News Stories

[KimmyChan]

Plane searchers spot ocean debris -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8079122.stm

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The government should have just stepped in and nationalized the company back when they got the bailout. They even said at the time that it wouldn't be enough. Hell the stock is like a dollar. They could have taken that bail out money and bought a controlling interest in the company and still would have had money left. Even if GM survives this, a lot of people are going to be out of work around the world. Though if the government really wanted to save GM, a socialized medicine system would have saved them a lot of money in benefits packages without the government having to actually give a dime to the company. Of course either way is "socialism" and we can't have that.

The U.S. Government has ZERO business in owning or controlling a private company. This is very much so an over-step of Government power and one the Founding Fathers of my country never wanted to happen.

This is a sad day for American Capitalism and a sad day for America in general.

My 2000 Corvette is the last GM vehicle I will own as long as the Government owns an interest in it.

[KimmyChan]

Suicide jump boy had died at home -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/8079123.stm

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The U.S. Government has ZERO business in owning or controlling a private company. This is very much so an over-step of Government power and one the Founding Fathers of my country never wanted to happen.

This is a sad day for American Capitalism and a sad day for America in general.

My 2000 Corvette is the last GM vehicle I will own as long as the Government owns an interest in it.

Like I said, "ONOES! SOCIALISM!!!" See here's the thing. Capitalism? It's causing people to lose their jobs. The only thing keeping them from starving is the government's more socialist leaning programs like unemployment benefits. When something is clearly not working, sticking to it because of some political ideology is at best idiotic. I'm sure you'll point out that socialism hasn't worked very well where it's been implimented. However, neither has capitalism. What we need is a mixed economy that combines traits of both. We were going in that direction but recent republician adminstrations thought it'd be a good idea to remove regulations designed to stop companies from screwing over people and putting their short term profit ahead of their long term interests. (I'll grant that you can put some blame on Clinton there too.) We're seeing what happened as a result of that now.

Also how do you know the founding fathers wouldn't support it? Massive mega corperations like GM simply didn't exist back then. The closest they'd be familiar with would be the East India Company, and even that pales in comparison to GM. Also let's not forget those people were very much pragmatic. The Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson himself thought it was unconstitutional and a gross overstep of the federal government's power. What did he do? He bought it anyway. Why? Because he thought it would help the country in the long run by giving it room to expand. I don't pretend to know what the founding fathers would think of this. They simply never had to deal with anything like it so there's really nothing we can point to and say "Aha! That's what they'd think!" There is one thing I do know, though; there were occasions where they put the good of the country ahead of their own political beliefs.

Of course the whole "but the founding fathers" thing is both an appeal to authority and appeal to tradition fallacy, even if we accept that is how they would side on an issue.

[Vexx]

The Founding Fathers would probably have been appalled at the existence of extra-governmental power entities like the present form of the legal artifact we call "corporation". What it trends toward isn't 'free-market' at all but its own form of tyranny.

[KimmyChan]

First UK swine flu critical case -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8079716.stm

[Arabesque]

North Korean leader's successor named

Reports from South Korea said that North Korea's military chiefs, Communist Party officials and state employees were told to put their support behind the 26-year-old who had been chosen by his father to take the world's only communist dynasty into its third generation. Several South Korean politicians said they had been briefed on the developments by their intelligence services. One, Park Jie-won, said the regime in the north was already "pledging its allegiance to Jong-un".

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The Founding Fathers would probably have been appalled at the existence of extra-governmental power entities like the present form of the legal artifact we call "corporation". What it trends toward isn't 'free-market' at all but its own form of tyranny.

Well, I suppose they didn't have a very good impression of the English East India Company, considering all the tea parties and all...

Socialism, on the other hand, did not exist in their time (nor does the modern corporation, of course). All speculation of their potential opinions on the movement is purely that, later speculation. Interestingly enough, I've always considered that potential support for ideologies can come from where an ideology is placed in society rather than what that ideology says. A "progressive" ideology of the time is likely to be supported by, you guessed it, those who are not satisfied with the establishment, be it the enlightenment ideals during the American Revolution, liberal nationalism during the 1848 series of European uprisings (the "Spring of Nations"), all the many strands of socialism following the Industrial Revolution, etc. Heck, Perestroika and Glasnost occupied the same place in the twilight of Soviet history that Bolshevism occupied at its eve.

So, by all means, Thomas Jefferson could have been a socialist, if the twist of fate makes it so. Alternate History is the Butterfly Effect at work: it could have been anything, we don't know. He said what he said about all sorts of things he knew in his day and those we could consider Thomas Jefferson's definitive opinions, but he and his generation never knew socialism so one really can't assert that the Founding Fathers definitively disliked it.

