DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on January 30, 2010, 12:16:40 AM
-
(http://www.makemoneylosingweight.com/storage/wall_street_journal_logo.gif)
The Chavez Meltdown
JANUARY 30, 2010
There's a lot of ruin in Venezuela.
To the short and brutal list of life's certainties, let us add that socialism invariably leads nations to economic ruin. Latest case in point: Hugo Chavez's "Bolivarian" Republic of Venezuela.
Earlier this month, the Venezuelan strongman moved the official U.S. dollar exchange rate to 4.3 bolivars to the greenback from 2.15. At a stroke, he wiped out the savings and purchasing power of the very working-class people he purports to represent, most of whom have barely been getting by. News of the devaluation instantly sent the country where consumer prices had already risen by 25% in 2009, according to official figures into a panic, with consumers standing in line to stock up on goods before prices rose.
Mr. Chavez next decreed that he would fine and even arrest any merchant caught adjusting prices, eliding the fact that Venezuela imports nearly everything and exports only oil. Now Venezuelans have the Hobson's choice of either complying with the diktat, which means shortages, or disobeying it, which means inflation.
Yet no sooner was one catastrophe of "21st-century socialism" inflicted on Venezuelans than Mr. Chavez unveiled another. On January 12, the government instituted a series of rolling blackouts due to an electricity shortage that had been building for months. Ostensibly, the reason for the shortage was a drought that had left water levels at the country's huge Guri Dam the source of more than 70% of its electricity at critically low levels. But that is a function of the government's failure to maintain the dam and build additional capacity.
The instant result of the blackouts was chaos, particularly in Caracas, where people were left "stuck in elevators or in dangerous parts of town without street lighting," according to Reuters. The capital city already has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the world, and Mr. Chavez was forced to suspend blackouts there two days later. The rest of the country, however, remains subject to sporadic power outages.
Behind the crack-up of Mr. Chavez's utopia is the fact that he's running out of money because Venezuela's oil production is plunging. In 1998, the year Mr. Chavez was first elected, the country pumped 3.3 million barrels a day. Today, the figure is 2.4 million barrels, and that's an optimistic estimate.
Venezuela isn't running out of crude. The problem is that Mr. Chavez has expelled or seized the assets of foreign companies capable of properly maintaining the country's fields, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. It didn't help, either, that in 2002 Mr. Ch?vez fired thousands of skilled employees of state oil company PdVSA because he didn't like their politics and replaced them with his political cronies.
On Monday, Mr. Chavez made a grudging concession to reality when he agreed to a joint venture with Italian oil major ENI, which itself had been run out of Venezuela in 2006. We'll leave it to the Italians to place their own bets about the limits of Mr. Chavez's caprice. They've already had fair warning that Bolivarians, like other predators, rarely change their spots.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000922680308014.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575000922680308014.html)
-
LMFAO.
About ten years ago, the State of California was hit by a crippling wave of power shortages and electricity failures caused by deregulation. I am just wondering how many conservatives hailed those difficulties as proof of the ultimate failure of capitalism?
An electrical power crisis can be an indicator of failure of the state - - or not, depending it seems on the nature of the state itself.
-
By keeping the consumer price of electricity artificially low, the California government discouraged citizens from practicing conservation. In February 2001, California governor Gray Davis stated, "Believe me, if I wanted to raise rates I could have solved this problem in 20 minutes."[4]
Energy price regulation forced suppliers to ration their electricity supply rather than expand production.[citation needed] This artificial scarcity created opportunities for market manipulation by energy speculators.
The major flaw of the deregulation scheme was that it was an incomplete deregulation?that is, "middleman" utility distributors continued to be regulated and forced to charge fixed prices, and continued to have limited choice in terms of electricity providers. Other, less catastrophic energy deregulation schemes, such as Pennsylvania's, have generally deregulated utilities but kept the providers regulated, or deregulated both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis)
-
I don't know enough about the subject to figure out who or what was to blame for it, but it could not have happened without the deregulation.
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that partisans of the capitalist system are quick to blame every God-damn thing that goes wrong under socialism as the necessary result of socialism, while making every possible excuse for whatever goes wrong under capitalism, so as never to have to characterize it as the necessary result of capitalism.
-
In any event, the point I was trying to make is that partisans of the capitalist system are quick to blame every God-damn thing that goes wrong under socialism as the necessary result of socialism, while making every possible excuse for whatever goes wrong under capitalism, so as never to have to characterize it as the necessary result of capitalism.
And my point was that the biased blame game is pretty much an unproductive exercise in futility.
Enron took the same advantage of ambiguity in the laws as Mikey Weinstein takes advantage of ambiguity in the laws.
It the real bogeyman the actors or the laws?
-
Let me just add, that Bt's assessement of the California debacle and its pseudoderegulation, was spot on
-
About ten years ago, the State of California was hit by a crippling wave of power shortages and electricity failures caused by deregulation. I am just wondering how many conservatives hailed those difficulties as proof of the ultimate failure of capitalism?
Actually, the problem was caused by not enough deregulation, and to assume the problem would not have happened without the limited not-quite-really-deregulation is speculation at best. The problems Venezuela is having are a direct result of Chavez's meddling. Chavez's socialism is detrimental to the country. This "yeah, but capitalism" bit doesn't change that one iota.
-
Sorry, I'm not buying any of that capitalist BS. Socialism especially under a charismatic leader is no guarantor of a mistake-free administration any more than capitalism is.
However a socialist government governs in the name of the people and has the people's best interests in its heart at all times. Capitalism operates in the name of the owner and the rentier classes, and has their best interests at heart, always as measured by the bottom line and the protection of individual wealth. It stands to reason then that the capitalist system will ALWAYS govern against the best interests of the people.
