http://www.kentuckynewsnetwork.com/c...ticle=10356878
Oh Detroit. If ever there was a city more vile than Chicago, this just may be it. If it weren't for Walker, this is what Wisconsin could have looked like someday. Damn glad we got that guy.
Printable View
http://www.kentuckynewsnetwork.com/c...ticle=10356878
Oh Detroit. If ever there was a city more vile than Chicago, this just may be it. If it weren't for Walker, this is what Wisconsin could have looked like someday. Damn glad we got that guy.
Yes, it's pretty bad. I live a 30 minute drive from that cesspool of a town, and I just want to say this: whatever horror stories you hear about Detroit, they're all true.
That's unions for ya
@rvg, my brother studied there, very briefly hehe
It makes Kiev seem appealing.
Which is saying something.
Plus the Red Wings don't have a defense this year.
A completely natural result of a free market policy.
With a proper social security net, an active state and proper unions, this would of course not have happened.
lol, Unions and entitlement programs are what turned it into what it is HoreTore! How can you say that about one of the most leftist cities in America, with some of the most active and powerful Unions in America? (Look at he UAW, and how it controls what used to be Detroit's biggest industry)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Dude, you are prescribing the infection to cure the disease!
I hope HoreTore was being sarcastic.
Detroit is the pinnacle of a failed welfare system. Three, four and five generations in the same family on welfare, all clustered together in poverty pockets.
Only recently did they allow the common sense idea of allowing citixens to arm themselves again. There was a gun ban in that city I think for 15 years. Did a bang up job, let me tell ya
Huey Lewis is DISSAPOINT
The White Flight argument is horse **** in the context that it blames whitey.
People will naturally move to a better location when they can afford to. With the influx of people came an influx of crime and lowered property values. So people left.
Instead of blaming the white people, maybe we should blame the second generation of the migrants who turned the neighborhood into garbage, and blame the banks and assessors who appraised the properties.
I always get a guffaw out of people who think that some family should tough out economic and social strife for the sake of some abstract idea of racial equality.
This has less to do with race and more to do with personal well-being. Black people moved out of the hood as soon as opportunity knocked. Havent you ever seen the Jeffersons???
Dump, I'm not blaming whitey. The white flight argument is not horseshit. Why is Detroit 90% black?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman_Young
Have you actually seen Kiev?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
It wasn't white people that left - it was wealthy people that left. Most of those were white. Was there a massive influx of wealthy black people into the area? I doubt it.
Crime requires criminals. Unless it is people commuting in from elsewhere to commit crimes, it is the people that are there who helped wreck it. Where I live is a lot shabbier than it should be as people park on the verges, turning the nice grass banks into muddy ruts. There aren't even any parking restrictions on the roads! Most people have drive ways, many have garages!
Even animals have more sense than to shit where they live. It seems that many humans are beneath this standard.
~:smoking:
yeah, it's just a coincidence that you find these cities only in the places where the free market ideology is most advanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
In states with a proper and functioning system of social security, unions, etc, you don't find anything like this, even though we also have plenty of de-industrialized cities. Skien in Norway is one example, the last cornerstone industry there(Union, a paper mill) was shut down in the mid-2000's. With proper government focus as well as a working social security, the city was re-educated and is now back stronger than it was before.
And do remember tha you're talking with a European leftie here. What you believe to be "leftist policy" is what I consider blasphemous right-wing ideological blindness...
Leftist policies like New Deal and Henry Ford built Detroit. Free market loonies like Milton Friedman tore it down.
Free market economics did ruin it. The Unions.
Unions grasped for everything they could as all that matters is NOW. Don't prepare for the future, don't invest in the community - money for their members ASAP!!!
They persisted in this mentality to the bitter end.
A much better model is Germany where companies tend to value their employees and employees value the company. This facet is separate to how socialist the country is - the company survives and people keep their jobs. Both sides work together through hard patches.
~:smoking:
Could you please elaborate, Horetore?
:confused:Quote:
Leftist policies like...Henry Ford built Detroit.
Soo... like a vaccine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I wasn't saying you were. And I am not denying White Flight existed. Nor am I denying that race was a factor in some Archie Bunker-ish situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I don't know about these days, but in college the professors always painted this as a Grand Conspiracy by Whitey to take the money and run, and to intentionally ruin the people who stayed behind. This always annoyed me, and led to many heated arguments in classes, where I became the punching bag of shite guilt hippies.
Sorry, I was having flashbacks......ptsd....
Your college flashbacks are from LSD not PTSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
For some reason I kept typing LDS. Maybe I'm traumatized too.
