Where is the US economy headed?

okie wrote:

Leftist historians trying to paint him as a right wing conservative is frankly silly on its face after you look at the evidence.

No reputable historian would call Hitler a "conservative", just as nobody in his right mind would call Stalin a "liberal".

You're just fighting this little crusade of yours because you refuse to believe that anything evil could possible originate from the right side of the political spectrum.

mysteryman wrote:

The assets of GM would have been picked up by another auto maker, and their employees would still be working, but for a different company.

You're saying that more people who were directly or indirectly working for GM and who lost their jobs would still be employed if GM had folded instead of getting bailed out by the government?

Anyone with common sense would in fact consider Stalin an example of an ultra radical liberal

At least you have finally admitted Hitler was no conservative.

I don't know what you think the right side of the political spectrum is? Just a hint, it is certainly not liberal, oe, it is in fact commonly used interchangeably with conservatism, while the left side of the spectrum is equated to liberalism.

So if you admit no reputable historian would consider him a conservative, then it is also true that Hitler was no "rightee" as compared to the context that is now used at least here in this country.

The demand would theoretically be roughly the same with or without General Motors in business, so that in the absence of GM, other companies would in fact fill the void and create the supply to fulfill the demand, which also supplies jobs but perhaps in different companies than if they were working for GM.

Conservatism isn't the only political philosophy to be found on the right side of the spectrum. In the Weimar Republic, there were several parties to be found on the right side of the aisle. There was the rather radical national-conservative DNVP, supported by nationalists, industrialists and wealthy landowners. There was the DVP, a national libertarian party. There was the BVP, a branch that had split off of the Centre Party, supported by more conservative voters and based on a more Catholic party platform. There was the Centre Party itself, which was largely the Weimar Republic equivalent of the Germany's contemporary conservative party of Merkel. And there was the nationalistic, anti-semitic, militaristic NSDAP. Few other splinter parties as well, but the bottom line is that not every right-wing party was what you would call "conservative" today.

okie wrote:

Anyone with common sense would in fact consider Stalin an example of an ultra radical liberal

Ah, common sense. Common sense tells you that the Earth is flat. Actually learning facts tells you it isn't.

Communism and Socialism aren't just radical liberalism, and National Socialism and Fascism aren't just radical conservatism.

okie wrote:

At least you have finally admitted Hitler was no conservative.

Conservatism isn't the only political philosophy to be found on the right side of the spectrum. In the Weimar Republic, there were several parties to be found on the right side of the aisle. There was the rather radical national-conservative DNVP, supported by nationalists, industrialists and wealthy landowners. There was the DVP, a national libertarian party. There was the BVP, a branch that had split off of the Centre Party, supported by more conservative voters and based on a more Catholic party platform. There was the Centre Party itself, which was largely the Weimar Republic equivalent of the Germany's contemporary conservative party of Merkel. And there was the nationalistic, anti-semitic, militaristic NSDAP. Few other splinter parties as well, but the bottom line is that not every right-wing party was what you would call "conservative" today.

okie wrote:

I don't know what you think the right side of the political spectrum is? Just a hint, it is certainly not liberal, oe, it is in fact commonly used interchangeably with conservatism, while the left side of the spectrum is equated to liberalism.

Look, there's not just one single philosophy that is considered to be on the right side of the political spectrum. The original conservatives were monarchists and royalists. Some sought the complete restoration of strong, centralized, powerful monarchistic states, others wanted to institute constitutional monarchies. The focus later shifted to a support of strong national states and nationalism, as opposed to the internationalism and "world government" philosophies propagated by the left. There often was a strong militaristic element to right-wing parties, since strong national states required powerful armies. Monarchies derived their power from god, not from the electorate, and the religious element and the struggle to restore a nation more guided by religious principles remained a plank in the platform of some right-wing parties as well. Thing is that what you would call "conservatism" today isn't the only philosophy on the right side of the political spectrum, and it's silly to claim that "conservatism" can be used interchangeably with all the various political philosophies that were traditionally right-wing or are right-wing philosophies today.

okie wrote:

So if you admit no reputable historian would consider him a conservative, then it is also true that Hitler was no "rightee" as compared to the context that is now used at least here in this country.

No, that doesn't follow at all. If you had to describe a group that wanted to restore the monarchy in the United States, you probably wouldn't call them "conservatives" either, but that doesn't mean that the platform wasn't right-wing.

okie wrote:

The demand would theoretically be roughly the same with or without General Motors in business, so that in the absence of GM, other companies would in fact fill the void and create the supply to fulfill the demand, which also supplies jobs but perhaps in different companies than if they were working for GM.

And what exactly leads you to believe that all those jobs created by companies filling the void left behind by a collapse of GM would be created in the United States? I think it's been pretty much established that in order to sell in America, there is absolutely no need to also produce in America. Hence, no need to create jobs in America.

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:

The demand would theoretically be roughly the same with or without General Motors in business, so that in the absence of GM, other companies would in fact fill the void and create the supply to fulfill the demand, which also supplies jobs but perhaps in different companies than if they were working for GM.

And what exactly leads you to believe that all those jobs created by companies filling the void left behind by a collapse of GM would be created in the United States? I think it's been pretty much established that in order to sell in America, there is absolutely no need to also produce in America. Hence, no need to create jobs in America.

One big reason I believe it is because of my own business experience and personal observation of the industry that I have been involved in. That principle has in fact happened over and over, and anyone that is familiar with free market economics knows this happens continuously. Look, I am not claiming the exact number of jobs will exist after the collapse of GM, there might be less, but there could result in actually a few more if the resulting companies are more healthy than GM was. I am also not guaranteeing the jobs will be in America, but the problem of jobs in America has to do with the structural problems of regulation and taxing policies here, which will not be fixed by bailing out GM, it will only be fixed by a government that understands economics and why we are suffering in the manufacturing sector here in this country. That will require a new government balance of power toward conservative politicians that understand the free market and trust the ability and ingenuity of the American people. The current Congress and administration is totally incompetent in this regard.

oe, if anything, your post is merely demonstrating your apparent lack of any understanding of free market economics.

Nonsense when you say conservative politicians ran our economy into the ground, absolute nonsense, cyclops. It has been our liberal and Democrat taxing and regulatory policies that have driven much manufacturing offshore. Include the unions in that.

I would guarantee you that if we eliminated all business income taxes in favor of another or other forms of collecting tax revenue, and if we also revamped our regulatory and union policies, business including manufacturing would boom in this country.

We have to take into account that business often lags behind innovation, social innovation as well as technological innovation. Some of the problems that the US economy is still dealing with stem from the inability of American business to make a logical response to social innovation in the mid-20th Century, coupled with and exacerbated by extensive foreign borrowing.

It was a lack of regulation which lead to our financial crisis, Okie - and you know it.

Quote:

It was a lack of regulation which lead to our financial crisis, Okie - and you know it.

It was Bill Clinton who deregulated. I cited all the references a while ago.