Much safer to just say you don't like what is being done and why.

[iLney]

Heh, they wouldn't care much about capitalism either. The system is supposed to be small, and the Constitution exists for that sole reason. How can one concurrently favor both small government and socialism?

Edit: in fact, if the government is tiny. No one will ever bother what form it takes: imperialism, socialism, capitalism... whatever

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Like I said, "ONOES! SOCIALISM!!!" See here's the thing. Capitalism? It's causing people to lose their jobs. The only thing keeping them from starving is the government's more socialist leaning programs like unemployment benefits. When something is clearly not working, sticking to it because of some political ideology is at best idiotic. I'm sure you'll point out that socialism hasn't worked very well where it's been implimented. However, neither has capitalism. What we need is a mixed economy that combines traits of both. We were going in that direction but recent republician adminstrations thought it'd be a good idea to remove regulations designed to stop companies from screwing over people and putting their short term profit ahead of their long term interests. (I'll grant that you can put some blame on Clinton there too.) We're seeing what happened as a result of that now.

Also how do you know the founding fathers wouldn't support it? Massive mega corperations like GM simply didn't exist back then. The closest they'd be familiar with would be the East India Company, and even that pales in comparison to GM. Also let's not forget those people were very much pragmatic. The Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson himself thought it was unconstitutional and a gross overstep of the federal government's power. What did he do? He bought it anyway. Why? Because he thought it would help the country in the long run by giving it room to expand. I don't pretend to know what the founding fathers would think of this. They simply never had to deal with anything like it so there's really nothing we can point to and say "Aha! That's what they'd think!" There is one thing I do know, though; there were occasions where they put the good of the country ahead of their own political beliefs.

Of course the whole "but the founding fathers" thing is both an appeal to authority and appeal to tradition fallacy, even if we accept that is how they would side on an issue.

Name one instance where socialism has worked. One will do. I feel sorry that people lose their jobs everyday, but it is not my responsibility to prop them back up. If I have spare money I will donate to charity. Or if I have ideas, I will start up a business so they can find employment. However it is absolute arrogance of you and others, to expect my hard work, to float other peoples' misfortunes or other peoples' lack of ambition and drive to work. The leftists in this country have a love affair with spending other people's money. EVERYTHING this government touches, goes to crap. Every election there is more corruption, more beauracracy, more un-accountable spending. Both parties fall 'victim' to this. America is headed for a return of the late 70's and it will not be pretty.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Name one instance where socialism has worked. One will do.

Sweden. Though that's a strawman as I specificly called for a mixed economy. One that isn't afraid to enact a socialist policy when it needs to or a capitalist policy when it needs to.

Nationalizing one company to save it from failure does not a socialist nation make. Yes, it's a socialist policy, but the US has a lot of them already. Further, the government could have saved the US auto industry practically overnight without giving any car company a cent directly. One of the big problems the car manufacturers had was paying for employee health benefits. If the country had socialized medicine, those expenses would have vanished. Incidentily, socialized medicine would likely lower health care costs in general because you wouldn't have as many people being rushed to the emergency room when their medical problems get really bad and they require expensive prodedures because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor when it was a minor problem.

I feel sorry that people lose their jobs everyday, but it is not my responsibility to prop them back up. If I have spare money I will donate to charity Or if I have ideas, I will start up a business so they can find employment. However it is absolute arrogance of you and others, to expect my hard work, to float other peoples' misfortunes or other peoples' lack of ambition and drive to work. The leftists in this country have a love affair with spending other people's money. EVERYTHING this government touches, goes to crap. Every election there is more corruption, more beauracracy, more un-accountable spending. Both parties fall 'victim' to this. America is headed for a return of the late 70's and it will not be pretty.

Other people's lack of ambition and drive to work? Yes, all those peple that were laid off are unemployed because they're lazy.
Sometimes there just aren't jobs out there. Especially when the nation is in a recession and more people are getting laid off every day. It's absolute arrogance of you to claim lack of ambition and drive to work on the part of people who were just laid off because some ceo ran the company they worked for into the ground in search of short term profits and ran off with a huge bonus. It is most certainly the government's job to help its people in situations like that.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Further, the government could have saved the US auto industry practically overnight without giving any car company a cent directly. One of the big problems the car manufacturers had was paying for employee health benefits. If the country had socialized medicine, those expenses would have vanished.

Please tell me this is sarcasm...

