugman v Krugman: the perils of punditry

    Paul Krugman takes note in his New York Times column of what he calls “the incredible gap that has opened up between the parties”: “What Democrats believe,” he says “is what textbook economics says”

    Here’s what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning’s position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”

    Krugman scoffs: “To me, that’s a bizarre point of view–but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.”

    What does textbook economics have to say about this question? Here is a passage from a textbook called “Macroeconomics“:

    Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker’s incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of “Eurosclerosis,” the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

    So it turns out that what Krugman calls Sen. Kyl’s “bizarre point of view” is, in fact, textbook economics. The authors of that textbook are Paul Krugman and Robin Wells. Miss Wells is also known as Mrs. Paul Krugman…

    to show you the possible Depression we faced as Obama entered office.
    you do realize that Bush bailed out GM, right?

    The steps we took with the auto companies saved millions of jobs that could have well pushed us into the abyss.
    objectively it did not; simply because a major company like GM goes into bankruptcy procedings doesn't mean it stops producing cars, that all of it's factories shut down, or anything of the like. it is allowed to structure, and get out from these gawdawful union contracts.

    in the meantime, the money that the government borrowed to bail them out came from pools of capital that otherwise would have been invested in different vehicles, which would have led to a speedier and greater recovery.

    the US government, in fact, made the recession worse by bailing out GM.



    incidentally, if you want some actual academic perusal of the government "stimulus" response to recessions, you might try reading this: Crises Economics

    ...TAXING LESS OR SPENDING MORE?

    Addressing this question requires not only data about the past year or two, but also analysis of some key assumptions at the core of the administration's approach to fiscal policy. In particular, that approach seems to take for granted that the question in choosing between spending and tax cuts is which would have the greater multiplier effect, and that the answer to that question is spending rather than tax cuts.

    The first assumption overlooks an important difference between spending and tax cuts in the context of economic stimulus. When the government is seeking to revive its sick patient — the economy — time is of the essence. And time must be considered in any analysis of multipliers and other economic effects of stimulus policy. Chief among these considerations is whether government can spend money both quickly and wisely.

    Many of us can draw on our own experiences in addressing that question. Anyone familiar with government projects even at the municipal level knows that the process is usually prolonged and onerous. Even if the design phase is managed well, the project is built efficiently, and the end product proves to be of good use to the community — all big "ifs" — the time involved in debating project proposals, securing approval from citizens and local boards, planning the design, hiring contractors, and completing the construction often stretches to years. Cram the process into a dramatically shortened time frame, and the likelihood that the project will be an example of "wise" government spending diminishes significantly. Expand the scope of the government spending from town planning to national fiscal policy, and the likelihood shrinks even further.

    This is not just a matter of government waste, but also a question of whether money spent under such circumstances actually helps the economy grow in a way that best enhances citizens' well-being. Whenever public money is involved, it is important to ask whether the spending will produce something society needs, or wants, to improve the general economic climate. Money spent on a new road that allows farmers to get their products to market faster and in better condition, for instance, creates more value than money spent building a "bridge to nowhere," even if both projects create the same number of construction jobs.

    To look at it another way: If a person pays his neighbor $100 to dig a hole in his backyard and then fill it up again, and the neighbor hires him to do the same, government statisticians will report that the economy has created two jobs and that the gross domestic product has risen by $200. But it is unlikely that, having wasted all that time digging and filling, either person is better off — economically or otherwise. Each person's net financial gain is zero, and all anyone has to show for the effort is a patch of fresh dirt in the backyard, which is unlikely to improve anyone's standard of living.

    Private individuals don't usually spend their money on things they don't want or need. So when money is kept in the hands of citizens, and transactions take place in the private sector, there is less cause to worry about inefficient spending. The same cannot always be said of government. This means that government spending designed to stimulate the economy must first be subjected to serious cost-benefit analysis, which is hard to do in a big rush. Not all government spending is created equal — and rushed spending is, in many important ways, likely to be less efficient and less useful than spending that is carefully planned.

    The administration's second assumption, meanwhile, is a matter of academic theories about the sizes of the relevant economic multipliers. Textbook Keynesian economics tells us that government-purchases multipliers are larger than tax-cut multipliers. And, as we have seen, the Obama administration's economic team consulted these standard models in deciding that spending would be significantly more effective than tax cuts.

    But a great deal of recent economic evidence calls that conclusion into question. In an ironic twist, one key piece comes from Christina Romer, who is now chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. About six months before she took the job, Romer teamed up with her husband and fellow Berkeley economist David Romer to write a paper ("The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes") that sought to measure the influence of tax policy on GDP. Crucial to the Romers' method was their effort to identify changes in tax policy made during times of relative economic stability, and driven by a desire to influence economic behavior or activity (to encourage growth, say, or reduce a deficit), rather than those changes made in response to a recession or crisis. By studying such "exogenous" tax-policy changes, the Romers could be more confident that they were in fact measuring the effects of taxes and not those of extraneous conditions.

    The Romers' conclusion, which is at odds with most traditional Keynesian analysis, was that the tax multiplier was 3 — in other words, that every dollar spent on tax cuts would boost GDP by $3. This would mean that the tax multiplier is roughly three times larger than Obama's advisors assumed it was during their policy simulations.

    Of course, it could be that all multipliers are larger than previously assumed. Perhaps fiscal policy has such a great influence over our economy that, if the tax multiplier is 3, the government-spending multiplier is 4 or 5. We don't know from the Romers' study; they did not analyze government-spending multipliers, only tax multipliers. But several studies on government-spending multipliers have been conducted using techniques similar to those used by the Romers. And none has found government-spending multipliers to be so large as to justify assumptions about the inherent superiority of government spending over tax cuts.

