## How to fix the economy

 Quote by Gokul43201 Interesting. Will see if I can get it this weekend. Meanwhile, I came across this oldish article in the Economist that I'm sure is going to be met with vigorous disagreement here: http://www.economist.com/node/168464...0-Premiums.pdf (weird url)
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

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Gokul43201 Interesting. Will see if I can get it this weekend. Meanwhile, I came across this oldish article in the Economist that I'm sure is going to be met with vigorous disagreement here:
You are correct,
 Quote by Ec Mr Obama has been tough from the start. [...] But by and large Mr Obama has not used his stakes in GM and Chrysler for political ends. [...] Taxpayers might even turn a profit when GM is sold.
Fawning piece with lazy fact gathering.

 Quote by WSJ General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion. 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  Recognitions: Gold Member 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.
 Recognitions: Gold Member 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.

 Quote by DrClapeyron How to fix the economy
Only the market can heal the economy. Politicians should do as little as possible.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by readaynrand Only the market can heal the economy.
You say that as though you are stating a fact, but you probably mean that's just your personal opinion.

 Quote by Gokul43201 You say that as though you are stating a fact, but you probably mean that's just your personal opinion.
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.

Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
 Quote by readaynrand No, it's a fact. You can't solve a problem that is caused by government involvement with more government involvement.
You'll need to post the proof of that since you claim it's a fact.

Quote by Evo
 Quote by readaynrand No, it's a fact. You can't solve a problem that is caused by government involvement with more government involvement.
You'll need to post the proof of that since you claim it's a fact.
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.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by 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.
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.

 Quote by 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.
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?

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

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

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by Al68 1. There is no solution "B" in the claim by readaynrand I was referring to.
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.

 The claim was only that more A does not solve the problem.
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."

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

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

 Quote by 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."
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.

 Similar discussions for: How to fix the economy Thread Forum Replies Current Events 54 General Discussion 14 General Discussion 41 Social Sciences 4 Current Events 13