Henry Ford's focus on always increasing employee wages is what the workers movement was about. Ford didn't believe in unions, but that's because he believed his style of industrialism would become dominant; and in Ford's companies, there really is no need for a union. However, since Ford was wrong about what other industrialists do, unions are(unfortunately) needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Also, I second what rory says. Unions in "socialist business-hate"-land means a three-party partnership between the state, the workers union and the employers union(yes, employers also need to unionize). All three parties share several interests, but if things doesn't resolve itself, then the state can cut through and force a binding agreement between the two.
Henry Ford is in many ways THE American capitalist! There is nothing leftist about him (the left looks to the government for help, remember?). It is not that the left believes people should be better off and the right wants them to rot. The difference is in how they think the betterment should occur. The leftists look to government, and conservatives look at social and economic opportunitty.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ford was the latter. I don't know how much you know about Fordism, but it is an economic and business model designed to increase a company's profits. It is not about charity. Like all aspects of the free market, the idea is to harness selfish motivation and use it to better yourself and everyone else at the same time. It is actually unions that ruined that business model and made it impossible. That is the reason it is not the dominant business model today. The unions almost ruined the Ford company (they were literally striking for 4 hour work weeks at one point). Other companies were able to overtake Ford, mostly because of unions.
Unions are a scurge. Sure, they have been needed sometimes, but in the modern world, they are mostly only an evil. Very few workers (such as linemen) still need unions to protect them. When a union is no longer needed, it should be immediately dismantled to stop it from enslaving and abusing the workers.
History fail. Ford ran as a "Peace Candidate" in 1918, and was strongly in favor of the League of Nations. So clearly he was a peacenik and a one-world government Freemason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I don't think modern American right-wingers have any notion of how extreme they've become. Nixon passed Title 9 and founded the EPA, Reagan raised taxes and gave amnesty to millions of illegals, Teddy Rosevelt broke up corporations, etcetera. All of the heroes of the past would have be considered RINOs today. In fact, measured against President Obama's rather tepid response to the financial industry's riot of corruption, they would be considered socialists.
And don't get me started on Jesus of Nazareth, who gave out free healthcare and wouldn't shut the hell up about poor people. You would have hated him.
and a Nazi sympathizer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So he was a socialist then.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Ford wasn't on record advocating the private/public mix of Nazism, but boy did he hate them Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Like I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But what do I know? I still have duck cloaca on my mind.
Wait, so Jew-hating means socialism? Man, I can't keep up with the latest wingnut re-definitions of language.
Maybe it would be simpler if we could get a list of what isn't socialism.
Hmm, wikipedia says on Fordism that his idea (and his payment-policy) was mainly that he wanted his workers as consumers, i.e. he wanted them to have enough money to be able to afford his cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Nothing wrong with that so far. But IMHO this works only as long as you´re focusing mainly on selling things in your own town. If your business grows to a point where you have to sell your goods in completely different regions or continents, the whole idea won´t work anymore.
Political fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
"Leftism"(I'll assume you refer to social democracy) isn't about chqrity in any way, it's abiut maximizing profit for society. The difference between it and free market nonsense is that a social democrat believes that sustainable, long-term growth can only occur when all classes grow at about the same pace. Like how Henry Ford believed that he could only make money if he also made sure his workers made money. Which makes him a social democratic poster boy.
He shouldn't be used as a reference outside his role as an industrialist, however, seeing as he was a paranoid jew-hating scumbag...
And we'll all need unions, both employers and employees, as long as we negotiate our wages every year. Which means forever.
Try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Unions have the same problem that guilds did centuries ago. They've become too big, too self-important, too focused on their expansion and collection of dues. Members are nothing more than meal tickets to them, and union bosses are no better than the corporate execs.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Ford had his good and bad side.
To say that he was "anti union" is a bit of an understatement. The dude had the largest civilian security force in the history of the USA up until he was surpassed by modern contractors like BH and KBR. Those "security personnel" travelled the land and broke the spirit and the bodies of people, their forces comprised of big, dumb goons like former athletes, soldiers and criminals/ex cons.
Old man Ford would not fire their ringleader, Harry Bennet, who stayed with the company until Old Ford stepped down after replacing Edsel after his death. At this point Old Ford was senile and wanted to make Bennett the new President in place of Edsel, and Old Ford took over as interim in the meantime. The company was doing so poorly under senile Ford(even as a war supplier, losing money hand over fist) there was talk of government takeover in the financial sector so as not to disrupt supply lines. The board fo directors and Edsels widow successfully pushed for Henry II, edsels son, to be put in as President once he returned from the fighting.
