Free Markets and Meritocracy (1 Viewer)

[Graney]

There's also been a pretty substantial public swing against the car makers. There's sympathy for the workers to an extent, but the idea of letting the car makers fail isn't nearly as unconscionable as it once would have been. Hypothetically, some of the many billions of dollars being spent on the chapter 11 plan to try to revive GM, could instead be used in an assistance package for the workers.

 

[yoddle]

The government kind of does have to do what's popular, ever heard of a phenomenon called 'elections'?

OK i don't know if you're right or wrong about a public swing against the car makers but fair point if you're right. An assistance package might have made more sense.

I'm not sure what he would have done but it annoys me when the media try and flatten him and all he can say is 'um' and 'er', he's not assertive enough. I watched a thing on YouTube about him and the American media's total bias against him. it was very interesting.

Sorry this is totally off topic.

 

[yoddle]

But still, in most cases, people hate seeing companies collapse and jobs go unless the company was very corrupt.

Why do you think there is a swing against the car makers?

 

[Graney]

Let car firms go bust, say majority of Americans: poll

10th April 2009, 9:00 WST

More than three-quarters of Americans think the government should let ailing carmakers General Motors or Chrysler go bankrupt instead of bailing out the firms, a newly-released poll says.

Seventy-six per cent of Americans think the federal government should let the automobile companies go bankrupt, according to the survey conducted by CNN
and the Opinion Research Corporation and released on Thursday.

The government has pumped billions of dollars into GM and Chrysler in recent months in a bid to keep the car giants afloat.

President Barack Obama has warned however that the two firms could still face bankruptcy if they do not come up with viable plans to return to profitability.

Since the automobile crisis became headline news late last year, the poll found the number of Americans who think the US economy would face a major crisis if the car firms go bankrupt has declined.

In December, 66 per cent of those surveyed said they thought the companies were too big to let fail, compared to 47 per cent now. A majority, 55 per cent, said they thought they wouldn’t face any problems at all in their own lives if the carmakers went bust.

Only 37 per cent of Americans said they would purchase a car from a bankrupt company, although the figure jumped to 57 per cent if the government were to promise to stand behind the cars’ warranty.

The survey, conducted between April 3-5, interviewed 1,023 Americans by telephone and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

GM and Chrysler have received a combined $US17.4 billion ($A24.57 billion) in public aid since December, and are still on the verge of collapse as the world’s largest economy suffers its second year of recession.

The Obama administration has demanded they submit viable restructuring plans before further aid will be considered.

Let car firms go bust, say majority of Americans: poll : thewest.com.au

Yep.

They don't have a good corporate image, they don't produce a product the new market demands, there is sympathy for the workers, but the public aren't stupid.

 

[yoddle]

Still, its 21 000+ jobs gone, and more in Europe.
That's families (who have probably been always situated in the lower-middle socio-economic demographic and never had the finances to be able to attend a good American university) with no income, probably shitloads of debt, and very little prospect of finding a new job soon, given the poop jobs market.

Whilst the GM managers (the majority would have grown up in a higher-social demographic, being exposed to all kinds of opportunities) will have a short stress release break in Majorca and get on with receiving their multi-million dollar salaries.

It's our class-based society doing what it does. The meritocracy is, by rule, utter shit, it works only in exception.

 

[yoddle]

Happiness can not be objectively measured. The average person in the United States may subjectively rate themselves as less happy than the average Mexican. But it doesn't mean they are actually less happy, or that they would rather live in Mexico.

Look at how people vote with their feet. Are poor countries battling influxes of people from the west who want to move their to be happier?

The international view of the US from most poor/developing countries is quite romanticised, they are sold the American dream. In reality the chances are slim of a Guatemalan immigrant getting a nice middle-management job and settling in a leafy suburb. Chances are much higher they will take underpaid work as a cleaner and settle in for a life of marginalisation. What's more, they will be separated from family and friends.

As for your assertion that the GM managers would be out of the job years ago, not withstanding government intervention, yes they may not be working at GM anymore, but can you really imagine them cleaning up dog poo outside McMcDonalds? Of course not, they'd slide straight into some other comfy corporate position.

 

[Graney]

Why doesn't the Guatemalan go home if his situation is worse in the USA? Clearly he feels his life in better and he is happier to remain in the USA.

 

[yoddle]

Well maybe he will.

 

[youngminii]

Who deserves to make more money:
A) Someone who has little/no brains but works their asses off.
B) Someone who has wits but works lazily.

