People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexamateo

One in two, low income? Look I live in Memphis TN, and the poverty level and low income level is high, but this doesn't pass the smell test. Heck median income is $50,000, and $48,445 (199% of poverty level for a family of four) is low income according to them. Their definitions are wrong, or it needs to be adjusted for geographic area.

---

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

---

Sorry I can't remember the name of this politician that once proudly said: "We have the fattest poor people in our country" - sure, when you eat the
"Super Sized" portions of McDonalds and the likes . . . . :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

---

Does that make them happy with their lives?

There was an article on Yahoo the other day saying that 50% of the US population are poor by today's standards. Must be due to the great advantages of the free market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Does that make them happy with their lives?

---

Happy than being poor without Cell Phones and cable TV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There was an article on Yahoo the other day saying that 50% of the US population are poor by today's standards. Must be due to the great advantages of the free market.

---

What is you point? It wasn't the free market that caused the higher number of people in poverty. It was the Socialist/Entitlement mentality that put them there.

There are two issues which I'll address in two parts:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So you were against the GM and Ford bailouts

---

This question doesn't follow from the full quote in context:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Should society for instance pay for my motor car? No, that's a stupid proposition because the optimal sharing group two own a motor car is in most cases less than about 2.

---

The GM and Ford bailouts weren't about bailing out a small privately owned entity but massive corporations which the optimal sharing group (ie the shareholders) was probably at least hundreds of thousands. I suppose this question asks "what was the alternative" and the truth is that the US has quite good bankruptcy laws. Assuming GM had gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy by itself, it would have restructured anyway; that may have been a good thing. The question is how much pressure did GM bring to bear on politics?
GM probably should have been allowed to "fail" because the outcome might have been better for the company and more thn likely better for the taxpayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

and against tax breaks for Hybrids and Alternative energy vehicles?

---

Again this is a separate issue to what the optimal sharing group is but more about changing consumer behavior and taxation is a good valve to do this with.
The tax breaks have probably helped to carve out a market for these sorts of cars and since the intent is to get the auto makers to at least try to develop something, then it's a good strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

In the USA the poor have Cell Phones and Cable TV.

---

So? And all the poor? Literally all of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Does that make them happy with their lives?

There was an article on Yahoo the other day saying that 50% of the US population are poor by today's standards. Must be due to the great advantages of the free market.

---

You might want to scroll up. Some of the US "poor" could be making $48,000 a year. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

The GM and Ford bailouts weren't about bailing out a small privately owned entity but massive corporations which the optimal sharing group (ie the shareholders) was probably at least hundreds of thousands.
I suppose this question asks "what was the alternative" and the truth is that the US has quite good bankruptcy laws. Assuming GM had gone into Chapter 11 bankruptcy by itself, it would have restructured anyway; that may have been a good thing. The question is how much pressure did GM bring to bear on politics?
GM probably should have been allowed to "fail" because the outcome might have been better for the company and more thn likely better for the taxpayer.

---

Ford did not get a bailout....It was Chrysler
Part of the bailout plan included bankruptcy. The Money was used to prop up to company and pay off the Unions for political support of Obama and the Dems. Stockholders were screwed as were the suppliers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Again this is a separate issue to what the optimal sharing group is but more about changing consumer behavior and taxation is a good valve to do this with.
The tax breaks have probably helped to carve out a market for these sorts of cars and since the intent is to get the auto makers to at least try to develop something, then it's a good strategy.

---

So you approve of your government taking your money by force to give it to politically connected businesses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Ford did not get a bailout....It was Chrysler

---

Well sorry, I quoted YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So you were against the GM and Ford bailouts and against tax breaks for Hybrids and Alternative energy vehicles?

---

Next time I'll know better. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So you approve of your government taking your money by force to give it to politically connected businesses?

---

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/p.../Atrapitis.gif

Before we go on your journey of logic, where do you intend to take us to?

Corruption at all levels is wasteful. That's always bad news for the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So you approve of your government taking your money by force to give it to politically connected businesses?

---

Not mine, necessarily. I quite like the idea of yours being taken by force, though. Gives me a warm glow, you know?