His first act as new president was to fire Bennett and most of his goons. Bennett, an ungrateful draft dodger whose biggest claim to fame was having big biceps and being a hard puncher, engaged in a smear campaign against a recently returned US Navy combat vet, accusing him of not having any real world experience and having never contributed to the company. He quickly faded into history, the murderous goon that he was.
I can only imagine what Ford would have become had Bennett taken over. Also of note, Bennett apparently caused Edsel a lot of headache, but his father would not let him fire Bennet, and upon Edsels death his widow claimed that it was the stress brought on by Bennett and his merciless goons that led to Edsels demise (he dies of cancer)
Thats your history lesson for today, kids
That and cars are a direct consumer item. Paying workers higher for the production of Steel and Oil wouldn't have benefitted Carnegie and Rockefeller in the same way as it did for Ford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haudegen
I also have a feeling that Democrats of yesteryear would also be DINOs for not doing anything about the repression of LGBT people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You move the tax base and you neglect the city proper.
White flight is not about race. It's about the complete breakdown of community in Americas urban areas. Sure allot of the victims are black but that is just happenstance.
I can expand on this, but most of you are idiots
Honest question, how was the breakdown of community not related to, or caused by, racial tensions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Dude, I am 8 shades of drunk right now. Can I give you a reading list?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
In America it is colored by race, no doubt. But racial tensions are merley a symptom. Using the "other" is a convient excuse to move the tax base and stifle social mobility
Kk, I will start googling some info on my own. Continue drinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
You have no idea what you are googiling
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defc...colorline.html
How The Irish Became White Noel Ignatiev
White Flight: Atlanta and the making of Modern Conservatism Kevin Kruze
Playing Indian Tom Deloria
All of these should be read with Hegel in mind
Well, I mean, I do have People's History on my bookshelf. But thank you for helping me find the relevant section in this 600+ page book (I don't think I even finished it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I added more
These are just to help you think about why there is a divide and how that divide shapes out looks on governance.
A people history should be requried reading in all high schools, it was in mine.
I have never been to the US, so I can't comment on the situation there, but that description of unions is about as far from the situation here as one can get.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
So, obviously, the solution to the union problems in the US is to become a social democracy and ditch the ideologically blinded libertardians.
Edit: also, one more comment on the right/left-divide... If the difference is that the left wants the state to fix it, and the right wants individuals to fix it, you have just claimed that communism is a right-wing ideology....
unfortunately rvg's statement is pretty much true here as well... at least with the bigger unions
Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Dude. Wake up. Your neighborhood goes to ****. You are going to leave the first chyance you get. It doesn't matter who the criminals are, it doesn't matter why the property values are low, it doesn't matter why your insurance is higher to run a business. It is what it is. You are going to leave.
And for that, apparently, you are a racist.
Must be nice. Aside from the "take everything you can get NOW" mentality, do a google of "mob ties to unions" for a laugh. The public image of unions in the US is low for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
...and that is a problem with the free market society, it has nothing to do with unions. That attitude is of course the attitude all of your CEO's have as well - are they behaving like that because of the unions? Will a CEO fire a divison or two so the stock price will rise enough unlock his bonus because his workers are unionized? And the mob has ties to all levels of the society the operate in, of course they have ties to unions as well if they operate in the same area.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Funny that the two countries with the most advanced state of free market-thinking, the US and UK, has the most problems with unions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Why is it that you guys have a problem that the social democracies in europe doesn't have?
Because Americans are entitled buttholesQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I once dated a girl in a union. She demanded a 10 minute break during sex, and she was impossible to break up with.
Italy, Greece also manage to have lots of problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Your choice appears more determined by countries that do things the "wrong" way.
~:smoking:
Did you misinterpret my post, or are you seriously suggesting that the main cause of the problems in Italy and Greece is their unions...?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
no he was pointing out that "Why is it that you guys have a problem that the social democracies in europe doesn't have?" isn't very accurate - there a plenitude of countries in Europe who have problems with Unions ranging from France to the UK
I recall reading somehwere several years ago that the majority of GMs pension healthcare funds went to pay for retirees. Pensions are practically not even an option any more these days outside of government jobs, and this is a prime example of why. The unions managed to get fabulous benefits packages for the employees at a level that was quite frankly unsustainable and -- dare I say it -- idiotic, as a company in a "capitalist" society, whose financial security will be at the whims of the market.
And the paperwork is in, Detroit officially files for bankruptcy.
Creditors and pension plans unwilling to take 10 cents on the dollar will now get next to nothing. And this might start a wave with other cities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqGk8B9NnXY
$15 billion in debt. How do they expect to pay for any future service except in cold hard cash?
