• 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!

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

Which statement best reflects your opinion of the GM "thank you" ad?

  • It's perfectly fine and appropriate.

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • It's ok but inaccurate. American's didn't voluntarily bail out GM

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • It's 100% inaccurate. The Gov. inappropriately bailed out GM.

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • It's a joke. The Gov. overstepped its bounds using tax money to buy an auto company.

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • Other (write in / explain)

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Tarter sauce.

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
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.
 
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....


.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
Thank you for that detailed explanation Friday. What I meant by my comment was this: almost every single time i see somebody blast an economist with the damning label of KEYNEYSIAN - it almost always is a libertarian who fashions themselves as a follower of Austrian economics.
 
Thank you for that detailed explanation Friday. What I meant by my comment was this: almost every single time i see somebody blast an economist with the damning label of KEYNEYSIAN - it almost always is a libertarian who fashions themselves as a follower of Austrian economics.

I do not consider myself a libertarian, and I think keynesian can work in certain situations. This recession was certainly not one of those situations and every step we have taken over the last three years has been the wrong one. A great deal of this recession was caused by unnecessary market regulations of "Mark to Market" and the 10% capitalization rule. It's been continued by extreme borrowing, regulatory and tax uncertainty, government takeovers and pay czars, and frankly, economic bullying from the Whitehouse. Recessions happen, we have a cyclical economy. Recoveries should happen too. This recovery has been postponed by boneheaded government making bad populist decisions.
 
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.

.

Indeed. He was the president of a country waging two specific conflicts and an overall global one. Peace. Right. Let's give Jomini a peace prize for his doctrine that war is diplomacy through different methods. :peace
 
No vote
I am not a GM lover, but I am overjoyed for their success..
I hope that GM's attitude has improved..
I do question the anti-American's position on this.
 
I think its excellent actually. And look.... I had MAJOR doubts..... infact I was PISSED Obama tossed them a rope. Now..... I'm still a bit ticked BUT VERY thankful it worked. I cant BELIEVE it freakin' WORKED!
This was not the first bankruptcy for GM; nor was this the first successful auto company bailout...
Our government is smarter than many think.
 
I think it is a great ad trying to depict how bad things can get. Since they almost went out of business.
 
Some people opposed helping the auto companies because of right wing ideology. Now we have discovered that the aid to the companies was a positive move and helped prevent the collapse of those companies and perhaps and outright depression. This commercial is a reminder of that. And some people do not like to be reminded of their own errors in judgment.

I agree. They dont like to hear they would have screwed things up much worse.
 
I am happy these companies are thanking us.. well, this one anyway. They should all be saying thank you to us.

Stay classy GM
 
So is this a perversion of capitalism or merely an aspect of it? First a corporation receives aid from government, and thusly the people, then places an ad to thank the people in order to boost sales to take more of their money.
 
I think people need to open their eyes. GM got tax payer money that tax payers strongly protested. For them to say thank you is like a rapist thanking the raped for a fun night. It is sick and disgusting. And they didn't even repay us. That was the biggest lie of all. They got the bail out and then later got a tax break that was greater than the bail out so they could "repay" the bail out and save Obama's reputation. They aren't out of the woods yet.
 
I think people need to open their eyes. GM got tax payer money that tax payers strongly protested. For them to say thank you is like a rapist thanking the raped for a fun night. It is sick and disgusting. And they didn't even repay us. That was the biggest lie of all. They got the bail out and then later got a tax break that was greater than the bail out so they could "repay" the bail out and save Obama's reputation. They aren't out of the woods yet.

What is "sick and disgusting" is both your characterization of this without any support for your position and your comparing this to a terrible criminal act.
 
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.

:roll:

Here. this is a full-page ad taken out by literally hundreds of equally notable economists who came together to say that Krugman's claim that the porkulus was necessary to avoid a depression was bunk (not specifically attacking him; just that claim).


that's the problem with appealing to a single authority in a contentious issue; there are bound to be others who disagree.


NOW


are you willing to stand up and attempt to defend the ridiculous claim that somehow our economy was saved by the GM bailout, or that the massive removal of investment capital via the "stimulus" somehow magically helped the economy?
 
So is this a perversion of capitalism or merely an aspect of it? First a corporation receives aid from government, and thusly the people, then places an ad to thank the people in order to boost sales to take more of their money.

I don't personally think government loans pervert capitalism.. and they are trying to boost sales with this ad, so I think capitalism wins
 
What is "sick and disgusting" is both your characterization of this without any support for your position and your comparing this to a terrible criminal act.

He has a right to be angry.. but the rape comparison isn't realistic and is overboard IMO.. Getting raped is entirely different than the government loaning out tax revenue collected from you. Rape is a violent act. Somebody against the Iraq War could just say it felt like getting raped too, and be equally as wrong..
 
Last edited:
I think its excellent actually. And look.... I had MAJOR doubts..... infact I was PISSED Obama tossed them a rope. Now..... Im still a bit ticked BUT VERY thankful it worked. I cant BELIEVE it freakin' WORKED!

Me too. GM is now scheduled to retake the #1 auto sales possibley in December. If they take it back I will take back what I said about the Bail Out. <I was really upset that WE bailed them out>
 
I think its excellent actually. And look.... I had MAJOR doubts..... infact I was PISSED Obama tossed them a rope. Now..... Im still a bit ticked BUT VERY thankful it worked. I cant BELIEVE it freakin' WORKED!

Uhm.. of course the GM bailout "worked", they were basically given an infinite line of credit courtesy of the taxpayers... of the money they did recieve, they have yet to pay most of it back, and even after the IPO, taxpayers are far from breaking even on bailing out GM..

All of that of course ignores the point that GM should never have been bailed out to begin with..when companies cannot compete, they fail... that is how a free market is supposed to work.
 
Uhm.. of course the GM bailout "worked", they were basically given an infinite line of credit courtesy of the taxpayers... of the money they did recieve, they have yet to pay most of it back, and even after the IPO, taxpayers are far from breaking even on bailing out GM..

All of that of course ignores the point that GM should never have been bailed out to begin with..when companies cannot compete, they fail... that is how a free market is supposed to work.

In most cases free-market ideology works fine. When you have a collapse of the epic proportions that we faced, they are impractical. While they're a good philosophy, they are not absolute. Absolutes never work.
 
Perhaps the opinion of the Nobel Prize winner in the field of economics means something to show you the possible Depression we faced as Obama entered office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05krugman.html

The steps we took with the auto companies saved millions of jobs that could have well pushed us into the abyss.

How about we look at Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman's opinions instead? In no way, shape, or form would he have favored a bailout such as this.
 
In most cases free-market ideology works fine. When you have a collapse of the epic proportions that we faced, they are impractical. While they're a good philosophy, they are not absolute. Absolutes never work.

Absolutes work, if you let them... just because you don't want to deal with the pain of a true recovery does not mean it was not the better option. It is a simple point...when companies cannot compete.. they need to fail... not get bailed.
 
Back
Top Bottom