GM shares fall after Trump threatens to cut subsidies in response to layoffs

[Underseer]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/gen...p-threatens-to-cut-subsidies-for-company.html

One wonders how conservolibertarians will react to this.

On the one hand, what GM is doing is a good thing, since it harms dirty commoner trash wage slaves while benefiting shareholders, who are more likely to be wealthy elites.

On the other hand, it is against their religion to criticize Trump now that he has been established as Aryan Jesus.

Personally, I doubt Trumplethinskin will follow through with this threat, but it's still fun to see GM shareholders suffer a minor inconvenience in response to hurting large numbers of families.

 

[laughing dog]

Using past history as a guide, I strongly suspect that
1) Trump has no clue what federal subsidies GM receives, and
2) what authority or latitude the President has to alter them.

In other words, this is simply more bluster from our President.

 

[Underseer]

Using past history as a guide, I strongly suspect that
1) Trump has no clue what federal subsidies GM receives, and
2) what authority or latitude the President has to alter them.

In other words, this is simply more bluster from our President.

The problem is that Republicans just gave major handouts in the form of tax cuts for wealthy people and large corporations, which they sold to the frothing Republican voters as something that would create jobs. GM is messing up their narrative, so it's necessary to attack GM.

Such a conundrum. In order to defend Trump and defend the narrative about the effects of tax cuts, they have to attack a Holy Corporation even as it is in the midst of harming dirty worthless commoners.

 

[crazyfingers]

Trump by executive order nullified Obama MPG requirements on auto manufacturers fleets. We know that most high MPG autos are low margin sales. So auto manufacturers are no longer required to produce high MPG cars in their mix. (The effect of which is to increase greenhouse gas and accelerate global climate change)

Trump increased the cost to manufacture cars in the US with his tariffs. As a result, fewer low margin cars can be profitably made in the US.

GM has reacted to this change by eliminating the production of those cars.

Trump at least contributed to GM's decision but he has such zero understanding of basic economics that it's quite beyond his small brain to comprehend it. And even if, on an amazing stretch he could comprehend, his ego fails to accept the facts because Trump is smart than anyone else in the world.

 

[fast]

“Since it harms”

How do others wade through the topsy-terviness of language? If actions are taken (especially in the form of a subsidy) that disproportionately help a smaller group out of a larger number, such that they are reaping the biased advantages AND THEN the throttle is pressed even further by paving way for even further subsidies (thereby piling upon the advantageous position more advantages), WHY THEN does a throttling back get labeled as being harmful when a more focused assessment is that of helping less?

For illustrative purposes, consider a philanthropist who gifts 40% of a static amount to a group THEN throttles up to 70% thereby substantially helping the group even more. Later, and with reason, a decision is made to pull back a notch, leaving the gifting at 60%. To me, that is not only the continuation of helping but helping a lot. Granted, it’s helping less, but it’s still helping, yet whenever a group that is showered with subsidy money finds themselves continuing to receive but not quite as much, the old faithful four letter word “harm” is brought out for others to choke on.

The point is that less help does not equate to harm.

 

[laughing dog]

“Since it harms”

How do others wade through the topsy-terviness of language? If actions are taken (especially in the form of a subsidy) that disproportionately help a smaller group out of a larger number, such that they are reaping the biased advantages AND THEN the throttle is pressed even further by paving way for even further subsidies (thereby piling upon the advantageous position more advantages), WHY THEN does a throttling back get labeled as being harmful when a more focused assessment is that of helping less?

For illustrative purposes, consider a philanthropist who gifts 40% of a static amount to a group THEN throttles up to 70% thereby substantially helping the group even more. Later, and with reason, a decision is made to pull back a notch, leaving the gifting at 60%. To me, that is not only the continuation of helping but helping a lot. Granted, it’s helping less, but it’s still helping, yet whenever a group that is showered with subsidy money finds themselves continuing to receive but not quite as much, the old faithful four letter word “harm” is brought out for others to choke on.

The point is that less help does not equate to harm.

No one in the OP, the linked article or in this thread up to your post used or implied the word "harm". So what are you really going on about?

 

[Axulus]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/gen...p-threatens-to-cut-subsidies-for-company.html

One wonders how conservolibertarians will react to this.

