OT: GM Layoffs

e:

s/index.html

pala,

er.

he

ed to Oshawa.

of us knew he was lying, but he fooled enough people for long enough ...

y help

s to

ry

tion,

ced

ve

"

, who haven't been all that careful about the people they'd had running the company, didn't do as well out of the rescue as James Arthur thought that they should have done.

re

y o

is

t

it

r

rs

Oh yes you are! If you have a job at all, you are. If you earn over $20k a year, you are.

EVs are nothing but luxury indulgences, every single one of them. Poorer Americans can't afford such fanciful dalliances with impracticality.

It takes a lot of energy inputs and pollution to make a truck, and it's false economics to waste that.

It makes more sense, is 'greener,' cheaper, and more environmentally friendly to keep the truck, if driven little, than to destroy it and get an EV.

If the truck's being used for commuting, the converse may be true.

Besides it being their right, and freedom in a free society, that's why we thrive leaving these decisions to the individual citizens. The individuals actually involved can do a decent job of deciding how to best, most efficiently use an economic resource (here, a truck) just by adding up what it costs them, and make efficient use of something Barack Obama, for example, would have had them (and paid them to, in

2009) throw away.

Cheers, James Arthur

There was no "more" in my statement.

If the idiot Slowman is talking low-cost, there's Hyundai and Kia (a subsidiary).

Roger. I'd missed that. But in fairness, bitrex said "*more* honest," which still holds true--a direct check is *more* honest than hiding it in someone's impossible tax calculations.

The feds could make it more honest still by sending you a direct check in an envelope marked "Candy enclosed," and stamping that direct check "Loot."

Cheers, James Arthur

dex.html

,

o Oshawa.

us knew he was lying, but he fooled enough people for long enough ...

East,

ical_issues . Trump isn't about to help them. The government subsidy schedu le for GM must have run its course.

ve

er 'thing' is a damned prayer and we don't need to hear them singing any da mmed prayers. That's the difference.

No, I'm saying one is a time of day chime and the other is a prayer.

If the bell is a nuisance then it should be quieted.

If they're creating a bunch of noise just to adhere to tradition and people complain about it, then the bells need to stop.

I see. So you had to harm the environment a lot to make it, and the reason to keep sinking money that fuel-guzzler thereby creating even more pollution is to somehow recoup the value on the pollution that was created initially.

Ever hear the phrase "Don't throw good money after bad?"

A real conservative would say the value of the truck is whatever the market says it is. The market says the value of that truck is about a thousand bucks. Which is optimistically four months of fuel for that beast.

Yep, so long as what you're doing with taxpayer funded public assistance is in agreement with conservative values, it's talk of "rights" and "freedom" and "the individual should get to decide" all the way. I'm starting to get the picture...

e:

ote:

ffs/index.html

Impala,

mper.

the

aded to Oshawa.

st of us knew he was lying, but he fooled enough people for long enough ...

dly help

nts to

very

uction,

duced

have

ed"

rs, who haven't been all that careful about the people they'd had running t he company, didn't do as well out of the rescue as James Arthur thought tha t they should have done.

u're

lly

nto

,

t is

get

edit

for

cars

u

er

em

in

nd

Absolutely, yes.

Ever consider arithmetic? It doesn't make sense to create 100 extra units of pollution to avoid 20 units of future pollution.

t.

No, that's a smug know-it-all's version. The owner gets to decide what the value is *to him.* If he's using that truck to haul tree stumps twice a month, getting a subsidized EV because some smart-ass white-collar phony liberal from Massachusetts thinks he should might be a poor trade.

No, you're not getting it. All I said was that the person who *owns the thing* gets to decide, not you--that's the freedom part--and that they'll make a better decision than you (which is the economics part).

Cheers, James Arthur

If you want to play li'l Rexie's moral relativity game (he is a self- described moral relativist), go ahead but I have no interest in playing with constantly moving goal posts.

e:

ote:

This defines "wealthy" as being in the top 50% of the income distribution. The practical definition of "wealthy" is somebody who has more money than t he speaker - so nobody ever claims that they are wealthy, but can almost al ways point to somebody who is wealthier than they are. Donald Trump would p robably describe Warren Buiffet and the Koch brothers as wealthy.