I assume the city pensions are all the civil servants ie firemen, police, teachers, nurses, garbage collectors, I wonder it the senior management and city accountants and lawyers belong to the same pension funds...
It is rather odd that the unions get all the blame.
The big3 spent better than 20 years making crap no one wanted...it was crap.
So what about the failure of the captains of industry? What about the execs cruising to retirement and gold-plated pensions?
Even if the unions had played along, it would not have changed the fact the big3 were producing garbage, which they foisted on consumers-relying on rep and brand loyalty.
A pox on both their houses :p
In ten to twenty years when everything is sold off or what it is that financial people do with broken cities, I will take advantage and buy a three story Victorian house for $120,000.
I wouldn't worry about this. Pretty soon Omni Consumer Products should bail out the city. Shortly after, we can expect Robocop to be keeping the streets of Old Detroit safe while they construct Delta City.
I've always had a soft spot for ED-209.
Warning: clip contains outrageous, over-the-top gore.
http://youtu.be/fDmcX4VWxmc
I don't know any reasonable American citizen that wouldn't condone the use of ED-209 on most politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Detroit is one of the main reasons that I am horrified of the Democratic party. Honestly, I don't believe that charity has much of a place in government unless it serves a larger social function. However, It seems that too many Conservatives internalize their laissez faire attitude beyond the political application and harden their hearts. It is tempting to do an hard to resist, but it is thoroughly corrupt and inarguably un-Christian. Personally, I don't have much patience for American poor, too often their plight is a result of carelessness, obsession with vice and trivialties, and self-deceit. I focus more of my energies toward the global poor who actually NEED us to help break their Master's backs and show them a new way.
Anyway, I don't hold American poor in contempt and man in need is still a man. poison
of character is a frustrating thing to fight, but these people have a different master keeping them down; themselves. They still need our help, especially when other Americans are all too happy to exploit them endlessly and keep the vicious cycle on repeat
Wait, it was the government that went bankrupt, why is it a discussion of the poor?
They taxed themselves out of existence. They could not operate any longer on promises and raising taxes. They went from a population of around 2 million to 700,000.
Jobs left the area so people had to follow. Not all can be laid at the feet of the city government, the national government played a part to, as did the fall of manufacturing jobs but much of that was all intertwined.
My heart goes out to all the pensioners who are now left with almost nothing. They also had to pay in their money to retirement funds but have now lost it.
It could happen elsewhere too. Is Social Security much better off?
Taxes only contributed to Detroit's problem. People didn't leave the city because of high taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
On a side note, I find it funny property taxes in the city of Detroit are often more than the homes themselves! Why anyone would pay high taxes to live in residential cease pool is beyond me.
I 100% disagree. Almost all the blame can be placed on the city government. Jobs and people left Detroit BECAUSE of the city government and corrupt, incompetent, and often racist leadership. There is a reason why Southeastern Michigan is and will continue to be much better than the city of Detroit itself. Jobs (for the most part) didn't disappear, but simply move to the more friendly suburbs. There is absolutely no reason to set up shop or continue to operate a business within the city. I still work on a few clients located within the city and I admire their loyalty.Quote:
Jobs left the area so people had to follow. Not all can be laid at the feet of the city government, the national government played a part to, as did the fall of manufacturing jobs but much of that was all intertwined.
On one hand I feel bad because a lot of people aren't financially savvy. On the other, anyone who did any kind of research or paid attention what was going on in Detroit could have seen this coming 20 years ago.Quote:
My heart goes out to all the pensioners who are now left with almost nothing. They also had to pay in their money to retirement funds but have now lost it.
Yes. Social Security is still solvent and will be for years to come.Quote:
It could happen elsewhere too. Is Social Security much better off?
•Obama’s weekly address, October 13, 2012: “We refused to throw in the towel and do nothing. We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt.”
Yesterday was an illusion created by that conservative over there behind the curtain. Didn't really happen. Clearly, nearly a year ago, Obama saved Detroit.
All this happened once before, 40 years ago. Now we find it easier to build new than to renew. It's happened prior to that to a smaller degree in every American manufacturing center. It was only slowed down in Detroit 40 years ago because the unions made all their workers put MY CAR WILL EAT YOUR IMPORT bumper stickers on their cars.Quote:
On one hand I feel bad because a lot of people aren't financially savvy. On the other, anyone who did any kind of research or paid attention what was going on in Detroit could have seen this coming 20 years ago.
This has been making the rounds on Facebook, so I looked up the transcripts. It's pretty obvious that Obama was referencing the Big 3, i.e., Chrysler, GM, and Ford, with the shorthand of "Detroit."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lurker Below
All politicians do this. When Mitt Romney wrote his op-ed titled Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, he was not referencing the city itself, but using the common shorthand for the established American automakers. This practice is so common it should be beneath comment. And yet ...
