General Motors

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Hmm so the ship goes down not only with all hands on deck squabbling over how to save it, but squabbling with the coast guard as well. Maybe we should just let the thing sink and use the $14B to build a new one from scratch. There's lots of ways to create lots of jobs with lots of money.

[Ddrak]

Partha calling me a wingnut. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black then I really don't know what would be.

Both studies say there's a distinct possiblilty that 3 million jobs will be lost.

Still misrepresenting the facts, I see. Lost compared to what? You always seem to avoid the problem that "jobs lost" is a relative measure and you're measuring compared to a baseline that assumes the financial meltdown doesn't happen. In short, the number is pure fantasy.

Without looking at the source data, Dd claimed I was a 'liar' and that I 'pulled the figure out of my ass'.

Actually, I said that after looking at the source data. I still say you're a liar and are pulling figures out of your ass because the studies don't say what you think they are saying, in any of the versions of the story you're telling.

now he wants to argue that I said 'one year', and that if I didn't say 'one year', then I was lying about the 3 million that he admits is in the report.

Never denied the 3 million number that was out there, only denied your interpretation of it - especially when you started down the track of claiming you *weren't* talking about one year before you actually looked at the data which showed things getting better after that point. You're changing your story because you never looked at the source data.

Forget the fact that none of us were talking 3 years out at any point, this is now the new standard, because he can't win his original argument without it.

I already won my original argument on any standard you care to name. The "3 million" number wasn't what you claimed it was at any point, and you've had to shift your statements several times to try to justify it - right up until I finally threw the original data at you and suddenly you've broken into this nonsense.

Oh yes, and don't forget the part where anything he says, no matter what it is, in incontrovertible and completely true, without any need for supporting data or even coherence.

Speak for yourself - especially the part where everything you've linked so far actually makes you out to have not understood anything about the figures you've quoted. Your whole argument has been about shifting positions to make up for the fact you've just taken the biggest and most hyperbolic number you can find to cry wolf with and can't justify yourself on any level. Must be sad when even the links you use don't support you after you actually read the words that surround the "3 million" number. How bad is it when you realize the position Embar was taking was only about 10% of the number you quoted? How horrible that my original "fallacy" statement (that other manufacturers would pick up some of the workers) is directly held up by the report your very number came from.

You lost, Partha. I was right and all your objections have been trivial to shoot down because you never read the report you were pulling things from. Maybe when you get over yourself and your desire to make this about some "union busting" bullshit then you'll figure it out.

You know, like the part where the government who refuses to loan money to keep a company alive will instead loan that money to two other companies whose lifespan is (according to the Republican argument) not good either to buy that third company's remains.

The Republican argument is just as daft as yours - why would you quote that?

The government has shown clearly with the financial bailout (something at least an order of magnitude bigger than the auto bailout) that it's capable of picking and choosing amongst a set of bad companies to prop up the better of them in order to avert a complete collapse. Why should this be different from their proven record? Wanna explain to me why AIG was bailed out but not Bear Stearns? Why was Merril given the loans to buy other banks when it was almost as badly exposed? It's the same damn thing.

It's no wonder Lurker's stayed silent - he knows you can't argue with a union-buster with his mind made up.

Lurker's probably silent because his view basically supports my side and you're just being an embarrassment (or he just couldn't be bothered with dumbass argument, which is more likely). He stated his position very clearly:

I think the companies need to restructure and the union contracts need to be renegotiated. Since none of the companies could get the necessary loans for a true Chapter 11, the government will need to be involved and will need to set the rules and provide the money.

and

I'd rather get rid of the UAW part of the problem by renegotiating the contract. It should be possible to protect the workers and remove unnecessary drag on the company.

I agree with both of those statement. I believe the entire industry needs a restructure, and if that restructure is folding GM into Ford and Chrysler and using it to force a complete renegotiation of all the contracts then it sounds good to me.

btw - I'm pretty sure Lurker won't appreciate having words put into his mouth in exactly the same way I don't appreciate it. You really need to stop making up what people say - it's not very nice.

For the record, my original statement stands proven by the research: The "3 million jobs lost" number is a fallacy on many levels. At the very best you can claim it as the spike level if all three completely shut down at once when measured against the pre-crash levels (it's only about 300-400k over what happens with a bailout), but it quickly recovers to 1.8 million lost from pre-crash and about 600k lost over what's going to happen even with the best possible bailout.

Dd

[Partha]

So you're claiming that 3 million jobs may be lost, which was my point to begin with, but yet I'm still wrong, because of further additional arguments you wanted to add on. Okay.

Declare victory with a hearty cry. It doesn't change the fact that both studies say 3 million jobs could be lost and I wasn't lying when I said that, whatever caveats you want to put on it at the end.

[Ddrak]

So you're claiming that 3 million jobs may be lost, which was my point to begin with, but yet I'm still wrong, because of further additional arguments you wanted to add on. Okay.

Declare victory with a hearty cry. It doesn't change the fact that both studies say 3 million jobs could be lost and I wasn't lying when I said that, whatever caveats you want to put on it at the end.

You were replying to Embar (which you freely admitted) and trying to attack his position. You quoted "3 million jobs lost" without saying what they were lost in comparison to, and so I pointed out the fallacy in stating a comparative term without establishing your baseline and making it a useful baseline, while also pointing out that the jobs would be snapped up by other companies so the impact wouldn't be what it appeared in the long term.

It's still a fact that the "3 million" number is a completely meaningless amount unless you have some plan to rewind the clock to September and preventing the current collapse. It's a number bandied around by people who either don't understand what it means or are using it to paint a false picture when comparing alternatives. It's simply a fallacy.

A similar thing would be to claim in a global warming debate that if we don't do something to stop the trend then the temperature this July in Chicago is likely to be a hundred degrees warmer, which could be argued to be the honest truth (it will be a hundred degrees warmer than now) but only by someone who really doesn't know what they are talking about.

Dd