Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 comments

  1. Debunking some global warming overreach.

    MIT says (A) global warming is happening and uses an unusual visual aid. LOL liberals are dumb, huh?

    Hubris:

    I mean, to fire the chairman of General Motors,

    Knowing when someone’s been doing a shitty job is not hubris.

    to tell credit card companies how they should run their business,

    Telling credit card companies to stop tricking and trapping people is not hubris.

    tell GM what kind of cars it should be making, and there’s no sign of an end in sight yet.

    Making it illegal for GM to externalize their costs on the rest of the world is not hubris.

    Looking at women’s “progress”.

    LOL, women should be in the kitchen having babies amirite?

  2. Boonton says:

    Hubris would be to fire a company head who isn’t getting bailed out (or filing bankruptcy). As I pointed out before, CAFE standards are:

    1. Not new
    2. Not telling anyone what cars to make.

  3. Mark says:

    JA,
    You didn’t read that one on global warming very carefully.

    For a President to fire a CEO of a private corporation, irrespective of the quality of job he is doing … is an overreach.

    On women’s progress … the point is women were happier. I certainly (and I think neither does the post linked) make any particular judgement on their choice.

    Boonton,
    It is currently I’m pretty sure, normally, the judicial branch which regulates bankruptcy (hence the term “bankruptcy courts”). Not the executive.

  4. Boonton says:

    1. GM hasn’t filed for bankruptcy yet but has received Federal money.

    2. GM’s bankruptcy may be large enough to require a unique bankruptcy code.

    I’m not sure what ‘hubris’ really means here besides advocating policies that Mark doesn’t like but can’t quite mount an argument against.

  5. For a President to fire a CEO of a private corporation, irrespective of the quality of job he is doing … is an overreach.

    Right, let’s just ignore the fact that they took tens of billions of dollars in bailout money. Completely irrelevant to this conversation, of course. Just an ordinary private corporation. *eyeroll*

    On women’s progress … the point is women were happier. I certainly (and I think neither does the post linked) make any particular judgement on their choice.

    No, he just wanted to post about it and you just wanted to link it. I’m sure he would have posted and you would have linked if his research showed that women are happier now? Right? LOL, not a chance.

  6. Mark says:

    JA,
    Are you suggesting I only link to things to which I agree?

    What mechanism connects the bailout to the power to fire a private corporation’s CEO? Is Obama now on the board? Is he a majority stockholder? How?

  7. Are you suggesting I only link to things to which I agree?

    I didn’t make such a general statement. I’m just saying I believe you linked to that because you regret women’s progress. (Or “progress,” as you put it.)

    What mechanism connects the bailout to the power to fire a private corporation’s CEO? Is Obama now on the board? Is he a majority stockholder? How?

    Fire is your word. Obama actually just asked the guy to resign. I’m not arguing that he has the legal authority to actually fire him.

  8. Boonton says:

    What mechanism connects the bailout to the power to fire a private corporation’s CEO?

    It’s almost SOP in a bailout even if the CEO isn’t particularly at fault. The person bailing out needs to signal both to the company and the market that the effort to save the company is serious.

    Is Obama now on the board? Is he a majority stockholder? How?

    No and no….although the US Treasury may end up the majority stockholder should its loans to the company turn into common shares.

    Fire is your word. Obama actually just asked the guy to resign.

    So where’s the hubris again? Doing a bailout is not politically easy for Obama & economically it would be better if we could avoid a bankruptcy (although not better ‘at any cost’). Historically this is no more hubris filled than older days when the President would sometimes try to bring a particularly troublesome strike to a close by getting the union and management heads together.