Luck is also existent in genetics.

 

[Graney]

If they're genuinely lazy, how would they make money?

 

[yoddle]

Okay so these managers have failed. They have lost their jobs and it is publicly known that their mismanagement has bankrupted a once successful company. Why would anyone hire them?

Directors/managers of failed companies get re-hired consistently. Former Ansett managers are scattered all over corporate Australia and elsewhere in the world. I'd be highly doubtful if one was still unemployed.

To think that someone who has spent their life being rich, powerful and with a vast network of business/government connections will just fall into everyday life is utter fantasy, government intervention or not.

 

[withoutaface]

Directors/managers of failed companies get re-hired consistently. Former Ansett managers are scattered all over corporate Australia and elsewhere in the world. I'd be highly doubtful if one was still unemployed.

To think that someone who has spent their life being rich, powerful and with a vast network of business/government connections will just fall into everyday life is utter fantasy, government intervention or not.

This is just utter tosh. Ansett died because Air New Zealand mismanaged them terribly and Qantas' economy of scale (along with other loss-making start ups) drove them out of the market. If you're bad at your job and you're in the public eye, you get sacked. Sometimes you go to gaol. But you almost never get re-hired.

 

[Silver Persian]

I assume that you support the redistribution of income on the basis of luck, WAFfles?

 

[withoutaface]

I assume that you support the redistribution of income on the basis of luck, WAFfles?

Not at all. You can't measure how much 'luck' somebody has been granted in their lifetime, only the number of opportunities they've been clever enough to seize. The vast, vast bulk of people are where they are because of their talent and hard work or lack thereof.

Inheritence taxes are another issue however, and I'm not entirely sure how I feel on them.

 

[Graney]

The vast, vast bulk of people are where they are because of their talent and hard work or lack thereof.

I don't think you can ever truly overcome the inequity of a disadvantaged childhood, especially those subjected to abuse or disadvantages in educational access. Even in a lifetime, it's impossible to fully catch up to your potential if you had received a fair upbringing.

These problems are hardly uncommon, to a greater or lesser extent.

Quality public education is a good I believe will always be necessary to address the inequitable distribution of luck among children, to protect them from disadvantage caused by irresponsible parenting.

 

[withoutaface]

I totally disagree with the bolded bit. Although I still come to the same conclusion as you.

Surely if you are going to stand by this statement, you would at least have to concede that it only applies to people of a certain age.

Would you really say that you are in the position you are in, whilst the heir of a multi-million dollar fortune who is the same age as you, is in their far more desirable position, purely because of their hard work and talent?

The real issue is that we can't quantify, even approximately, the effects of luck; and even if we could, compensating for it would create so many perverse incentives and inefficiencies that it would make society overall much worse off.

Do we really measure a life by its achievements at age 22? If I had less talent I'd probably be an electrician by now making far more than I am as a student, I'd like to think of my early 20s as a transitory phase.

 

[justanotherposter]

What do you guys think about environmental deregulation? It's one of the few aspects that I just don't see being solved by the free market as opposed to government policy and regulation.

Edit:
I realise it's slightly off topic, my bad.

 

[withoutaface]

Graney provided a better criticism.

But please tell us, what is the appropriate age to judge someone's success in life?

Can you justify that by a certain age, the 'vast, vast' majority of people will have been able to catch up to others who have had far greater advantages in their formative years, using just their "hard work and talents."

The private/public school divide isn't really of consequence as the latter end up outperforming the former at university anyway, so we're fairly clearly discussing this within a framework with a well formed public education system. Over and above this I've already stated that inheritence is a grey area.

 

[Graney]

The private/public school divide isn't really of consequence as the latter end up outperforming the former at university anyway, so we're fairly clearly discussing this within a framework with a well formed public education system. Over and above this I've already stated that inheritence is a grey area.

I brought up public schooling merely to provide an example of where the free market does not have the best outcomes and government intervention is effective in addressing the inequitable distribution of luck.

 

[Graney]

Do we really measure a life by its achievements at age 22? If I had less talent I'd probably be an electrician by now making far more than I am as a student, I'd like to think of my early 20s as a transitory phase.

What if you were born an indigenous Australian on palm island?

The vast, vast bulk of people are where they are because of their talent and hard work or lack thereof.

Why do some people have greater talent and drive for hard work than others?

What is the causation? Why do they have those abilities, and others don't?