Why?
why do they do this? they don’t have a stake in GM, do they?
The media (left and right) tends to be authoritarian. Anything to make the governments actions seem rational and fruitful will be said.
The little screen of lies we have in our elevators at our office said that the fed is close to breaking even on the bailout at $32 per share, and could be paid back if it moves to $50 per share. I would consider being paid back as breaking even. So, they have a ways to go.
Cheers,
“I would consider being paid back as breaking even”
good point, how in the world is paid back not considered breaking even?
The Financial times paper at my job says that the Federal Reserve Critics should listen to what the Fed has to say. WE have been listening since 1913 and all we hear are lies and devaluation of our dollar. Finacial times love the Federal Reserve and seem to defend them according to this article http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7ef038e-f14f-11df-8609-00144feab49a.html#axzz15f15MbLk.
Once again, The Financial Times trying to brainwash people into thinking how much they need the Federal Reserve and how they always “save the economy.”
I guess my question is this…if these newspapers have nothing to gain, why do they keep praising the horrible work the government and FED do?
Perhaps there is something to the conspiracy of the New World Order. Perhaps the CEOs and board members of these media companies are in this secret organization.
At the very least, that would give them a motive to put out such poor quality stories.
According to Wiki the editor of the FT has ties to Little Bush, though very lose. I could easily imagine that the men of these circles are much closer than just superficially. That being said, its just speculation. He did work for Nelson Polsby (A former member of the CFR) at the Institute of Governmental Studies at Berkeley. Institute of Governmental Studies.. Heh! Translation: Parasitic people with little economical value learning how other parasitic people murder and steal, and get away with it.
Cheers,
another example is the cartoon Sid the Science. They show Sid getting his vaccines and talking about it being the right thing to do.
The makers of this cartoon have nothing to gain from adding this in their cartoon. Actually they have things to lose…viewship and angry parents.
It does not make any sense econmically of r them to add this in their cartoon. It does make sense it the producers are tied to a New World Order and told them to put this in.
For starters, its sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, its on PBS, and they use mocap animation. I tend to view PBS as a mouth piece for statism, and does strike me as tainted authoritarian. Its possible there are lobbying groups that put pressure on the DHHS, that then put pressure (financial) on the producers of that show, to tell kids how great it is to be vaccinated. The same groups that had something to gain with the manufacturing and sale of vaccines. Again, speculation, but not that far fetched. The producers could also have done it to gain favor with PBS to ensure further contracts/purchasing. Follow the money.
Disclosure: I knew someone that worked on that show for a couple of episodes, but they never really talked about the politics of the studio, so I can’t comment on that. Most people tend not to seriously question the motives for their employers for obvious reasons. You just take the check and hope they have more work for you in the future.
Cheers,
“I guess my question is this…if these newspapers have nothing to gain, why do they keep praising the horrible work the government and FED do?”
I call if BMC, Bad Managers Complex. Simply put, everyone seems to think they can run this or that business or government agency better than anyone else. You likely meet these people where you work now. The gossip hounds who have nothing but criticism for their managers and the corporate bigwigs, the ones who are just dying to tell you ‘the real reason’ for the latest company deal or move or whatever, the ones who are full of ‘they should just do…’ suggestions.
I got a guy I work with here, he claims to be a libertarian, but like so many people I meet who make that claim there seems to be no aspect of human life he wouldn’t have the government regulate. Now this guy isn’t a gossip but he is of this ilk, The I’d Run The Government Like A Business type. He had plenty of ideas for example to make welfare ‘work’. Of course what he doesn’t realize is that the people running it now think just like him, they just have different priorities. These types of people do not see or understand opportunity cost, incentives and perverse incentives, and the idea of systemic failure. To them management is stand on a mountain, raise your hand, and say, “Let it be thus…!” and all of sudden things just work that way.
As a further example, these are the people who always have a great solution for a problem at work that don’t get the idea that consistently adding steps and additional processes doesn’t eliminate errors, it exacerbates them. For example we needed to track employee folders with all their info in them. This guy’s idea was a spreadsheet with all the company’s employees on it and who had their folder, where, and for what reason. Sounds nice on its face. What he doesn’t realize is that now one person or everyone with access to these folders also needs access to the sheet, and either that one person or everyone has to take the responsibility of maintaining that sheet, auditing it occassionally to make sure it was correct, disciplining all those who fail to properly update it, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. In other words, his answer to the situation was to make a shitload more work for little to no payoff because no problem was being solved. The simpler solution, because on investigation people were always adding paperwork to these folders, was to simply not allow them out of a certain area that was secure. Instead of ordering the folder to you, bring your ass to the folders, add what you need to, leave. The entire disciplines of Lean and Six Sigma are pretty much built upon the fact that people like him don’t understand processes, opportunity cost, and because processes that sound simple in concept almost never workout the way peopl expect in the real world because there’s all kinds of real world reasons why it’s not a good idea, not in the least of which are that often times ‘solutions’ people come up with end up costing more than the damn problem they’re ‘solving’.
So you take this basic tendency which is endemic on the entire left side of the bell curve in my experience, which accounts for almost all the education and jounralism fields, and throw them into a situation where something seemingly works and bucks the nay-sayers, then people will have a tendency to hype it up. They get to say, “We told you so!”
“You silly pessimistic conservatives said it couldn’t be done, and we did it!”
Of course what they’re not seeing is that they’re celebrating the fact that GM is once more making cars at a bare minimum profit using the same over paid and over regulated labor force because the economy can temporarily sustain that business model until it implodes again in the future, at which point they’ll have to be bailed out again, and again, and again, and again, and again… If you ask such people why GM was failing to begin with and what fundamentally has changed about that situation, which seems to be nothing, they’ll either draw a blank or call you names. Bottom line, if you take the world’s single worst individual debtor and pay off his credit card bills, the fact that he’s flush for the ensuing two minutes doesn’t mean he isn’t going to be under a fuckton sized mountain of debt again shortly, and likely he is. Take ten of them and do it, maybe one or two make it and change their ways, if that many. So even if GM survives, yippee, so what? They got one right out of how many they’ve tried? It’s just like the business cycle, not all the investments made during that time are malinvestments that will go kerflooey once the shit hits the fan. Some will, some won’t. Point is the continuing process is guaranteed to be a net loss even if the government gets one right here and there.
I guess it’s kind of like the Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy. The government screws with the economy left and right, bails out company after company, and then draws a circle around their two or three successes so people see them and forget the multitude of screw ups that far out numbered them.