-
However a socialist government governs in the name of the people and has the people's best interests in its heart at all times. Capitalism operates in the name of the owner and the rentier classes, and has their best interests at heart, always as measured by the bottom line and the protection of individual wealth. It stands to reason then that the capitalist system will ALWAYS govern against the best interests of the people.
Rubbish. In a capitalist system you have crimes against property, in a socialist system you have crimes against the state.
In either system a select few control the property.
The big difference is that in a capitalist system, joe peasant has a shot at ownership.
In a socialist system there is not that hope.
-
BINGO
-
<<In either system a select few control the property.>>
In the one case, they control for their own benefit, in the other as stewards or trustees for the people. The difference being in the disposition of the fruits of production: for the benefit of the elite handful in the capitalist system, for the benefit of the people in the other.
<<The big difference is that in a capitalist system, joe peasant has a shot at ownership.>>
Yes, a very tiny shot and no right at all to participate in the profits.
<<In a socialist system there is not that hope.>>
Why on earth would they want to hope for what they already have? If everyone has a job, a free education for all, free medical care and a guarantee of affordable housing, the only ones who hope for more are the greedy ass-holes who don't give a shit about everyone's standard of living sinking like a stone as long as they have their shot at the big time. Fuck 'em. And fuck their greedy dreams.
-
By keeping the consumer price of electricity artificially low, the California government discouraged citizens from practicing conservation. In February 2001, California governor Gray Davis stated, "Believe me, if I wanted to raise rates I could have solved this problem in 20 minutes."[4]
Energy price regulation forced suppliers to ration their electricity supply rather than expand production.[citation needed] This artificial scarcity created opportunities for market manipulation by energy speculators.
The major flaw of the deregulation scheme was that it was an incomplete deregulation?that is, "middleman" utility distributors continued to be regulated and forced to charge fixed prices, and continued to have limited choice in terms of electricity providers. Other, less catastrophic energy deregulation schemes, such as Pennsylvania's, have generally deregulated utilities but kept the providers regulated, or deregulated both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis)
I've got a game-plan in place to have Solar Panels on my roof by years end and I will be generating my own electricity. Actually I'll be turning my meter backwards. Can you believe it -- a conservative that drives a hybrid Prius and has artificial turf. We are having a drought here, due to a little fish, so water is expensive. Liberals are all talk and no action.
-
"a conservative that drives a hybrid Prius"
May your accelerator pedal get stuck.
-
"a conservative that drives a hybrid Prius"
May your accelerator pedal get stuck.
fuck off legless
-
However a socialist government governs in the name of the people and has the people's best interests in its heart at all times.
Michael, the naiveté necessary to believe that is something I lost a long time ago. I suppose next you'll tell me Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real.
Capitalism operates in the name of the owner and the rentier classes, and has their best interests at heart, always as measured by the bottom line and the protection of individual wealth. It stands to reason then that the capitalist system will ALWAYS govern against the best interests of the people.
Adult male bovine excrement. For one, the capitalist system does not govern. For another, capitalism allows the people to determine their own interests and what works for them. The notion that the people need someone else, who is only a person or group of persons no better than the rest of the people, to tell them what is their best interests is arrogance and folly.
-
fuck off legless
Go play in the other room. The adults are talking.
-
fuck off legless
Go play in the other room. The adults are talking.
fuck you too
-
fuck off legless
Go play in the other room. The adults are talking.
fuck you too
Kut The Krap Kramer
-
fuck off legless
Go play in the other room. The adults are talking.
fuck you too
Kut The Krap Kramer
I never start it just finish it.
-
Get a mans car, We We, you little whimp. Enjoy the oil while we still have it.
http://www.cargurus.com/images/2009/06/06/22/19/2009-lexus-ls-460-pic-18545.jpeg (http://www.cargurus.com/images/2009/06/06/22/19/2009-lexus-ls-460-pic-18545.jpeg)
I average 17 mpg around town, and 23 on the highway, in mine, and it's worth every drop of gas I put in it.
-
Get a mans car, We We, you little whimp. Enjoy the oil while we still have it.
http://www.cargurus.com/images/2009/06/06/22/19/2009-lexus-ls-460-pic-18545.jpeg (http://www.cargurus.com/images/2009/06/06/22/19/2009-lexus-ls-460-pic-18545.jpeg)
I average 17 mpg around town, and 23 on the highway, in mine, and it's worth every drop of gas I put in it.
While you sit in traffic, scratching you phantom limb, my car qualifies for the Car Pool Lane. And brother that is a real time saver. Hey Chester, what makes you think I own just one car? Notice I said OWN.
-
<<Michael, the naiveté necessary to believe that is something I lost a long time ago. I suppose next you'll tell me Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real.>>
Get back to me when you've developed an argument that's a little less childish, Prince.
<<Adult male bovine excrement. For one, the capitalist system does not govern.>>
You're nit-picking to no avail, Prince. The capitalist system in a sham democracy like yours gives the plutocracy the means to buy the people who appear to govern.
<< For another, capitalism allows the people to determine their own interests and what works for them. >>
ROTFLMFAO. And you're comparing MY beliefs to belief in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? THAT is hilarious.
<<The notion that the people need someone else, who is only a person or group of persons no better than the rest of the people, to tell them what is their best interests is arrogance and folly.>>
Take out that "no better than the rest of the people," turn it around in your hands long enough to examine it from every angle. Maybe then you'll see where you went wrong. You don't just JOIN the CP like one joins the Democrats or the Republicans, it's an elite group that you APPLY for membership in. And the people at the top of the hierarchy have worked their way up there, though the apparat.
-
<<Michael, the naiveté necessary to believe that is something I lost a long time ago. I suppose next you'll tell me Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real.>>
Get back to me when you've developed an argument that's a little less childish, Prince.