    Some excellent work on this topic has come from Valerie Ramey of the University of California, San Diego. Ramey finds a government-spending multiplier of about 1.4 — a figure close to what the Obama administration assumed, but much smaller than the tax multiplier identified by the Romers. Similarly, in recent research, Andrew Mountford (of the University of London) and Harald Uhlig (of the University of Chicago) have used sophisticated statistical techniques that try to capture the complicated relationships among economic variables over time; they conclude that a "deficit-financed tax cut is the best fiscal policy to stimulate the economy." In particular, they report that tax cuts are about four times as potent as increases in government spending.

    Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments...

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    from cpwill

    considering it's Paul Krugman, who long ago traded in his economic credentials for his political hack ones, then no, it doesn't really
    His opinion seemed to matter a great deal to the Nobel Committee who awarded him the Prize for Economics. That carries a bit of weight.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #25
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,111

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    haymarket:

    Argument from Authority

    Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

    here you fail because Krugman isn't even authoritative; his academic work isn't even in this branch of economics (as i recall it's in trade); it's his punditry that specializes in the non-falsifiable argument that the answer is always more government spending.

  6. #26
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from cpwill



    His opinion seemed to matter a great deal to the Nobel Committee who awarded him the Prize for Economics. That carries a bit of weight.
    What, a nobel prize? Considering some of the other recepients include Yasser Arafat and Al Gore, I'm not impressed. Krugman is a Keynesian idiot. Nevermind his politics, he is just plain a poor economist. He thinks if you borrow enough and give it to the government to spend on revolving door jobs and pork projects you can spend your way out of a recession. He is technically correct, but it is unstustainable and false. It's like borrowing a million dollars so that you can say you're a millionaire. It certainly doesn't provide for a growing economy.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  7. #27
    pawn in the game of life
    pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 05:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,984

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Quote Originally Posted by friday View Post
    What, a nobel prize? Considering some of the other recepients include Yasser Arafat and Al Gore, I'm not impressed. Krugman is a Keynesian idiot. Nevermind his politics, he is just plain a poor economist. He thinks if you borrow enough and give it to the government to spend on revolving door jobs and pork projects you can spend your way out of a recession. He is technically correct, but it is unstustainable and false. It's like borrowing a million dollars so that you can say you're a millionaire. It certainly doesn't provide for a growing economy.
    When Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for inarguably doing nothing to warrant the award, the Nobel committee lost most/any credibility they may have still had.

    My statement is in no way a slam on Obama. It is pointedly at the cartoon politics of what the Nobel prizes have become....


    .


    “Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,845

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    haymarket:

    Argument from Authority

    Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

    here you fail because Krugman isn't even authoritative; his academic work isn't even in this branch of economics (as i recall it's in trade); it's his punditry that specializes in the non-falsifiable argument that the answer is always more government spending.
    i once was eating in a hotel restaurant where the Boston Celtics were staying on a road trip. In the booth right in back of me were a group of sports writers and broadcasters drinking away the afternoon before the game. They got to talking about what i guessed was a long running discussion about who was the best that had every played. Among the group was Johnny Most - the radio broadcaster for the Celts and Bob Ryan the Boston Globe writer who covered the team for three decades. Both of those men had seen thousands of pro games and had been students of the game for longer than I had been alive.

    I shut my mouth and opened my ears. I did not slink over and ask to join in. These men were authorities on the subject which they were holding forth upon. These men were experts on the topic. These men had forgotten more about the game than most other people would ever learn.

    I respect that.

    People are not equal. Opinions are not equal. Peoples opinions are not equal. I accept that and I accept that there are experts in fields that know a great deal more than i do.

    Paul Krugman is one of them.

    from friday

    Krugman is a Keynesian idiot.
    That statement from you tells me all I need to know about your opinion.
    Last edited by haymarket; 11-27-10 at 01:37 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #29
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    When Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize for inarguably doing nothing to warrant the award, the Nobel committee lost most/any credibility they may have still had.

    My statement is in no way a slam on Obama. It is pointedly at the cartoon politics of what the Nobel prizes have become....


    .
    While I agree that the Obama nobel prize was a political joke at best and international affirmative action at worst, I think the nobel prize lost it's credibility when it was given to the terrorist leader Yassar Arafat because he agreed not to attack Israel if they gave up their land voluntarily. Of course, then the PLO turned around and attacked them anyway.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

  10. #30
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    801

    Re: What do you think of GM's "thank you" ad?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from friday



    That statement from you tells me all I need to know about your opinion.
    Well, before you pre-judge me, let me tell you a little more. My degree is in business management and I have worked with many small businesses for years. I have several economics courses under my belt and I have studied it for 12 years in and out of college. Krugman is entitled to his opinion, but many economists disagree with him. He found the one economic principle he likes and he has stuck with it, whether it is applicable or not. His idea of economic growth is borrowing more than you borrowed last time. The result is we still have 9.6% unemployment and have been stuck in the hole this recession put us in for 16 months.

    Obama gave us a signal of how he would treat this recession when he came out and said this was not the time for profits. He was dead wrong. That is exactly what we need right now, profits in the private sector. Krugman believes in a government controlled economy where the government makes, bursts and fixes bubbles in ways that advantage the "greater good" (liberal causes). I believe in free market control where individuals have the power to pursue opportunity, make money and keep it, and invest in risks followed by success or failure. My idea is the one that has worked every time. Krugman's ideas are proven failures.

    If we were back to the 4.5% unemployment, record quarters with GDP and job growth, with lower taxes and higher tax revenues that we had for most of Bush's Presidency, I might agree with you that Krugman was not only qualified, but also good at what he does. But as it happens, Krugman is "qualified" and that's as far as it goes.
    Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
    For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •