Documentary on Detroit Public Schools.. OMG IT IS LITERALLY A NIGHTMARE.

DiscoGary wrote:

I just don't want to take the time to research the role government had in the auto failures. The role was huge, they basically forced the auto companies to into unsustainable deals with the unions, but since I can't site specifics right now I'll just leave it at that.

In other words, you were just talking about something you didn't know about, quoting Ayn Rand as gospel, and then saying others who disagreed didn't have intellectual honesty to compete with you.

No surprise.

So yes, let's just leave it at that.

sadfjlkasdjfldsjfa wrote:

1. Time and time again, Gary cannot actually apply any of his "ideology" to specific scenarios. I can link these later today if Gary refutes this.

2. Ultimately, Gary always reverts to his "well the SCOTUS is just a bunch of hacks!" and can't explain how to apply the Constitution beyond repeating the text and leaving it at that.

3. Well, that is if he doesn't disappear completely after saying "well I think we've kicked this horse to death" mid-debate.

4. He gets so sensitive when people point out that his analyses are almost always superficial. He claims they are destroying the messenger, when in reality they are tired of listening to pompous talking points painting liberals as villains.

At least he is consistent.

BINGO!

"Gary, why do you keep saying it was the government's fault primarily?

1. Check. "Well, you know, I'd have to actually do some research but I know it is about unions and the government. That is it. Also, Ayn Rand."

2. N/A

3. Just nailed it. "Let's just leave it at that."

4. Check. See pages 3, 4, and 5.

Classic DG.

Earlier:

Later:

ROFL. Too hypocritical. Being willfully ignorant and calling out others for the same.

Most rational people can admit when they're overstepped or made mistakes. Not DiscoGary though . . . he is never talking out of his a$$.

Ok, so liberals just give up and cite other intellectual elites? But you argue with your own original thoughts?

Ok, so Ayn Rand is the intellectual elite you are citing and relying on for analysis.

And now you admit you don't have any original thoughts on the subject.

DiscoGary you are hypocrite of the highest order.

Disco Gary is my favorite LRCer.

The REAL Hingle McCringleberry wrote:

the white man has kept the black man in poverty for too long, the revolution begins now

Funny, I heard that exact quote from the Black Panthers back in the last century, say 1967 or so. How's that workin' for ya?

I would love to give an IQ test to that school board. Average would be right at 100, if not less. Total incompetence.

At least I got some chicken

lkcj wrote:

I would love to give an IQ test to that school board. Average would be right at 100, if not less. Total incompetence.

Which IQ test?

Nope. I gave credit where it was due and then went on to back it up with my own words.

One thing is certain. It wouldn't matter how much evidence I put forth, you will never blame the unions or government intervention for the failure of the auto industry, or the steel industry, or the large manufacturing industries.

Let's put that to the test.

I took some time to find what I was looking for: (BTW celebrating my demise prematurely just because I can't write a full thesis paper in 5 minutes is foolish. It takes me about 30 minutes)

1937 - Virginian Railway v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515

and NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1

The Court held that compulsory collective bargaining is constitutional.

"Compulsory" as in coercive, as in "a gun to management's head forcing them to make a deal or get your ass kicked by government", as in "no free market".

This ruling FORCED companies to negotiate with unions. Now what do you think will happen when a company HAS to negotiate with their union? What kind of deal would you get if were selling your house and you HAD to negotiate with a single buyer specified by the government? Management was at the mercy of union demands and if the union demands pushed the company into insolvency, then so be it. The government had ruled it to be Constitutional, so it must be good, right? Keep in mind that this ruling applied to all companies across the country.

This ruling explains why so many large American manufacturing companies suffered so badly at the same time. They ALL had to deal with unreasonable and ultimately unsustainable union demands at the same time, which made them uncompetitive in the world market place which was just starting to be truly world wide, which led to mass failures, which led to the rust belt.

Blaming it on management doesn't explain how entire industries would collapse across the board. One manager would see another manager's mistake and correct it, but of course they couldn't because it wasn't a management mistake. It was a structural failure put in place by the government meddling in the free market... all with the best intentions and to make sure the little guy doesn't get trampled on of course.

And that road paved with good intentions led directly to Hell where the little guys were crushed by the very government socialist policies designed to protect them. A very common story. Look at ObamaCare.

Now, will anyone retract anything they've said about talking out my ass or hypocrisy? I'll go out on a very strong limb and say "No".

Of course not, because all you have done is double down on showing your ignorance on what caused the collapse of the big 3. AGAIN - labor costs are a very small fraction of the cost of a car. And Germany, who succeeded while the American comapnies faltered, also have auto unions.

All you did was go on a rant about unions without being able to support any notion on how they allegedly collapsed the auto industry.

Do research on the auto collapse, not on evil unions, and maybe you will learn something.

Gary,

You're looking for a simple solution (UNIONS BAD!) to a very complex situation. The Rust Belt didn't spring up solely because unions were able to negotiate with management. Improvements in transportation (allowing for more importation of cheaper goods made overseas), the resurgence of Europe and Japan after WWII, cheaper land and operating costs in the southern states, a shift to an information/consumer economy, changes in consumer tastes (ex., turning away from gas guzzling land yachts to reliable subcompacts in the late 1970s), and, yes environmental regulations all played a role in the decline in manufacturing in the northeast.