I might, when you develop an argument worthy of something more. This nonsense that a socialist government "has the people's best interests in its heart at all times" is far more childish than anything I've said. A socialist government, like all governments, has interest in power in its heart at all times.
The capitalist system in a sham democracy like yours gives the plutocracy the means to buy the people who appear to govern.
No, it does not. The sham democracy does that by peddling power and influence to the corporations. Don't confuse corporatism with capitalism.
<< For another, capitalism allows the people to determine their own interests and what works for them. >>
ROTFLMFAO. And you're comparing MY beliefs to belief in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? THAT is hilarious.
Laugh all you like. It's true, Michael. Capitalism leaves the determination of one's own best interest up to the individual. No, unlike socialism/communism it does not offer some pipe dream plan to make achieving those interests easy, but then, it shouldn't.
<<The notion that the people need someone else, who is only a person or group of persons no better than the rest of the people, to tell them what is their best interests is arrogance and folly.>>
Take out that "no better than the rest of the people," turn it around in your hands long enough to examine it from every angle. Maybe then you'll see where you went wrong. You don't just JOIN the CP like one joins the Democrats or the Republicans, it's an elite group that you APPLY for membership in. And the people at the top of the hierarchy have worked their way up there, though the apparat.
Than you for illustrating the arrogance that is one of the major flaws of communism/socialism. I know the people in the Communist Party want to believe they're better than everyone else, but that doesn't make it so. One has to apply to work for Apple or Harvard or Mensa too, and the people at the top of those groups have worked their way up, but that doesn't mean they're better people than the rest of us or are in any way qualified to determine what are the best interests of the rest of us. Yes, the dean of Harvard might know more than the head of the plumbing business, but no one with a modicum of sense is going to call the dean of Harvard when the toilet is clogged. They're all just people. Just human beings. They are not more perfect or more moral or more righteous than the rest of us. That goes for communists and socialists and members of the CP too.
-
For the record, We We, I didn't start anything. I simply pointed to the troubles that Toyota is having with some of its models in a joking manor. And, I didn't call you We We in that post either, We We. You, however, being the whimp that you are, needed to reply using a personal slur.
Further, I don't know why you're talking about your car pool lane, I live in Boston. Your excuse for driving an old lady's car doesn't apply to me.
Further still, I hope you OWN more then one car, or do you keep your wife in the house, covered in a veil, and over the stove, like your counterparts in the Muslim world?
-
<<No, it does not. The sham democracy does that by peddling power and influence to the corporations. Don't confuse corporatism with capitalism.>>
You are so naive. The sham democracy seeks out innocent businessmen to corrupt. Hey, mister, wanna buy some influence? You are living in a dreamworld and nothing will wake you out of it. Capital relentlessly pursues every advantage it can, and the ethic of competition means that the unethical will always buy influence over the ethical. You make up little fictions totally divorced from reality but anyone who lives in the real world and interacts with real businessmen and real politicians knows you are peddling bullshit.
<<Than you for illustrating the arrogance that is one of the major flaws of communism/socialism. I know the people in the Communist Party want to believe they're better than everyone else, but that doesn't make it so. One has to apply to work for Apple or Harvard or Mensa too, and the people at the top of those groups have worked their way up, but that doesn't mean they're better people than the rest of us or are in any way qualified to determine what are the best interests of the rest of us. Yes, the dean of Harvard might know more than the head of the plumbing business, but no one with a modicum of sense is going to call the dean of Harvard when the toilet is clogged. They're all just people. Just human beings. They are not more perfect or more moral or more righteous than the rest of us. That goes for communists and socialists and members of the CP too>>
How the hell you can confuse unplugging a toilet with running a country beats the hell out of me, but I guess it's par for the course. The ethic of communism is service to communist ideals, so the development of huge personal wealth, being antithetical to the ideal AND easy to spot, can not last. OTOH, as soon as communism was abolished in the U.S.S.R. you DID see an epidemic of thievery and corrutption break out which resulted in the enormous enrichment of some, beyond anything ever seen before in that country, plus all the usual "benefits" of capitalism - - joblessness, homelessness, gangs of homeless youth, parasitism and a rapid drop in the longevity of the people. If your theories are nonsense and you can't see that, at least take a look at the real world around you and try to learn from THAT.
-
For the record, We We, I didn't start anything. I simply pointed to the troubles that Toyota is having with some of its models in a joking manor. And, I didn't call you We We in that post either, We We. You, however, being the whimp that you are, needed to reply using a personal slur.
Further, I don't know why you're talking about your car pool lane, I live in Boston. Your excuse for driving an old lady's car doesn't apply to me.
Further still, I hope you OWN more then one car, or do you keep your wife in the house, covered in a veil, and over the stove, like your counterparts in the Muslim world?
Chester you said "May your accelerator pedal get stuck" which if you know why the recall happened is because an accelerator pedal got stuck on a Lexus owned by a CHP guy and him and a couple of his family members died as a result so I interpreted your stupid comment to mean you wished me dead which surely is what you meant. But if you want a truce to the feud I'm certainly more than willing. In the meantime eat-shit you ugly bitch.
-
"May your accelerator pedal get stuck"
what a hateful statement
(http://www.seeklogo.com/images/S/SignOn_San_Diego-logo-EFC8F2F4F2-seeklogo.com.gif)
Fatal crash continues to raise questions
August 31, 2009
(http://www.momlogic.com/images/stuck_accelerator_crash_pm-thumb-270x270.jpg)
SAN DIEGO: A fiery crash that killed a California Highway Patrol officer and three family members continues to raise questions as investigators try to determine whether their loaner car's accelerator stuck and what if anything could have prevented Friday's tragedy.
The 2009 Lexus ES 350 came from Bob Baker Lexus El Cajon, where CHP officer Mark Saylor of Chula Vista had dropped off his regular vehicle for servicing.