On the one hand, what GM is doing is a good thing, since it harms dirty commoner trash wage slaves while benefiting shareholders, who are more likely to be wealthy elites.

On the other hand, it is against their religion to criticize Trump now that he has been established as Aryan Jesus.

Personally, I doubt Trumplethinskin will follow through with this threat, but it's still fun to see GM shareholders suffer a minor inconvenience in response to hurting large numbers of families.

It is interesting that you support a company producing a shitty product that no one wants in the name of saving jobs. It is almost as if you want American companies to go bankrupt.

Also, didn't the UAW get a huge chunk of GM shares the last time they went bankrupt? Is the UAW now suddenly the "elite" according to your warped view?

 

[untermensche]

It is interesting that you support a company producing a shitty product that no one wants in the name of saving jobs. It is almost as if you want American companies to go bankrupt.

Also, didn't the UAW get a huge chunk of GM shares the last time they went bankrupt? Is the UAW now suddenly the "elite" according to your warped view?

The problem is the people who are responsible for the shitty products are also in control of hiring and firing.

That is the nature of top down dictatorial structures.

They are the problem and will always be a human problem.

Unless they are eliminated.

But that takes sense and morality.

 

[fast]

“Since it harms”

How do others wade through the topsy-terviness of language? If actions are taken (especially in the form of a subsidy) that disproportionately help a smaller group out of a larger number, such that they are reaping the biased advantages AND THEN the throttle is pressed even further by paving way for even further subsidies (thereby piling upon the advantageous position more advantages), WHY THEN does a throttling back get labeled as being harmful when a more focused assessment is that of helping less?

For illustrative purposes, consider a philanthropist who gifts 40% of a static amount to a group THEN throttles up to 70% thereby substantially helping the group even more. Later, and with reason, a decision is made to pull back a notch, leaving the gifting at 60%. To me, that is not only the continuation of helping but helping a lot. Granted, it’s helping less, but it’s still helping, yet whenever a group that is showered with subsidy money finds themselves continuing to receive but not quite as much, the old faithful four letter word “harm” is brought out for others to choke on.

The point is that less help does not equate to harm.

No one in the OP, the linked article or in this thread up to your post used or implied the word "harm". So what are you really going on about?

It’s in the OP, right before the words, “dirty commoner trash wage slaves.”

 

[Axulus]

It is interesting that you support a company producing a shitty product that no one wants in the name of saving jobs. It is almost as if you want American companies to go bankrupt.

Also, didn't the UAW get a huge chunk of GM shares the last time they went bankrupt? Is the UAW now suddenly the "elite" according to your warped view?

The problem is the people who are responsible for the shitty products are also in control of hiring and firing.

That is the nature of top down dictatorial structures.

They are the problem and will always be a human problem.

Unless they are eliminated.

But that takes sense and morality.

The UAW got just over 50% of the shares in 2009 the last time that GM went bankrupt. Are they the top down dictators you disapprove of?

 

[untermensche]

It is interesting that you support a company producing a shitty product that no one wants in the name of saving jobs. It is almost as if you want American companies to go bankrupt.

Also, didn't the UAW get a huge chunk of GM shares the last time they went bankrupt? Is the UAW now suddenly the "elite" according to your warped view?

The problem is the people who are responsible for the shitty products are also in control of hiring and firing.

That is the nature of top down dictatorial structures.

They are the problem and will always be a human problem.

Unless they are eliminated.

But that takes sense and morality.

The UAW got just over 50% of the shares in 2009 the last time that GM went bankrupt. Are they the top down dictators you disapprove of?

The UAW is a democratic organization.

If it controls it is a form of democratic control. Workers did not elect the executives at GM.

The only question is how good of a democratic institution is it?

 

[Underseer]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-prepares-mass-layoffs-losing-002618564.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...orkers-halt-production-five-plants-us-canada/

Honestly, it sounds like the MAGA train is running over the American automobile industry, but at least the economic elites got a huge tax cuts that will put your great grandchildren in debt.

 

[laughing dog]

“Since it harms”

How do others wade through the topsy-terviness of language? If actions are taken (especially in the form of a subsidy) that disproportionately help a smaller group out of a larger number, such that they are reaping the biased advantages AND THEN the throttle is pressed even further by paving way for even further subsidies (thereby piling upon the advantageous position more advantages), WHY THEN does a throttling back get labeled as being harmful when a more focused assessment is that of helping less?