And the funny thing is that manufacturing is still strong in the United States. It's not as big a piece of the pie as it used to me, but we still make a lot in this country.

You also haven't address how Rand wasn't able to predict the resurgence of the US auto industry after its decline. Is there an unpublished sequel to Atlas Shrugged that covers this?

tuffluv wrote:

Of course not, because all you have done is double down on showing your ignorance on what caused the collapse of the big 3. AGAIN - labor costs are a very small fraction of the cost of a car. And Germany, who succeeded while the American comapnies faltered, also have auto unions.

All you did was go on a rant about unions without being able to support any notion on how they allegedly collapsed the auto industry.

Do research on the auto collapse, not on evil unions, and maybe you will learn something.

Actually, I went on a rant about government intervention in the free market and it's disastrous consequences. You are so busy protecting unions that you missed that. Try to keep up.

DiscoGary wrote:

tuffluv wrote:

Of course not, because all you have done is double down on showing your ignorance on what caused the collapse of the big 3. AGAIN - labor costs are a very small fraction of the cost of a car. And Germany, who succeeded while the American comapnies faltered, also have auto unions.

All you did was go on a rant about unions without being able to support any notion on how they allegedly collapsed the auto industry.

Do research on the auto collapse, not on evil unions, and maybe you will learn something.

Actually, I went on a rant about government intervention in the free market and it's disastrous consequences. You are so busy protecting unions that you missed that. Try to keep up.

Not a union fan, just shocked by your inability to think critically, but instead deluding yourself into believing you are a bastion of reason and freedom.

You are hopeless.

still talking out your butt wrote:

Gary,

You're looking for a simple solution (UNIONS BAD!) to a very complex situation.

Again. I was showing how government intervention in the free markets was the cause of the failure. You also missed the point.

You also haven't address how Rand wasn't able to predict the resurgence of the US auto industry after its decline. Is there an unpublished sequel to Atlas Shrugged that covers this?

I don't want to give away too much of the plot for those who haven't read it, but a central part of the Atlas Shrugged story is how the protagonists use their ingenuity and hard work to create a thriving business in the midst of a collapsing economy caused by ridiculous ("Constitutional") government policies. So, yes. Rand addressed that.

In my own words I'd say it this way: Free markets create an economic engine which generates prosperity better than any other known system, and can withstand an incredible amount of government intervention, regulation, coercion, and taxation... but if the load gets too great, then the engine can be ground to a halt and every will suffer.

tuffluv wrote:Not a union fan, just shocked by your inability to think critically, but instead deluding yourself into believing you are a bastion of reason and freedom.

You are hopeless.

If this is shocking to you, you obviously are not familiar with how DG operates. He is immune to the principles of logic and reasoning practiced by us mere mortals. He is always right, and if he is proven wrong it is because you are a filthy liberal who could never measure up to his superior intellect.

tuffluv wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Actually, I went on a rant about government intervention in the free market and it's disastrous consequences. You are so busy protecting unions that you missed that. Try to keep up.

Not a union fan, just shocked by your inability to think critically, but instead deluding yourself into believing you are a bastion of reason and freedom.

You are hopeless.

Ah! Good! You've given up. I accept your surrender graciously. You've been a worthy opponent and I hope to meet you on the field of battle again, after you've had some more time to train of course.

Now the people who accused me of disappearing after being challenged can offer their apologies. I will wait patiently.

Who said I was a bastion of reason? I just throw ideas out there.

Who said I was authoritative? I have offered no credentials.

Who said I wanted to be taken seriously? I am posting in the valley of the trolls.

You guys do realize that engaging me in intellectual debate while simultaneously calling me names makes you look like complete fools don't you? Because if I really were the idiot you say I am, there would be no need to debate me. My own words would defeat me. The casual reader would say "This guy's crazy" and no one would have to say anything else. But you know the casual reader won't think that, and that's why you respond, and everyone knows it.

So don't lower yourselves to cheap insults. They have no effect on me. I've heard them all and from what I can tell none of you possess the wit to come up with something new. It's just a waste of time.

DiscoGary wrote:

tuffluv wrote:

Of course not, because all you have done is double down on showing your ignorance on what caused the collapse of the big 3. AGAIN - labor costs are a very small fraction of the cost of a car. And Germany, who succeeded while the American comapnies faltered, also have auto unions.

All you did was go on a rant about unions without being able to support any notion on how they allegedly collapsed the auto industry.

Do research on the auto collapse, not on evil unions, and maybe you will learn something.

Actually, I went on a rant about government intervention in the free market and it's disastrous consequences. You are so busy protecting unions that you missed that. Try to keep up.

Actually, you avoided the fact that you are a hypocrite.

Bashing others for reciting intellectual elites and saying you think for yourself?

Then relying on Ayn Rand and admitting you didn't know anything about the issue.

And of course running mid-debate.

What a joke.