Toyota, which makes Lexus cars, had recalled the all weather floor mats in its 2008 version of that car model because of complaints about them sliding forward and jamming the accelerator. A sales manager at Bob Baker Lexus said he wasn't sure which mats were in the Lexus loaned to Saylor.
On Monday, Toyota issued a statement saying the company is deeply sorry to hear about the Saylor incident.
We are unable to comment on this tragic accident until all the facts are known, the statement said. ?It is important to avoid speculation and allow any investigation to run its course.
It's not known whether Saylor, a 19-year CHP officer whose job entails vehicle safety inspections, tried to shut off the engine or put the car in neutral the two most common ways to slow down a vehicle with a stuck accelerator.
Car experts said it's not always that simple.
An electrical or mechanical failure could have made it impossible to shift into neutral, said Daniel Vomhof III, a vehicle accident reconstructionist with La Mesa-based Expert Witness Services.
Shutting off the engine also can be tricky because most modern vehicles will then lock the steering wheel, leaving the driver unable to steer, Vomhof said.
Asked if drivers have a third option, he replied: Pray a lot.
Another complication: A report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that some Lexus drivers with stuck accelerators tried to turn off the car with the engine control button but didn't know the button must be held for three seconds.
The agency's researchers recorded seven crashes, 12 injuries and 40 complaints involving the recalled floor mats in Toyota vehicles.
They also said that when the throttle pedal is fully open unintentionally, some drivers react by hitting the brakes multiple times. This action depletes the vehicle's vacuum-based power assist, and without that assistance, the brakes must be applied with much more force. Continued driving in that manner can result in overheating the brakes, further diminishing their effectiveness.
Toyota acknowledged the complaints and created new instructions for installing the mats properly. There have been no recalls of the 2009 ES 350, the traffic safety administration said.
On Friday, someone in the Saylors' Lexus called 911 just after 6:30 p.m. to report the stuck accelerator. Witnesses said the car was traveling northbound on state Route 125 in Santee at more than 100 mph when it entered a T-intersection with Mission Gorge Road.
The vehicle slammed into the rear end of a Ford Explorer and then plowed over a curb and through a fence before hitting an embankment and going airborne. It rolled several times before stopping and bursting into flames in the nearby San Diego River basin.
The CHP said those killed were Saylor, 45; his wife, Cleofe, 45; his daughter, Mahala, 13; and his brother-in-law, Chris Lastrella, 38.
The accident was a wake-up call for some Lexus owners.
Marcelle Khalil of Del Mar, a pharmacist who drives a 2006 Lexus GS 300, said she had a problem with her accelerator two weeks ago. It stuck as she drove into her employer's parking lot and she narrowly missed a truck before slamming into a curb.
Khalil said she was positive she didn't step on the gas instead of the brake, but began to doubt herself until she read about the Saylors.
This could happen to anybody,? she said. ?I'm scared to drive my car.
Blair Carter, a sales manager at Bob Baker Lexus, said "our hearts sunk when we heard" about Friday's accident.
He said the vehicle had a double redundant fail-safe system that should have shut the car off if there were a major malfunction, and that he had never heard of a situation in which the accelerator was stuck and the car couldn't be stopped.
I would get in any of our cars today with my family and drive to Maine, Carter said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/aug/31/bn31chp-lexus-crash/ (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/aug/31/bn31chp-lexus-crash/)
-
How the hell you can confuse unplugging a toilet with running a country beats the hell out of me, but I guess it's par for the course. ......
This brings up one of my most fravoriatest quotes.
John W. Gardner:
The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_work.html (http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_work.html)
-
You are so naive. The sham democracy seeks out innocent businessmen to corrupt. Hey, mister, wanna buy some influence?
Not what I said.
Capital relentlessly pursues every advantage it can,
Capital does nothing of the sort. Are you even paying attention to what you're saying?
and the ethic of competition means that the unethical will always buy influence over the ethical.
Only if someone is willing to sell it. And governments intent on control are always willing to sell it in one form or another.
You make up little fictions totally divorced from reality but anyone who lives in the real world and interacts with real businessmen and real politicians knows you are peddling bullshit.
They're not my fictions. I'm not making things up. And if you're going to deny the existence of influence peddling by the government, you've got no room to accuse anyone else of being divorced from reality.
How the hell you can confuse unplugging a toilet with running a country
I didn't. You missed the point.
The ethic of communism is service to communist ideals, so the development of huge personal wealth, being antithetical to the ideal AND easy to spot, can not last. OTOH, as soon as communism was abolished in the U.S.S.R. you DID see an epidemic of thievery and corrutption break out which resulted in the enormous enrichment of some, beyond anything ever seen before in that country, plus all the usual "benefits" of capitalism - - joblessness, homelessness, gangs of homeless youth, parasitism and a rapid drop in the longevity of the people.
And now you apparently expect me to believe in the USSR the government was entirely ethical and free from corruption. You're just ranting complete nonsense now. Russia faced huge problems with the collapse of communism because the government was still trying to control everything, and it only exacerbated the problems they were already facing.
If your theories are nonsense and you can't see that, at least take a look at the real world around you and try to learn from THAT.
That is like a drunkard telling a teetotaler to stay away from booze.
-
A 19 year old CHP and he didn't even know how to handle an emergency. Probably related to We We the Whimp. I had an accelerator stick on me in a Ford, going into a 4 way intersection, when I was about 20. I reached down, pulled the accelerator back up, and came to a nice easy stop at the intersection. Not a big deal.
-
>>I don't know enough about the subject to figure out who or what was to blame for it ...<<
Then he says,
>> ...but it could not have happened without the deregulation.<<
::)
-
Thank you CU4. But that doesn't excuse me from incivility. I said fuck off legless to BSB and told Universal Prince
fuck you too. That was wrong and uncalled for and I should never have called those two queers those names. If I could take it back I would.