The USA can't afford it's fanciful dalliance with gasoline-burning automobi les. It's been running a massive balance of trade deficit for the past thir ty years to pay for the oil it imports to feed its gas-guzzlers.

Throw in anthropogenic global warming, which is happening even if James Art hur's ideological indoctrination doesn't allow him to admit it, and the dal liance is downright self-destructive.

m

n d

An old truck has long since depreciated to the point where maintenance and excess fuel costs make running it an extravagance. If you are on public ass istance you haven't got the capital necessary to move on to something cheap er - one of the many ways in which being poor is an expensive mode of exist ence.

Do the numbers.

A free society that can't work out how to provide jobs for the poor isn't q uite a free as it likes to think.

The modern socialist states of Scandinavia and northern Europe can give the ir citizens enough freedom to sustain a largely self-regulating free-market economy without needing to keep a bunch of people in poverty to provide re ally cheap inexperienced short term labour for any capitalist short-sighted enough to need it.

Jame Arthur is more about minimising taxes than he is about offering people a free society to live in. If you haven't got any money, you aren't free t o make all that many decisions - starve here or starve someplace nearby isn 't a lot of choice.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The economics part does include the range of decisions they can make. Somebody on US public assistance hasn't got access to any capital-intensive choices.

It might make strict economic sense for the person to borrow enough to buy a small electric truck, with the savings on fuel covering the interest payments, but nobody on public assistance is free to borrow that much money.

So the economy as a whole loses, which is the price of your "freedom".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Krw's goal posts were set in concrete around the time Reagan came to power - which is why he's still seeing communists under every bed.

His brain may perhaps have accommodated a new fact since then, but it certainly hasn't discarded any old fact as obsolete.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 5:31:29 AM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wro te:

e:

ote:

t

ar

another collapse of a US car-maker would have been in Japan, Korea and Germ any (except that the German ones are all over Europe). James Arthur's low c ost domestic US car-makers exist only in his fertile and well-indoctrinated imagination.

?

_the_United_States

Toyota, Honda and Nissan are Japanese, Volkswagen is German - countries I l isted as likely to do well out of GM's demise. In Australia their "automoti ve assembly plants" were where they took components manufactured all over t he world and put them together into cars. It didn't seem to keep many local people employed or generate much value for the local economy.

We gave up subsidising these rather expensive jobs a few years ago.

That's one. Ford is one of the big three US car makers - with GM and Fiat C hrysler - and the question always was whether they could expand production fast enough to cover the gap left by GM's close down.

Since you haven't managed to name a Korean auto-maker, the only intellectua l sloth visible around here is yours. Your imagination is in fine fettle, b ut you don't know all that much - certainly not as much as you pretend to.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

te:

rote:

at

lar

another collapse of a US car-maker would have been in Japan, Korea and Ger many (except that the German ones are all over Europe). James Arthur's low cost domestic US car-makers exist only in his fertile and well-indoctrinate d imagination.

.

h?

n_the_United_States

Hyundai and Kia are amongst the Korean car manufacturers I had in mind.

Letting them sell more in the US wouldn't have helped the US economy in the short term.

Which missed the point that letting the US car-manufacturing business shrin k from the big three - Ford, GM and Fiat-Chrysler - to just two, would have meant that Ford and Fiat-Chrysler would have had to have made quite a few more cars to fill the gap, which wouldn't have happened overnight.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

But in general churches don't sound their bells as clocks.

Noise control ordinances don't determine "nuisance". They regulate sound levels at various times during the day.

Who decides if it is a nuisance? My experience is that bells sound for religious reasons. The adhan is the same thing and should be treated equally.

I think I would not object to it as long as it is not obtrusive. There are *many* more obnoxious sources of noise that I can't see to do anything about. At lease the adhan would have a certain musical quality.

--

Rick C