[LeoXiao]

Socialism DID work. It for for the entire Second World for like 70 years. In fact, at one point, people thought it worked better than capitalism because we had a depression back then.
And socialism still works. The reason why depressions, which are an inevitable by-product of true capitalism, don't f*ck countries up as much as it did in the 30's is because governments all give themselves nice injections of strategically-placed socialism to make sure things stay around.

Basically, mixed economy. Every single modern nation uses it.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

Please tell me this is sarcasm...

It's a simple fact. The automakers pay huge amounts in benefits to their workers that make up a sizable percentage of their operating costs. If the country had socialized medicine, the companies would no longer have those expenses, as the government would be the ones providing healthcare. Money for medical coverage would come out of tax money, not be paid for directly by the companies. Also, socialized medicine would likely lower health care costs in the long run. The US has the highest cost per person for medical care under the current system. Greater access to medical coverage would reduce the costs long term, so even if you want to claim the companies would still be paying for medical benefits in taxes, which I suspect you're hinting at, the costs would still be greatly reduced over the current situation.

[monir]

Who hasn't heard of the Tank Man? Not many. I'm not certain since when I've become so cynical in my approach at everyday life. Few things interest me, and even fewer things inspire me. The Tank Man is one of those fewer ones that manages to evoke those strong emotions I ideally try to suppress. The 20-year anniversary is fast approaching. So I thought it's only befitting an article should be posted about those lucky few who witnessed the guy with shopping bags in both hands that stood in front of tanks.

New York Times article.

[KimmyChan]

'Nature's ghosts' filmed for first time -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8077903.stm

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by KimmyChan

'Nature's ghosts' filmed for first time -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8077903.stm

This little thing is a ghost bat?!

If its smaller, it would look rather cute..

[KimmyChan]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

This little thing is a ghost bat?!

If its smaller, it would look rather cute..

I think that it looks really cute anyway, I've always thought all bats were cute

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's a simple fact. The automakers pay huge amounts in benefits to their workers that make up a sizable percentage of their operating costs. If the country had socialized medicine, the companies would no longer have those expenses, as the government would be the ones providing healthcare. Money for medical coverage would come out of tax money, not be paid for directly by the companies. Also, socialized medicine would likely lower health care costs in the long run. The US has the highest cost per person for medical care under the current system. Greater access to medical coverage would reduce the costs long term, so even if you want to claim the companies would still be paying for medical benefits in taxes, which I suspect you're hinting at, the costs would still be greatly reduced over the current situation.

A basic fundamental problem that GM has that the other carmakers don't appear to have: an internal broken corporate culture. It doesn't matter how much a corporation says 'we're focused on the bottom line, serving our customer, freemarket capitalism'. That isn't how most large corporations actually work since the late 1980s. Want to hate "socialism"? Corporations are "socialist-with-the-corruption" in the way many conservatives claim to hate all the way to the core. (note I'm using a frequent conservative perception of socialism in those sentences - not actual socialism as practiced in many capitalist-focused socialist democracies)

An article from conservative columnist David Brooks talks about just how broken the GM culture is and how the seemingly left?-but-status-quo-friendly Obama administration is walking into a quagmire with GM. It may become another "Armani suits bailout" with similar rings to the Wall Street bailout that seems to have mostly only helped the top rung pad their path.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/op...s.html?_r=1&em

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

It's a simple fact. The automakers pay huge amounts in benefits to their workers that make up a sizable percentage of their operating costs. If the country had socialized medicine, the companies would no longer have those expenses, as the government would be the ones providing healthcare. Money for medical coverage would come out of tax money, not be paid for directly by the companies. Also, socialized medicine would likely lower health care costs in the long run. The US has the highest cost per person for medical care under the current system. Greater access to medical coverage would reduce the costs long term, so even if you want to claim the companies would still be paying for medical benefits in taxes, which I suspect you're hinting at, the costs would still be greatly reduced over the current situation.

Bleh, if we have universal steel, GM cars will compete way better than Japanese cars!

You are talking as if health care is free. The government says it's free doesn't mean it will be free. Pharmaceutical companies make good medicine not because they love humanity.

Greater coverage?! I sneeze twice per day I must go see a doctor everyday! After eating so much, I must see a doctor too. Blah, I need someone to talk to... hmm how about a doctor! <Meanwhile, Joe who has serious problems with his heart must wait in line to see a doctor who is chatting with me about WoW> Who's freaking care? I PAID FOR THE SERVICE BY MY TAX.

Resources are not unlimited, you know. If I were, not just socialism, anything will work.