-
I am assuming Michael Tee my friend from Canada does not agree with:
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us
tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second
will not become the legalized version of the first."
-
>>I average 17 mpg around town, and 23 on the highway, in mine, and it's worth every drop of gas I put in it.<<
Sounds about like what I get in mine.
(http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/1/1/11240_2009_Toyota_Tundra.jpg)
It's not part of the recall by the way.
-
If you have the 8 in yours it's basicly te same engine as mine.
-
<<This brings up one of my most fravoriatest quotes.
<<John W. Gardner:
<<The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.>>
Not a bad quote, but I hope you didn't get the impression that I scorned excellence in plumbing. I was just indicating that mastery of plumbing would be more easily achieved than mastery in governance, governance being a much more complex matter. IMHO.
-
Nice Rich!
Being in the transportation business we have found that for the
most part no one come close to Toyota & Honda as far as dependability.
-
Nice Rich!
Being in the transportation business we have found that for the
most part no one come close to Toyota & Honda as far as dependability.
unions ruined the former big 3.
-
<<"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us
tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second
will not become the legalized version of the first." >>
I certainly don't think that that was the intention of the Founding Fathers, despite the false attribution of those words to Thomas Jefferson. I am afraid you have been hoaxed, as were many others, by the false quotation. Here's what Jefferson DID say:
http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_two_enemies_of_the_people_are_criminals_and_government/ (http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_two_enemies_of_the_people_are_criminals_and_government/)
<<Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) did write, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, the following: “...in questions of power then, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”
<<Jefferson did not write the following quotation that is frequently credited to him: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”
<<The Jefferson misquotation appears in April 2000 in an essay, “Rule by Brute Force,” by Steve Kubby of the American Medical Marijuana Association.>>
A more detailed exposition of the hoax is contained in the article to which I linked, above.
In answer to your question, no, of course I do not agree with that. It was certainly not the intention of the Founding Fathers, whose primary experience was the so-called "tyranny" of King George. They had "had it" with monarchical government and what they perceived to be arbitrary and irresponsible one-man rule and their No. 1 concern was to make the people, rather than a monarch, sovereign. Jefferson, the third President of the U.S.A., would have had to be the supreme hypocrite to have denounced government itself as an enemy of the people. That is totally absurd. Although that false quote is apparently much in vogue with the right wing, it is basically saying that Jefferson was an anarchist. Total rubbish.
-
>>unions ruined the former big 3<<
In the past I would never even consider buying a "foreign" car. That changes a year ago. I realized I wasn't supporting Ameerican workers, I was supporting a takeover of the American dream. I was also supporting people who help elect people who call me a Nazi, and a racist etc. I'll never buy a car made by the UAW again.
-
>>unions ruined the former big 3<<
In the past I would never even consider buying a "foreign" car. That changes a year ago. I realized I wasn't supporting Ameerican workers, I was supporting a takeover of the American dream. I was also supporting people who help elect people who call me a Nazi, and a racist etc. I'll never buy a car made by the UAW again.
I agree
-
Why don't the two of you get a real car.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1437/576693562_bd088b3e01.jpg)
-
The big 3 failed because they sold crap.
-
The big 3 failed because they sold crap.
yes and unions too
-
Cars like the Vega, Pinto, Neon, Cavalier and Escort were not designed by any union people. Nor did unions decide that people should be sold enormous SUV gashogs and trucks when any fool could see that a surge in gas prices would collapse the market.
It was poor management that screwed up GM and Chrysler.
-
Cars like the Vega, Pinto, Neon, Cavalier and Escort were not designed by any union people. Nor did unions decide that people should be sold enormous SUV gashogs and trucks when any fool could see that a surge in gas prices would collapse the market.
It was poor management that screwed up GM and Chrysler.
unions were a big part of the failure of GM
-
The big 3 failed because they sold crap.
When did Ford fail?
-
The big 3 failed because they sold crap.
When did Ford fail?
Ford didn't come get a handout , isn't this makeing it operate at a disadvantage ?
-
Ford didn't come get a handout , isn't this makeing it operate at a disadvantage ?
Yes, they are at a disadvantage - they could not write off massive debt like the other two.
However, they recently announced a profit, which neither GM or Chrysler have been able to do.
-
"It was certainly not the intention of the Founding Fathers"
Come on Michael...are you really trying to argue that the
intentions of the "Founding Fathers" was not limited government?
"The Tenth Amendment is the foundation of the Constitution."
- Thomas Jefferson
-
<<Come on Michael...are you really trying to argue that the
intentions of the "Founding Fathers" was not limited government?>>
Limited government? Get real, CU4, they had just rebelled against a monarchy. ANY kind of government they'd intend after that would have to be "limited government" compared with what they perceived to be the one-man rule of George III. The question is how limited they wanted it to be.
The only thing the 10th amendment limits is the power of the Federal government. The British North America Act, which was the former constitution of Canada, replaced in 1982 by the Canada Act, had similar provisions. I think they are characteristic of any federal form of government in which smaller units, formerly sovereign themselves, are enticed into a federal union. If the smaller units are to be coaxed into giving up their exclusive sovereignty, the most natural thing would be to limit the powers of the new federal government to those embodied in the constitution of the new nation, otherwise its constituent units would have no idea just how much power they are giving up.
What was interesting to me about the 10th amendment was that it put no limits at all on the powers of the state governments, which were sort of the "vacuum cleaners" of governmental power, picking up anything that wasn't put squarely into the federal government's little cookie jar. If the power existed and it wasn't assigned to the feds by the Constitution, then it went to the state governments without any specific limits on it.
What is puzzling to me about it is that the powers that aren't given to the feds are given to the state governments OR THE PEOPLE. Huh? Which power goes where? What people? The people of the federal state or the people of the individual constituent states? I never "got" the 10th.