This is about as deliberate a misreading of the President's words since "you didn't build that," when he was clearly and obviously talking about roads, bridges, and infrastructure.
Just drives home the reality that some folks need to construct an largely fictional Obama to hate.
As for the actual city of Detroit, the two people I know from there have an interesting attitude, very fatalistic about the whole thing.
What's the attitude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
They're just kind of non-reactive about it. It's a husband and wife whom I've known for a couple of decades, and Detroit is very much their home. But their take on the whole bankruptcy can be best summed up as "meh."Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Which is surprising, at least to me. I spent a large chunk of my life in Chicago, and if you told me Chicago was falling to ruin I'd be a little upset. I have many good memories from that town.
So I find their attitude, this mix of "whatever" and "yeah that's been coming for a long time" kind of ... well, I'm not sure what I think of it.
That's pretty much how I feel. The city has had such obvious problems for decades, yet no one did anything about it. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
So is meh denial or acceptance?
Or do they expect someone to bail out a city of the poor like a corporation of the rich?
Well, Poors don't get bail outs so....
Can someone explain to me what's actually happened here, what it means, and what happens now?
Does this mean, for example, that the Detroit PD will close? Or is it just investments like pensions that are wiped out?
The right wing cites 50 years of Democrats in office but it has to be more than that.
The city put all its eggs in the Auto Corps’ basket. Then they skipped town with most of the jobs, moving to the south and after NAFTA to Mexico, and now on to China and elsewhere.
I mostly wanted to know what those who live there thought about it. Meh seems to be about it.
OK - maybe I didn't make myself clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
How can a city go "bankrupt"?
I don't mean "how can they make bad investments" I mean "how can the machinery of government go bankrupt"
I don't understand.
Try here, but you may need to do a lot of reading before you find what you're looking for.
http://www.cml.org/uploadedFiles/CML...eral_bonds.pdf
They rely on long term loans to pay expenses and can't repay them. The borrowing has been going on so long and so much that their annual loan repayments were nearly 480 million. They owed $33 for every $1 in assets back in 2011. Probably even worse now. This is to over 75,000 different creditors. They ran out of people wiling to loan them money.
Even though the governor backs this move, a meaningless county judge is trying to stop it. His motions don't have authority, but perhaps a higher court might get ideas?
That's a political document.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I want to know what's going on.
In the UK - a city cannot go bankrupt - the loans would be covered by central government and the City Council would lose control of spending until the Council was made solvent. The bills would still be paid.
So - what's going on?
Pretty much the same here. In fact, councils must report their budgets to central government and if a municipality continues to run a structural budget deficit for some time central government will appoint a curator to take control of spending and assume responsibility for fixing the budget. Being officially relegated to that category is sufficiently painful for local politicians to come to agreements quickly in order to avoid it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Acceptance. It more a matter of when than if.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Corporation of the rich? Bailing out General Motors helped the entire Midwest, specially southeastern Michigan. Part of federal assistance required gutting the entire senior management. Our economy would look pretty scary if General Motors had flat out went bankrupt without government assistance. I would think unemployment (already above the national average) would be double what it is now. I'm not sure I'd even have a job.Quote:
Or do they expect someone to bail out a city of the poor like a corporation of the rich?
That being said, I would think the federal government does not want to start precedent and start bailing out cities. I mean, what would stop half the cities in California for asking for the same treatment?
Lots of litigation will happen. Creditors will get paid off in order according to federal bankruptcy law resulting in a lot of unhappy people getting pennies on the dollar. Hopefully, this means a fresh start for Detroit, resulting in tax revenue being reinvested into the city and not used to pay crushing debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
See my links on the first page of this thread. A combination of corruption, a shrinking tax base, mismanagement, and making promises that you can't keep.Quote:
OK - maybe I didn't make myself clear.
How can a city go "bankrupt"?
I suppose I just have a problem with the State of Federal Government letting the municipal government actually default - given that you have a process to bail out business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Like I said - it literally can't happen here, lights stay on no matter what, the whole City Council could go to gaol and you'd see no difference on the street.
If we're going to invoke White Flight, can we also invoke the failure of majority black governance? Wherever it emerges, trouble ensues. Plenty of cities have lost major employers, and plenty have reemerged stronger than before. Very few have responded with violence, riots, and wanton acts of destruction aimed at themselves. These people have turned themselves into third world animals, and state control was long, long overdue.
America or Somalia... maybe Lincoln was right after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xypiZ-hqdY