How to fix the economy

WhoWee

It's too bad they couldn't do it on a level playing field.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A161020101103

"The Wall Street Journal earlier reported that GM would not have to pay federal taxes on up to $50 billion in profits. A later version of this story revised this figure to about $45 billion."

Even better, they're getting their wings back as well.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=131060206

"After the government bailed out the car company, it forced GM to sell its fleet of private jets. Executives were required to fly commercial. Now GM is profitable and preparing to sell shares again to the public, and The New York Times reports that the company has once again started to use private planes.

But for now the charter jets are only for executives on the road show that's promoting the company's stock to potential investors. "

The jets will only be used to promote the IPO??? To demonstrate how profitable they have become???

Sounds to me like the books might be cooked.LOL

mheslep

You are correct,
Fawning piece with lazy fact gathering.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...149103202.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/ta...lout/19700767/
http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=207857

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts criticizes White House for 'pressuring' GM to keep its headquarters in Detroit

turbo

No mention of the Fed buying $600 Billion in bonds, juicing the stock market, driving up oil, and devaluing the dollar on foreign markets? Hmm.

mheslep

I'm don't think I like the $600B fed buy (close to $1T when combined with other actions). I agree the Fed action does exactly the things you indicate, but I don't object to it for those reasons, except for the oil price increase. An oil price surge is not great, but then this favors increased production of US oil over imports, and that part is great.

readaynrand

Only the market can heal the economy. Politicians should do as little as possible.

Gokul43201

You say that as though you are stating a fact, but you probably mean that's just your personal opinion.

Else, please read the forum rules before posting.

readaynrand

No, it's a fact. You can't solve a problem that is caused by government involvement with more government involvement.

Besides, government involvement is immoral. It's a danger to my individual liberty.

Evo

You'll need to post the proof of that since you claim it's a fact.

Al68

LOL. I think readaynrand was simply referring to the logical absurdity of proposing more government interference as a solution to a problem caused by government interference.

Even if more government interference mitigates the problem, or its symptoms, it remains unsolved logically, if its cause remains.

Gokul43201

Many logical errors here.

1. readaynrand said the only solution is B. This is not the same as saying that more of A does not solve the problem, even if B = not(A), nor does it logically follow.

2. And that's even assuming it is true that more of A does not solve the problem. Stating something is a logical absurdity doesn't make it so. (eg: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so a lot of knowledge ought to be an even more dangerous thing?)

3. Nowhere in this is the proof negating the possibility that B might itself come with a separate set of problems.

Al68

1. There is no solution "B" in the claim by readaynrand I was referring to. The claim was only that more A does not solve the problem. That is the same as saying that more A does not solve the problem. And if "B" = not(A), then the claim I referred to simply didn't claim B as the "only solution" as you say.

2. That assumption is identical to the claim I referred to, rendering the claim automatically true under that assumption.

3. There was no B in the claim I was referring to. The claim mentioned only one proposed solution.

Can you point out my logical errors instead of just claiming they exist, and then listing logical errors I didn't make?

readaynrand

That's exactly what I did, but I got three warning points for that. Incredible!

Government interference can postpone the problems, but politicians are not magicians - they cannot deliver services for free, they cannot create capital (only print worthless paper money) and they cannot solve problems by interfering in the free market.

Gokul43201

Of course there is. I thought it was obvious, but A = government, B = market.

readaynrand's post very explicitly claims that B, and only B, can fix all the problems in the market.

That was an attempt at a proof (albeit a flawed one) of the original claim. That original claim was: "Only the market can heal the economy."

I wasn't pointing out logical errors in your statement, but in readaynrand's. After all, your statement was simply stating what you think rar was implying.

Al68

It will soon become obvious that only those here on the "left" are free to post their (often delusional and absurd) opinions as absolute facts that are beyond dispute, and do so with impunity. They seem to be perfectly free to spout hateful and delusional nonsense as if they were simply mentioning that the sky was blue.

But mentioning a real equivalent of "the sky is blue", especially for economic issues, elicits never-ending challenges, demands for substantiation many times over, and warnings from moderators.

Just like the one I'm probably about to get.

Al68

LOL. Well, there's the problem. That's a different claim than the one I was referring to. I was only referring to the claim I quoted, not the one you mention here.