-
Ami
Ford has a long and illustrious history of losing market share. Over the years, at different points in time, they've lost it to GM, Toyota, and Chrysler. They lost market share for 10 years running from the mid 90's into the new century. In 2006 Ford mortgages all its assets. The only reason they didn't get into as much trouble as GM this time around is because they aren't as big.
However, despite all that, when it comes to a pickup truck I wouldn't buy anything but a Ford, the Mustang's a fun, well built, car, and they're on a roll in general.
-
What is puzzling to me about it is that the powers that aren't given to the feds are given to the state governments OR THE PEOPLE. Huh? Which power goes where? What people? The people of the federal state or the people of the individual constituent states?
Yes.
-
Ford has a long and illustrious history of losing market share. Over the years, at different points in time, they've lost it to GM, Toyota, and Chrysler. They lost market share for 10 years running from the mid 90's into the new century. In 2006 Ford mortgages all its assets. The only reason they didn't get into as much trouble as GM this time around is because they aren't as big.
Ford has increased market share 14 months out of the last 15 months. And they must not have been much smaller than GM - they're both at around 15%.
-
The last 15 months are a drop in the bucket. The big 3, all of them, sat with their collective heads up their asses while Toyota went from nothing in terms of market share in the US to all but taking them all out of the picture. The big 3 are lucky middle America was as loyal to their products as they were dispite Toyota's huge gains.
-
I don't want to end on a sour note here though. Ford has been very impressive of late and you're right in that that should be recognized.
-
The last 15 months are a drop in the bucket. The big 3, all of them, sat with their collective heads up their asses while Toyota went from nothing in terms of market share in the US to all but taking them all out of the picture. The big 3 are lucky middle America was as loyal to their products as they were dispite Toyota's huge gains.
Toyota's market share never broke 20%. Only GM and Chrysler ever broke 20% market share, and they're the ones hurting now. Matter of fact, Toyota at it's best barely topped Ford at it's best - around 17.5%. And Ford is approaching that market share again, while Toyota is backing away from it.
-
Ford had the same unions and the same contracts as GM. A major difference is that the Ford family owns a huge share of the company, while GM had no such control. Ford was in horrible shape through most of the 90's and early 00's. The Escort was a piece of crap, the Taurus and the LTD were technologically obsolete, and the Lincoln was mostly the sort of car used to ferry the dead and mourners to funerals. Around 2008, they got wise, and revised the entire lineup, except for the Focus, which was rated better than all the local competition.
Now it looks like Ford might outsell Toyota, what with all the sticking accelerator problems that Toyota had.
The Malibu several other models of Chevy have been getting excellent reviews from all the car magazines, as are the Buicks and the Ford Fusion.
Toyotas are reliable as a rule, and fairly easy to repair. The usual complaint about Toyotas is that they are boring.
-
Ford was in horrible shape through most of the 90's and early 00's. The Escort was a piece of crap, the Taurus and the LTD were technologically obsolete, and the Lincoln was mostly the sort of car used to ferry the dead and mourners to funerals. Around 2008, they got wise, and revised the entire lineup, except for the Focus, which was rated better than all the local competition.
Actually, I'll disagree with you on this. The early 90's cars were all crap, but that was also the time that Toyotas started to go downhill. I had been a regular Toyota customer since the early 80's, and my '92 Toyota was less than satisfactory. I replaced an '87 Toyota with a '97 Escort LX, and that was a great car (we sold it late last year). I replaced my '92 Toyota with a '00 F150, and I added an '05 Five Hundred. About the mid 90's is when Ford started making some good cars again, definitely by '97. Of course, it takes time to overhaul an entire lineup, so for a few years they were stuck with some models that were less than appealing. The Fusion is an awesome car. My next car will either be the Fusion or the Flex (depends on whether my wife or I win that argument...)
-
On a slightly related tangent, Ami, what did you think of the Toyota Supra, circa 1986 - 1992? Just curious
-
On a slightly related tangent, Ami, what did you think of the Toyota Supra, circa 1986 - 1992? Just curious
I never owned one (I had several Tercels and a Cressida). I had a friend who had a Supra from that time period ('87, maybe?) and loved it.
-
>>Cars like the Vega, Pinto, Neon, Cavalier and Escort were not designed by any union people. Nor did unions decide that people should be sold enormous SUV gashogs and trucks when any fool could see that a surge in gas prices would collapse the market.<<
Notice that the cars he mentions were all cars built to address the high price of gasoline. By the way, Escorts were one of the best selling cars Ford ever made. All of them long before there was a perceived surge in gas prices. So the people who claim that American automobile manufacturers never address fule efficiency are nothing but drones repeating the statist line.
As for SUV's and pickup trucks, take a look at what you see on the road around you everyday. Then try and claim American automobile manufacturers didn't give the American car buyer what he/she wanted. You sure do see a lot of SUV's and pickups out there.
-
On a slightly related tangent, Ami, what did you think of the Toyota Supra, circa 1986 - 1992? Just curious
I never owned one (I had several Tercels and a Cressida). I had a friend who had a Supra from that time period ('87, maybe?) and loved it.
In college, that was the car that really stood out to me. Simple but impressive. A Sports car that was more of a luxury car than a performance car. I recall reading how heavy it was for a car that size, and that if anything ever did go wrong with it, you wouldn't need a mechanic, you'd need someone with a PhD in computers.
Alas, never had that kind of money to buy one at the time. Had to settle for an '82 200SX
-
if anything ever did go wrong with it, you wouldn't need a mechanic, you'd need someone with a PhD in computers.
Compared to modern cars, it was a simple car with only 2 computers IIRC. My Five Hundred, for example, has something like 17 computers for handling the engine, emissions, and drive train. Plus a few more for climate control and entertainment. And my tablet and phone network with the car via BlueTooth when they're nearby.
