• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the sausage-making of the free market. Companies that can't hack it go away. However, unlike Solyndra, they don't take $500mil from taxpayers in the process.

It's easy to hate companies that lay off workers in the name of efficiency. But what is far worse for the economy, and thus workers, is things like zombie banks and other failed companies being propped up indefinitely, as they suck capital that could be invested in companies that are self-sufficient. It doesn't have the same emotional impact, certainly, which is why some people have a more visceral reaction to one than the other. Then they go through all sorts of mental contortions to frame it as a rational thing instead of an emotional thing, because they fancy themselves to be the smart ones.

Stop shitting up this thread with logical economic views!
 
Nah, it's easy. And yet, it still gets posted as some profound insight, instead of simplistic models used to show concepts not depict real world situations.

And emotional knee-jerk anti-corporate populism is a much better way to inform people about the real world. Because informing people about how the real world works, not getting them to mindlessly repeat focus-tested talking points, is how to win elections.
 
This is the sausage-making of the free market. Companies that can't hack it go away. However, unlike Solyndra, they don't take $500mil from taxpayers in the process.

It's easy to hate companies that lay off workers in the name of efficiency. But what is far worse for the economy, and thus workers, is things like zombie banks and other failed companies being propped up indefinitely, as they suck capital that could be invested in companies that are self-sufficient. It doesn't have the same emotional impact, certainly, which is why some people have a more visceral reaction to one than the other. Then they go through all sorts of mental contortions to frame it as a rational thing instead of an emotional thing, because they fancy themselves to be the smart ones.

They absolutely do, whenever they can.
 
This is the sausage-making of the free market. Companies that can't hack it go away. However, unlike Solyndra, they don't take $500mil from taxpayers in the process.

Not saying there was no mismanagement at Soylandra, but the foremost reason a lot of solar companies are having issues is that they made a lot of investment in developing Solar Panels which have fortunately (for consumers) but unfortunately for them become extremely cheap.
 
newtconcept3.jpg

RIP
 
And emotional knee-jerk anti-corporate populism is a much better way to inform people about the real world. Because informing people about how the real world works, not getting them to mindlessly repeat focus-tested talking points, is how to win elections.

Guy, you just posted a cliff notes version of "The Choice." Let's not talk about neatly distilled talking points. Throwing out a plethora of relevant factors because they don't gel with your assumptions is cute for simple models, but when you're dealing with the externalities of persistent high unemployment and depressed wages, that garbage gets you nowhere. Well nowhere except the belle of the ball at a conservative cocktail party.
 
Yeah, that'll help. :lol

I am thinking, this should be the attack line at the next debate. "Why is governor Romney afraid of scrutiny of his tax returns? Is he hiding something? If not, release all 12 years like your father did".

Also, Romney taking the gloves off here:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ers-what-they-want-offense.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

He called Gingrich a “failed leader” as Speaker who “had to resign in disgrace” and criticized his work as a highly paid consultant for Freddie Mac in his years out of office. “He said he was just a historian there,” Romney said. “I’d like him to release his records there.”

PPP releases their first poll Tuesday I believe, will be interesting to see this.

Their final one-day poll figure was amazingly accurate:
Newt Gingrich heads into South Carolina election day as the clear front runner in the state: he's now polling at 37% to 28% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Rick Santorum, and 14% for Ron Paul.

Gingrich's lead has actually increased in the wake of his ex-wife's controversial interview with ABC. Although one night poll results should always be interpreted with caution, he led the final night of the field period by a 40-26 margin.

Final Results:
Newt 40.6%
Romney 27.8%
 
Guy, you just posted a cliff notes version of "The Choice." Let's not talk about neatly distilled talking points. Throwing out a plethora of relevant factors because they don't gel with your assumptions is cute for simple models, but when you're dealing with the externalities of persistent high unemployment and depressed wages, that garbage gets you nowhere. Well nowhere except the belle of the ball at a conservative cocktail party.

What's "the choice"?

As for the rest of it, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Or even talking about.
 
So we should have let Detroit fail?

We should have let it go through the normal bankruptcy process, yes, instead of some weird special bankruptcy for privileged corporations. It's a moral hazard that we're telling companies that the best investment they can make is lots of lobbying, and "too big to fail" is their new goal instead of something they are trying to avoid.
 
The auto rescue is one of the greatest success stories of the Obama administration. The last year saw the best year for US automakers in decades, and thanks to it thousands of jobs were saved.
 
GM wasn't saved because of lobbying. They were saved because their failing could have resulted in 2 million jobs being lost right in the middle of a recession.

Talk about moral hazard is nonsense in the face of a depression.
 
So Romney says he won't release more than 2 years of his tax forms because of the internet:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...years-of-tax-returns-because-of-the-internet/

The fact that he won't put out anything before 2010 is seriously worrying. Not that he's obligated to of course, but if he put out 3 or 4 years, it certainly would have been enough to change the topic.

Perhaps he doesn't have anything to hide, and is revealing the bare minimum simply as to not look weak and easy to push around. But I suspect he's left himself open to a lot more speculation going forward, and none of it kind.
 
We should have let it go through the normal bankruptcy process, yes, instead of some weird special bankruptcy for privileged corporations. It's a moral hazard that we're telling companies that the best investment they can make is lots of lobbying, and "too big to fail" is their new goal instead of something they are trying to avoid.

You really don't realize how bad the economy recovery would have been without saving Detroit? Sheesh....

And right now not only is GM is slowly coming back, it's actually able to bit by bit compete with the foreign brands now.
 