For illustrative purposes, consider a philanthropist who gifts 40% of a static amount to a group THEN throttles up to 70% thereby substantially helping the group even more. Later, and with reason, a decision is made to pull back a notch, leaving the gifting at 60%. To me, that is not only the continuation of helping but helping a lot. Granted, it’s helping less, but it’s still helping, yet whenever a group that is showered with subsidy money finds themselves continuing to receive but not quite as much, the old faithful four letter word “harm” is brought out for others to choke on.

The point is that less help does not equate to harm.

No one in the OP, the linked article or in this thread up to your post used or implied the word "harm". So what are you really going on about?

It’s in the OP, right before the words, “dirty commoner trash wage slaves.”

Thank you, the word is there referring to the elimination of 14,000 jobs which is analogous to "helping less". So, what prompted your lesson?

 

[fast]

It’s in the OP, right before the words, “dirty commoner trash wage slaves.”

Thank you, the word is there referring to the elimination of 14,000 jobs which is analogous to "helping less". So, what prompted your lesson?

It’s backwards and grossly deceptive. It’s worst than hyperbole. It’s not like saying you caught a 15 pound bass fish when in fact it was only 10 pounds. That’s deceptive too, but at least it’s partially in line with reality such that you actually caught a bass fish. If you’re bringing fish from your own pond and adding them to the lake, you shouldn’t be accused of taking fish from the lake.

Here’s another example. (Made up but illustrative): GM used to pick up 230 bags of trash off our littered highways weekly, but now they’ve cut back but continue to pick up 215 bags, but when the news is reported, they’re made out to be littering 15 bags of trash weekly. Picking up trash is NOT analogous to littering. Helping is not analogous to harming. It’s worst than deceitful as is with the case of hyperbole.

If I give my daughter an allowance but choose to lower her allowance by some amount, I expect a truthful assessment, even if covered in hyperbole. For instance, “dad cut my allowance in half” when in fact I cut it by 35%. That’s deceptive but in the same ballpark. Saying instead that I’m a thief and have taken money from her, then well, that’s not hyperbole—and a story worthy of being set straight for others listening in.

When programs are designed to help a particular GROUP, and when a humongous subsidy is behind it, then an attempt to tame it back a little because of its detrimental effect on the total (others actually being harmed), then it’s taken so far out of context that it’s not even remotely reflective of reality. So again, no, not analogous, not even slightly.

 

[Underseer]

[YOUTUBE]3Ybhcc2ZE70[/YOUTUBE]

All Republicans and most of the Democratic party have spent the last half century telling us that Trickle On economics is the only possible way capitalism can be implemented and that anything else would be a complete disaster. Now that we've seen Trickle On economics fail spectacularly for everyone but the economic elites, people now see socialism as a viable alternative because now everyone believes that Trickle On economics is the only possible way capitalism can be implemented.

What's funny is that we've all been down this same road. When Reagan was elected and all of the economic elites started pushing for Reaganomics, they knew damn well this would lead to another race to the bottom and people questioning capitalism. Despite knowing this, they spend the last 5 decades or so arguing that Trickle On economics is the only possible/viable implementation of capitalism, thus making full-on socialism (in which profits and corporations are illegal) the only possible alternative.

If you tell everyone that capitalism can only be done in one particular way, thus making socialism the only alternative, then you have to make sure that the life of the average guy remains better than what Soviet citizens lived with during the Cold War.

So will Republicans and the conservadems admit that supply-side economics has utterly failed and go back to demand-side economics? Or will they drive us all into socialism rather than admit that they were wrong?

I'm betting on the latter.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Winning....it hurts so good.

 

[laughing dog]

It’s in the OP, right before the words, “dirty commoner trash wage slaves.”

Thank you, the word is there referring to the elimination of 14,000 jobs which is analogous to "helping less". So, what prompted your lesson?

It’s backwards and grossly deceptive. It’s worst than hyperbole....

Your entire position is based on a straw man. GM announces the loss of 14,000 jobs. That loss has nothing whatsoever to any action Trump may take to punish GM. The lost jobs are unrelated to Trump's infantile reaction. To everyone who held one of those jobs, they are harmed when they are unemployed.