-
.
The usual complaint about Toyotas is that they are boring.
If that's the complaint, then thats says a lot!
-
if anything ever did go wrong with it, you wouldn't need a mechanic, you'd need someone with a PhD in computers.
Compared to modern cars, it was a simple car with only 2 computers IIRC.
True. We're speaking of "at the time". Can't imagine all the computer and fly by wire stuff they're coming up with now
-
Ami: "Actually, I'll disagree with you on this. The early 90's cars were all crap, but that was also the time Toyotas started to go downhill."
And I gota disagree with you. The Toyotas were great in the 90s. I had a Camry, a Camry station wagon, and an Avalon in the 90s. They were all excellent cars. I've owned 3 Lexus products and that Camry station wagon, and that Avalon, were as good or better then two of the Lexuses I've had. I don't think they've made as good an Avalon since.
From my perspective Toyota started to slide a bit beginning 2001/2. I think you jumped ship a decade, or so, early, Ami.
-
And I gota disagree with you. The Toyotas were great in the 90s. I had a Camry, a Camry station wagon, and an Avalon in the 90s. They were all excellent cars. I've owned 3 Lexus products and that Camry station wagon, and that Avalon, were as good or better then two of the Lexuses I've had. I don't think they've made as good an Avalon since.
From my perspective Toyota started to slide a bit beginning 2001/2. I think you jumped ship a decade, or so, early, Ami.
I notice you only mention their "top of the line" cars as being good. The lower end cars starting slipping in quality a decade earlier, notably the Tercel, Cressida, and Corolla, as I pointed out. That's like saying that Buicks are good because they also make good Cadillacs.
-
Not at all. What I listed is what I owned and drove. By the way, the Cressida wasn't a lower end car. It was their top of the line 4 door, before the Avalon, and wagon before the Camry station wagon.
-
Not at all. What I listed is what I owned and drove. By the way, the Cressida wasn't a lower end car. It was their top of the line 4 door, before the Avalon, and wagon before the Camry station wagon.
By '92, the Camry and the Lexus had replaced the Cressida as their top of the line, and after '92 it was gone. At that time, it was at best a mid-line car. I had an '87 Cressida, a '92 Tercel, and three friends with Corollas ('90, '93, and I forget the last one) - none of them was in the same league quality wise as earlier models of those same model cars. My father had a Camry in the same time period and it was a good car, but it was a top of the line car at the time. As I said, the early 90's was when Toyota quality *started* slipping. Obviously, it wasn't all going to go "poof" overnight - the lower end cars are where you noticed it first.
-
They sold a lot of Escorts because they were cheap. Instead of saying that the Escort, Cavalier and Neon were icky little cars, I could have said that the LeBaron, the Buick Regal and Olds Cutlass and Mercury Topaz were also icky midsize cars.The point was that the unions were not to blame for the inferior design of US cars during the 80's and 9o's. I had an 82 Buick Regal, and it was seriously crappy: the plastic door fittings could be scratched permanently with a dull fingernail, the rear windows would not roll down at all, and the V-6 engine had about 80 bhp and blew a gasket at 58K. The AC was a constant problem and the dashboard caught fire and rendered the entire car undriveable and unrepairable at 82K. The car did not stop well, and I later discovered that the front rotors were the same size as those on a Chevette. The rear brakes were drums. Even the big GM cars sucked: the Eldorado had a terrible problem with the FWD.
None of this can be blamed on any union: they were poorly designed and made of shoddy materials.
I had a 77 Celica. I bought it in 1981 and drove it until 1998. It had over 200K and I got rid of it because it had rusted out under the front vents and when it rained, water poured in on my feet. The back window had a vented cover that caused the window gasket to rust out. It was fun to drive and averaged around 25 mpg, and I have never gotten so much for my money from any car. It looked like a small Mustang and had a 5 speed on the floor.
The major problem was keeping the front end in line and of course, the rust. It would have been a fine car for Arizona or NM.
-
I agree that they cut their teeth with the smaller cars. Engines you couldn't kill, etc. Whether it was a because of a different emphasis, the Camry, and Lexus, or whether they did it on purpose to herd people towards the bigger, newer cars, I don't know. Probably both. But a different emphasis isn't the same as slipping. It was a reorganization done to grow their appeal, and customer base, no doubt. And, they succeeded. Therefore I don't believe you can call the 90s anything but a success for Toyota as they made new lines of cars that where essentially bullet proof.
-
It was a reorganization done to grow their appeal, and customer base, no doubt. And, they succeeded. Therefore I don't believe you can call the 90s anything but a success for Toyota as they made new lines of cars that where essentially bullet proof.
I guess they decided their customer base didn't need anyone who couldn't afford a $25K+ car, as those were the only ones that were any good. People who could only afford $10-15K cars weren't good customer material for Toyota, I guess, except for their poorer quality cars. So, those customers (like me) went with the better quality small cars from Ford, and we stuck with them as we moved up to bigger vehicles.
(http://mario.silent-tower.org/toyota-ford.JPG)
http://www.startribune.com/galleries/83078802.html (http://www.startribune.com/galleries/83078802.html)
-
<<The notion that the people need someone else, who is only a person or group of persons no better than the rest of the people, to tell them what is their best interests is arrogance and folly.>>
Take out that "no better than the rest of the people," turn it around in your hands long enough to examine it from every angle. Maybe then you'll see where you went wrong. You don't just JOIN the CP like one joins the Democrats or the Republicans, it's an elite group that you APPLY for membership in. And the people at the top of the hierarchy have worked their way up there, though the apparat.
Than you for illustrating the arrogance that is one of the major flaws of communism/socialism. I know the people in the Communist Party want to believe they're better than everyone else, but that doesn't make it so. One has to apply to work for Apple or Harvard or Mensa too, and the people at the top of those groups have worked their way up, but that doesn't mean they're better people than the rest of us or are in any way qualified to determine what are the best interests of the rest of us. Yes, the dean of Harvard might know more than the head of the plumbing business, but no one with a modicum of sense is going to call the dean of Harvard when the toilet is clogged. They're all just people. Just human beings. They are not more perfect or more moral or more righteous than the rest of us. That goes for communists and socialists and members of the CP too.
I wanted to "steer" this auto tangent back to a great point Prince was making, and how impressively Tee provided the materials in doing so. All these liberal socialist claims Tee has that Communism really has the people's best intentions at heart, all the while providing the very axe that tears that notion down, by the differing class of people. Those that supposedly know better, the elites, and the rest of us troglodytes, who will always need the elites telling us what we need, what we'll get, how we'll act, and what will happen to us, if we don't. All the while the elites remain above all the mundane societal obligations, since they have to spend so much energy telling us how things are to be, because they just know better. Even if it means making things up, like man made global warming. And if you don't accept that....well, there's always liquidation
Brings me to this little piece (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2010/02/02/seven_huge_flaws_in_the_way_liberals_think) I saw, that helps highlight the most egregious flaws in liberal think. And I'd challenge any of the leftists that frequent the board to refute or defend these flaws
1) Liberals believe they can change human nature. Sure, human beings can be shaped and molded to a certain extent. Any parent who has spanked a child can tell you that. However, most people care more about what they're having for lunch today than an earthquake that kills ten thousand people on the other side of the world. We're just built that way and no amount of sensitivity training, preschool classes, or Michael Moore documentaries is going to "fix" it.
2) Liberals believe we can talk everything out with our enemies. One of the weirder quirks of liberalism is their belief that many of our bitterest enemies have rational reasons for disliking us and that can easily be talked away if they realize we're good people. Hence, the common liberal refrain of, "Why do they hate us?" The reason this is a particularly odd belief is that liberals don't even believe this about conservatives in the United States. The average liberal thinks that if we're nice enough, we can reach an understanding with Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can't be reasoned with.
3) Liberals don't have enough respect for our culture and traditions: To liberals, our cultural, economic, and political norms were formed by backwards troglodytes making arbitrary decisions based on superstition and racism. Unfortunately for them, as a general rule, that's not so and proceeding as if it is, will often lead to exactly the same difficulties that our ancestors already dealt with in times past. No matter how smart we are, as Thomas Sowell would say, our wisdom is often no match for the "distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before." Truly wise people are aware that there is a great deal that they do not know.
4) Liberalism is a fundamentally immoral political philosophy. Ironically, given all their talk about "shades of gray," liberals have a very Manichean view of the world. They consider their fellow travelers to be on the side of the angels, while the people who disagree with them are treated as evil. This leads to an "anything goes" mentality when dealing with their foes: ignoring the law via a "living constitution," politically based prosecutions, shouting down opposing speakers, and treating lying about their agenda or opponents to be moral. On the other hand, liberals will support other libs, no matter how corrupt, sleazy, or vile they are as long as they're politically useful to the left. See Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, John Murtha, and Robert Byrd for examples of that. In other words, as Margaret Thatcher has said of the Left, "For them, the end always seems to justify the means."
5) Liberals believe merely being liberal makes them good people. Liberals who're obsessed with money think they're compassionate because they give away other people's tax dollars. They believe they care more about the earth than other people, even as they fly around in private jets, because they babble on about global warming. They can be dumb as a rock, but believe they're smarter than most other people because they're liberals. In other words, in the minds of most liberals, liberalism is an all-purpose substitute for actual virtue instead of just another political philosophy.
6) Liberals have too much faith in government. Even most liberals would admit that government regularly fails the people. If you don't believe that, just ask them about the Bush Administration and they'll give you an earful. However, liberals tend to believe that with the right person in charge, government won't be so slow, stupid, inefficient, and badly run. Human history proves that they're wrong about that.
7) Liberals have minimal interest in whether the programs they support work or not. To most liberals, whether a government program betters people's lives is completely irrelevant to whether they'll support it. A program that doesn't work and costs billions, but sounds compassionate and helps Democrats politically is a huge success in the eyes of the Left. Once you understand that liberals think this way, their baffling support for programs that make no "common sense" is much easier to understand.
-
If you've ever dealt with some little asshole, get a lifer, take out your problems on the world, sadistic, officious, pointy headed, pencil necked, four eyed, ignorant, bureaucrat, down at the local RMV, you've experienced communism in all its glory. Ain't it grand?
-
The fact that messers Xo & Tee can't seem to get themselves to respond or defend, tends to reinforce the folly of both fringe liberalism and communism
-
Actually, the point is that you're wrong drone. There was nothing wrong with Escorts, they sold a shit load of them without complaint. I had two of them. One of them was an '81, and the other was a 91, and they ran like tops. It amazes me how people ... wait, no. It doesn't amaze me that people repeat what they hear second hand. Japanese cars had their share of problem too. Discounting the 70's when American cars where pieces of shit, the big three put out quality product in the 80's and 90's. Or just as good as Japanese did.
>>None of this can be blamed on any union:<<
Right. Do you know anybody who was UAW during the 80's and 90's? I do, lots of them. Do I have to describe their work ethic too you? No, they didn't design them, thank God, but they built them. They put them together, they tooled the parts. They drank on the job, they couldn't get fired ... that's just part of it. Sure, it's never the union guys fault. Just ask 'em. Except for artificially inflating the cost of the cars and demanding less and less quality and more time off, no they had nothing to do with it.
What horse shit.
-
*snicker*, and then there's the point Prince & I made, as it related to the thread ;)