Not saying there was no mismanagement at Soylandra, but the foremost reason a lot of solar companies are having issues is that they made a lot of investment in developing Solar Panels which have fortunately (for consumers) but unfortunately for them become extremely cheap.
All solar panels companies in the US and Europe are suffering. It doesn't matter which solar energy company the government chose to give money to, the market for solar energy just went to crap.
 
Wired has a very nice article about Solyndra (and the history of VC in the green energy sector). I recommend anyone interested go check it out.



http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_solyndra/all/1


pullquote:

Of all the energy startups that received their first VC funds between 1995 and 2007, only 1.8 percent achieved what he calls “unambiguous success,” meaning an initial public offering on a major exchange

It makes you wonder if government should be in the VC business at all.



--- /// ---


Here's all you need to know why solar went bust:

natgas1.jpg
 
Letting the auto industry go bankrupt would have destroyed Michigan; not just the jobs of auto workers, but the tons of jobs connected to assembly, production, local stores and restaurants, etc.

Personally I don't take Romney or most republicans crticism of it seriously, as they would have bailed out the industry as well; this is a strategic case of attacking the opponent's positives. The only 08 candidate who wouldn't have passed that bailout and a stimulus package was Paul
 
wasn't the auto bailout funded with TARP money anyway? ie. it was passed when Bush was president?

if so it's not like obama wasted any money saving the auto industry. the money was already appropriated, he just happened to use it in an amazingly effective way.

i really don't get understand any criticisms of the auto bailout.
 
Basically it went like this:

TARP passes.

After first resisting, Bush eventually succumbs to pressure to use some TARP money for the auto industry in mid-December (right before he left).

Obama expands the amount of money and lays out a definitive plan (sometime in his first 100 days).


Obama gets the lion share of the credit, but Bush gets some for taking the heat for performing a constitutionally questionable move.
 
You really don't realize how bad the economy recovery would have been without saving Detroit? Sheesh....

Lots of unfalsifiable claims like these being made these days.

These interventions are play now, pay later. Immediate benefits, sure, but it creates problems down the road.

I suppose that when taxpayers only lose a few billion dollars on a government bailout of a giant private corporation, it's a huge success in relative terms.

Somehow I doubt that if a Republican president had done the same thing, certain people would so adamant in their defense of it. It would be a constant chorus of how Republicans take tax money from the middle class and give it to their millionaire CEO and investor friends. Present company excepted, I'm sure. No one here engages in such partisan hackery. NeoGAF is far more enlightened than that.
 
The problem the Republicans have, and it is an enormous one, is that they still do not have a candidate that can beat Obama in a general election. Is it Christie? Would America vote for an obese man again as our leader? It's been at least 100 years since we did. If not him, who is left? Both Gingrich and Romney have fatal flaws, ones I just don't think they could overcome.
 
Lots of unfalsifiable claims like these being made these days.

These interventions are play now, pay later. Immediate benefits, sure, but it creates problems down the road.

I suppose that when taxpayers only lose a few billion dollars on a government bailout of a giant private corporation, it's a huge success in relative terms.

Somehow I doubt that if a Republican president had done the same thing, certain people would so adamant in their defense of it. It would be a constant chorus of how Republicans take tax money from the middle class and give it to their millionaire CEO and investor friends. Present company excepted, I'm sure. No one here engages in such partisan hackery. NeoGAF is far more enlightened than that.

What was that about "unfalsifiable" claims again? Not to rain on your persecution complex parade or anything...
 
The problem the Republicans have, and it is an enormous one, is that they still do not have a candidate that can beat Obama in a general election. Is it Christie? Would America vote for an obese man again as our leader? It's been at least 100 years since we did. If not him, who is left? Both Gingrich and Romney have fatal flaws, ones I just don't think they could overcome.

If the economy sucks, people will vote for just about anyone* who represents the opposition, as we found out in 2008 and 2010, when an assortment of chuckleheads were put into office through no merit of their own.


*except for crazy chicks in NV and DE
 
How did these two statements manage to be made back to back?

What's hilarious is that didn't GM started to pay back the money it receive? Not only that, but GM has climbed out the gutter, and are producing some great, reliable cars.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs would've been lost, which means more people on benefits, which then means the GOP complaining about Democrats giving those autoworkers foodstamps instead of helping them find jobs.
 
What's hilarious is that didn't GM started to pay back the money it receive? Not only that, but GM has climbed out the gutter, and are producing some great, reliable cars.

And the entire economy is being lifted up because of the auto industry, as opposed to it collapsing if we let Detroit go bankrupt.
 
What was that about "unfalsifiable" claims again? Not to rain on your persecution complex parade or anything...

I'm glad people picked up on the irony, but I'm not sure you understand what a "persecution complex" is if you're misapplying it so egregiously.

I just like to pop people's bubbles, and what better place to do that than here? It's like fish in a barrel.
 
I'm glad people picked up on the irony, but I'm not sure you understand what a "persecution complex" is if you're misapplying it so egregiously.

I just like to pop people's bubbles, and what better place to do that than here? It's like fish in a barrel.

So your back-pedal is that you're a pathetic troll who just wants to get a rise of people?
 
If Gingrich wins FL, what will the establishment do? It's not just the WH they're risking with a Newt candidacy; house and senate seats are at risk as well.

If Newt wins Florida, the establishment is going to go nuclear. Seriously. They're going to go apeshit. They're going to pour millions into SuperPACs and Romney's run, negative ads of the sort we haven't seen maybe ever during a primary season.

A Republican operative said on CNN that if Newt won Florida, the establishment would go so indescribably crazy that he had no words to accurately describe the resulting internal war in the party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom