Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Duke - is denninger accurate in what he says about governments printing money to pay their debts?
The Potential End Of America's Government
Added: September 17, 2008 Kind of a drama queen, but that is what we currently are doing - increasing the money supply to offset deflationary forces.
At some point, this weakens the dollar and results in higher interest rates and inflation. In the meantime, offsetting forces are keeping those things in check. I don't think comparing the US to Zimbabwe is a good indication of things to come, however. [/QUOTE]Perhaps the Zimbabwe example is extreme. I certainly hope so. Duke is correct. We are trying desperately to offset deflationary forces. It's inevitable they will over shoot. To undershoot wouldn't cure the problem so over shoot they will. When they do they will debase the $ create probably wild inflation (hope I'm wrong) and get rid of their debts by making the $ amount of them less by making the $ worth less making the repayment of debts easier. Under this condition holding cash as Warren Buffet says would be the wrong thing to do. "Stuff" particularly gold will be the things to own as it will take more and more $'s to buy that "stuff". Again I've been wrong in the past and may be wrong again. I very much like to be right, but in all honesty, not this time. I do see inflation much higher than in the 70's and sometimes once it really gets going it feeds on itself. this is what the Europeans have been worried about incorrectly for years. They do have experience at it though after 2 world wars and can be forgiven for fearing it more then we do here.
Stock Market
Stock Market
I agree completely, Dave. The Fed does not fix problems, they overfix problems. A nice economy has few ebbs and flows and purrs like a Porsche (are they in trouble too?).
This economy is frought with volitility, the ebb is here with recession, and with the Feds help, the flow of inflation will soon follow.
With Pelosi's doggedness to give automakers more money, it only makes me wonder how much her pockets (purse) will be lined.
This economy is frought with volitility, the ebb is here with recession, and with the Feds help, the flow of inflation will soon follow.
With Pelosi's doggedness to give automakers more money, it only makes me wonder how much her pockets (purse) will be lined.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stock Market
With Pelosi's doggedness to give automakers more money, it only makes me wonder how much her pockets (purse) will be lined.
Seems a bit harsh to me. Even if you disagree with giving them the money (as I do), it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. That is to say that even if you disagree with that line of thinking, you can understand how someone might have it, I think.
Seems a bit harsh to me. Even if you disagree with giving them the money (as I do), it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. That is to say that even if you disagree with that line of thinking, you can understand how someone might have it, I think.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
This is a fascinating conversation and I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, I was a union member for 23 years (I dropped out a year ago due to local political intrigues, rather than philosophical differences). On the other hand, I have a foot in the door of the entrepeneurial world, as my wife owns two small boutique's in a souring economy. Somewhat surprisingly her stores are doing quite well. Whether that continues remains to be seen, but it begs the question: Why is a business that relies on disposable income in great measure still thriving? Is it simply because even in an environment where the sky appears to be falling, women will make sure they have a protective umbrella that matches their shoes? (Umm, I wouldn't repeat that in mixed company unless like me you have a large couch to sleep on!) Seriously, her stores are succeeding despite the economic odds because of her business model. Unlike Detroit, she's giving her very fickle market what they want. Trendy fashion at affordable prices, taking less mark-up to move inventory. It's always been her model, even in good economic times, but seems to be gaining more traction in the current circumstances. That being said, I'd love to support the UAW but they're not giving me what I want. I own a Toyota and a Buick and when it comes time to cough up another 20-30 grand, I'm buying a Toyota. They make a better product and in my opinion their planned obsolescence is set much further out than Detroit's. In other words, you can wait an extra few years before buying a new car if you want or need to.( The executive leadership in Detroit all appear to be graduates of the Monty Burns School of Business Management!) If they want my business back they might start by showing more confidence in their products. Give me a safe, economical, reliable automobile with a 10 year bumber to bumper warrantee and I'll give them a shot again. The warrantee might be expensive (consider it a loss leader), but less expensive than losing more market share. I'm not sure throwing money at Detroit will help them while the culture that created their problems is still in place.
As for society's economic macro's as it relates to Detroit and others (sadly I didn't get an invite to AIG's party either), I just don't know the answers. I move from sound bite to sound bite and get even more confused. I've always been better at assembling a fantasy baseball team than a stock portfolio. Being raised in the shadow of Yankee Stadium by depression era parents can to that to a person. But I do love listening in on this conversation. You needn't apologize Dan for bringing up the subject, we've got plenty of time until the first pitch.
As for society's economic macro's as it relates to Detroit and others (sadly I didn't get an invite to AIG's party either), I just don't know the answers. I move from sound bite to sound bite and get even more confused. I've always been better at assembling a fantasy baseball team than a stock portfolio. Being raised in the shadow of Yankee Stadium by depression era parents can to that to a person. But I do love listening in on this conversation. You needn't apologize Dan for bringing up the subject, we've got plenty of time until the first pitch.
bob
Stock Market
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:With Pelosi's doggedness to give automakers more money, it only makes me wonder how much her pockets (purse) will be lined.
Seems a bit harsh to me. Even if you disagree with giving them the money (as I do), it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. That is to say that even if you disagree with that line of thinking, you can understand how someone might have it, I think. [/QUOTE]Really. Must be my growing distrust of politicians. And I must admit her policies, arrogance, her very voice annoys me to no end. If she was as adamant about saving a botox factory, I would completely understand.
Championing the cause for American auto makers would taste better if it came from a represenitive from Michigan. Although, this is clearly a national problem, having Pelosi spearhead the argument for a bailout leaves me feeling uneasy.
Why are Congress and the Fed linking the Big Three together? The grouping sounds better?
A compromise of helping GM and Ford, while not helping Chrysler may send a message that the Fed won't help everyone in trouble. And that a company such as Chrysler, who has failed before, cannot expect to be backstopped. Just a thought.
[ November 16, 2008, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
quote:With Pelosi's doggedness to give automakers more money, it only makes me wonder how much her pockets (purse) will be lined.
Seems a bit harsh to me. Even if you disagree with giving them the money (as I do), it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. That is to say that even if you disagree with that line of thinking, you can understand how someone might have it, I think. [/QUOTE]Really. Must be my growing distrust of politicians. And I must admit her policies, arrogance, her very voice annoys me to no end. If she was as adamant about saving a botox factory, I would completely understand.
Championing the cause for American auto makers would taste better if it came from a represenitive from Michigan. Although, this is clearly a national problem, having Pelosi spearhead the argument for a bailout leaves me feeling uneasy.
Why are Congress and the Fed linking the Big Three together? The grouping sounds better?
A compromise of helping GM and Ford, while not helping Chrysler may send a message that the Fed won't help everyone in trouble. And that a company such as Chrysler, who has failed before, cannot expect to be backstopped. Just a thought.
[ November 16, 2008, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stock Market
And I must admit her policies, arrogance, her very voice annoys me to no end. I suppose you must just be an objective liberal. 
A compromise of helping GM and Ford, while not helping Chrysler may send a message that the Fed won't help everyone and that if you've failed before we won't continually backstop a company. Not the worst idea I've ever heard. Also, letting one company fail would conceivably help the other two.
Great post, Spartacus.
A compromise of helping GM and Ford, while not helping Chrysler may send a message that the Fed won't help everyone and that if you've failed before we won't continually backstop a company. Not the worst idea I've ever heard. Also, letting one company fail would conceivably help the other two.
Great post, Spartacus.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
Why are Congress and the Fed linking the Big three together? The grouping sounds better? To my knowledge, GM and Ford has not failed before this year, while Chrysler has gone down twice. A compromise of helping GM and Ford, while not helping Chrysler may send a message that the Fed won't help everyone and that if you've failed before we won't continually backstop a company. Just a thought. [/QB]Based on my current career working for one of the Big 3 automakers for the past 5+ years, I find myself feeling obligated to offer some insight and opinion. Let me preface my remarks by stating that for the past five years, I have proudly worked for Ford and Ford Motor Credit in the rolls of Labor Relations, HR and operations. I like to think that I have some credibility in discussing the automotive industry and can do so with some objectivity; but you will see that I am probably guilty of bleeding the Ford Blue almost as much as I do Dodger Blue.
Let me start with a little bit of background. First, yes the US auto industry shot itself in the proverbial foot by failing to maintain a strong diversified portfolio of both cars and large vehicles, as well as failing to maintain leadership in the quality of cars built in the 1990s and early 2000s in North America. Allowing the best-selling Taurus to deteriorate its position in the market in favor of exclusively focusing resources on SUVs and trucks was a significant management error, in hindsight. At the time, they were building the large trucks and SUVs that everyone wanted. Additionally, Ford, and the rest of the “Big-3” failed to take advantage of global economies of scales in both production and R&D. Unfortunately, Ford failed to address these problems until late 2006. And the failure to do so was in my opinion clearly a matter of leadership at the highest levels.
However, when the new CEO, Alan Mulally from Boeing, took over in late 2006, he quickly moved to fix these mistakes and by all accounts had Ford not only on the road to profitability by 2009. (Note, that when Bill Ford left the post of CEO, he was not taking a salary and exited without any type of golden-parachute.) I could list all of the major changes initiated by Mulally, but two things standout as significant to me- the huge “home mortgage” of $28+ Billion dollars to ensure liquidity taken out by Mulally and his ability to lead an organization as large and global as Ford. External signs of success include the facts that JD Power rates Ford’s car quality on par or exceeding Toyota and Honda in 2007 and 2008, and that Ford stock remained steady at $8 from Oct 2006 through April of 2008. When a company takes out $28 Billion in debt, stock prices should decrease significantly due to the fact the creditors are ahead of shareholders. Absent very significant economic issues, and Ford reverses the recent errors including the development of a diversified, quality product portfolio. Thankfully, the foresight to go to the credit market earlier as opposed to later, positions Ford to come out the other end of this mess with a global platform, new products that customers want, and the right capacity and size to be successful.
Then comes Spring/Summer 2008 and the price of oil goes from $80 to $140 a barrel and a gallon of gas stays steady above $3.50 per gallon. When the price of gas stayed above $3.50, the sale of trucks and SUVs quit declining on a linear basis, hit an inflexion point and quite literally bottomed-out. Ford responded swifter than even Toyota by accelerating the reduction of large vehicles capacity and increasing that of the small vehicle production. Higher gas prices were predictable, but the increase to $140/barrel was not based on supply/demand but on speculators creating a bubble and driving up the price for all of us. These inflated gas prices also destroyed the auction values of lease and repossessed vehicles upon return to the dealerships.
Then there was the housing and financial industry meltdown. This crushed demand for vehicles for all companies. It is extremely tough to get financing for a vehicle in this market, and that is not a function of anything Ford has done. (GM owned GMAC which financed a ton of home mortgages, so I can not say the same for them). Also of note is that both Toyota and Honda have lost half their respective market cap in the past year. Industry demand for all vehicles in NA is down 2,000,000 vehicles or 14% YTD. Given an assembly plant produces 200,000 vehicles per year, you have an over capacity of 10 plants. Even Blue Chip companies like Google, GE, and Microsoft are being crushed in the market by the recent events.
The equity market made Ford pay for its recent management sins. And customers have been voting with their wallets. Owners, business leaders and employees have also paid for the past mistakes. However, the story being told today is significantly more complicated than the over generalization of “incompetent management”.
With that information, let me get to the opinion part of the presentation. I hate that we have to bailout AIG, investment and commercial banks, as well as auto industry. I was an economics major in college and a business school graduate (Vandy is bowl eligible!) And like everyone else that has posted in this thread, my family lives within their means (otherwise I might be playing 10 fantasy teams including the ultimate and supers!), took out a responsible mortgage and have been saving for kids college and retirement. Now, I see all my saving down 40-50%, face another round of layoffs, let alone wages not keeping pace with inflation.
Despite my free-market beliefs, allowing financial firms and major manufactures to fail will only put all of us in a deeper trouble than we already are. Whether we pay via taxes, uncontrollable inflation, or more loss of equity, John-Q Public is going to be cleaning up the mess of others. Thus, I have to vote for government doing something, as opposed to nothing at all.
If the government fails to offer a loan to the auto industry, GM will likely fall first and despite the likelihood of industry capacity being “right-sized”, Ford, Chrysler, and a large number of suppliers will follow. It is estimated that 2.5 to 3.0 million jobs are directly related to the Big 3. And again, it is not just the domestic autos that will suffer; foreign automakers use the same suppliers that will no longer be able to make ends meet. And if those jobs go, so do those of millions more in other industries due to decrease in demand for other goods and services. It is a perpetual spiral that would take decades to reverse.
If you take nothing else out of my response, just note that not all of the Big 3 are in the same place. Ford was well on the way to righting the ship when these market shocks of $140 oil and financial services collapses hit. Should they have been in the place where they need to right the ship to begin with? No. But all companies hit rough patches. Apple is a great example of that. Has Ford taken the necessary steps to be successful? My opinion is yes; otherwise I would be working elsewhere. Thus, if Ford needed
And in the spirit of being self-serving ,and in order to help change the negative perception, I would encourage everyone to read the independent reports from JD Powers on the current quality of Ford products, remember that Ford has built the best truck on the market for 30+ years, and go test drive the new Ford Flex, Ford Edge and the new cars coming in 2009 and 2010. Finally, if anyone is in the market for a new vehicle, PM me. I can share my employee discount with friends and family, and I will give you my honest opinion on any of the Ford’s products.
[ November 16, 2008, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Asumijet ]
Why are Congress and the Fed linking the Big three together? The grouping sounds better? To my knowledge, GM and Ford has not failed before this year, while Chrysler has gone down twice. A compromise of helping GM and Ford, while not helping Chrysler may send a message that the Fed won't help everyone and that if you've failed before we won't continually backstop a company. Just a thought. [/QB]Based on my current career working for one of the Big 3 automakers for the past 5+ years, I find myself feeling obligated to offer some insight and opinion. Let me preface my remarks by stating that for the past five years, I have proudly worked for Ford and Ford Motor Credit in the rolls of Labor Relations, HR and operations. I like to think that I have some credibility in discussing the automotive industry and can do so with some objectivity; but you will see that I am probably guilty of bleeding the Ford Blue almost as much as I do Dodger Blue.
Let me start with a little bit of background. First, yes the US auto industry shot itself in the proverbial foot by failing to maintain a strong diversified portfolio of both cars and large vehicles, as well as failing to maintain leadership in the quality of cars built in the 1990s and early 2000s in North America. Allowing the best-selling Taurus to deteriorate its position in the market in favor of exclusively focusing resources on SUVs and trucks was a significant management error, in hindsight. At the time, they were building the large trucks and SUVs that everyone wanted. Additionally, Ford, and the rest of the “Big-3” failed to take advantage of global economies of scales in both production and R&D. Unfortunately, Ford failed to address these problems until late 2006. And the failure to do so was in my opinion clearly a matter of leadership at the highest levels.
However, when the new CEO, Alan Mulally from Boeing, took over in late 2006, he quickly moved to fix these mistakes and by all accounts had Ford not only on the road to profitability by 2009. (Note, that when Bill Ford left the post of CEO, he was not taking a salary and exited without any type of golden-parachute.) I could list all of the major changes initiated by Mulally, but two things standout as significant to me- the huge “home mortgage” of $28+ Billion dollars to ensure liquidity taken out by Mulally and his ability to lead an organization as large and global as Ford. External signs of success include the facts that JD Power rates Ford’s car quality on par or exceeding Toyota and Honda in 2007 and 2008, and that Ford stock remained steady at $8 from Oct 2006 through April of 2008. When a company takes out $28 Billion in debt, stock prices should decrease significantly due to the fact the creditors are ahead of shareholders. Absent very significant economic issues, and Ford reverses the recent errors including the development of a diversified, quality product portfolio. Thankfully, the foresight to go to the credit market earlier as opposed to later, positions Ford to come out the other end of this mess with a global platform, new products that customers want, and the right capacity and size to be successful.
Then comes Spring/Summer 2008 and the price of oil goes from $80 to $140 a barrel and a gallon of gas stays steady above $3.50 per gallon. When the price of gas stayed above $3.50, the sale of trucks and SUVs quit declining on a linear basis, hit an inflexion point and quite literally bottomed-out. Ford responded swifter than even Toyota by accelerating the reduction of large vehicles capacity and increasing that of the small vehicle production. Higher gas prices were predictable, but the increase to $140/barrel was not based on supply/demand but on speculators creating a bubble and driving up the price for all of us. These inflated gas prices also destroyed the auction values of lease and repossessed vehicles upon return to the dealerships.
Then there was the housing and financial industry meltdown. This crushed demand for vehicles for all companies. It is extremely tough to get financing for a vehicle in this market, and that is not a function of anything Ford has done. (GM owned GMAC which financed a ton of home mortgages, so I can not say the same for them). Also of note is that both Toyota and Honda have lost half their respective market cap in the past year. Industry demand for all vehicles in NA is down 2,000,000 vehicles or 14% YTD. Given an assembly plant produces 200,000 vehicles per year, you have an over capacity of 10 plants. Even Blue Chip companies like Google, GE, and Microsoft are being crushed in the market by the recent events.
The equity market made Ford pay for its recent management sins. And customers have been voting with their wallets. Owners, business leaders and employees have also paid for the past mistakes. However, the story being told today is significantly more complicated than the over generalization of “incompetent management”.
With that information, let me get to the opinion part of the presentation. I hate that we have to bailout AIG, investment and commercial banks, as well as auto industry. I was an economics major in college and a business school graduate (Vandy is bowl eligible!) And like everyone else that has posted in this thread, my family lives within their means (otherwise I might be playing 10 fantasy teams including the ultimate and supers!), took out a responsible mortgage and have been saving for kids college and retirement. Now, I see all my saving down 40-50%, face another round of layoffs, let alone wages not keeping pace with inflation.
Despite my free-market beliefs, allowing financial firms and major manufactures to fail will only put all of us in a deeper trouble than we already are. Whether we pay via taxes, uncontrollable inflation, or more loss of equity, John-Q Public is going to be cleaning up the mess of others. Thus, I have to vote for government doing something, as opposed to nothing at all.
If the government fails to offer a loan to the auto industry, GM will likely fall first and despite the likelihood of industry capacity being “right-sized”, Ford, Chrysler, and a large number of suppliers will follow. It is estimated that 2.5 to 3.0 million jobs are directly related to the Big 3. And again, it is not just the domestic autos that will suffer; foreign automakers use the same suppliers that will no longer be able to make ends meet. And if those jobs go, so do those of millions more in other industries due to decrease in demand for other goods and services. It is a perpetual spiral that would take decades to reverse.
If you take nothing else out of my response, just note that not all of the Big 3 are in the same place. Ford was well on the way to righting the ship when these market shocks of $140 oil and financial services collapses hit. Should they have been in the place where they need to right the ship to begin with? No. But all companies hit rough patches. Apple is a great example of that. Has Ford taken the necessary steps to be successful? My opinion is yes; otherwise I would be working elsewhere. Thus, if Ford needed
And in the spirit of being self-serving
,and in order to help change the negative perception, I would encourage everyone to read the independent reports from JD Powers on the current quality of Ford products, remember that Ford has built the best truck on the market for 30+ years, and go test drive the new Ford Flex, Ford Edge and the new cars coming in 2009 and 2010. Finally, if anyone is in the market for a new vehicle, PM me. I can share my employee discount with friends and family, and I will give you my honest opinion on any of the Ford’s products.[ November 16, 2008, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Asumijet ]
Neal Moses
Stock Market
Jet, very thoughtful post. I too have a business management degree and a friend of mine actually works in GM's corporate headquarters. He's one of the steel experts, so he doesn't make policy, he only tests steel to make sure it's up to grade for what they need. Ironically he says GM is the strong player and would've made it before the economy completely tanked and always says Ford should just fold up it's tents. but no matter. I have followed the auto industry myself, though not working there for over 15 years. I make my living by my investments and have twice bought and sold GM always buying when things are ugly and they're losing money and sell when things get better. I've also made money on GM bonds in the past. I currently own some Ford preffered shares and just last Friday bought more GM bonds (at loose change on the $). I'm only tossing all this in as to my questionable qualifications to debate all this with you. I don't think the autos are comparable to Apple. Lots of businesses have rough spots. They either work their way out or go under. Things have worked very well for Apple after many down years. I do understand the ripple affect if even one of these goes under, although personally I like Dan's idea of letting Chrysler go just to send a message if nothing else since they are now a 3 times failure (BTW the first time I ever made $10,000 in 1 day was owning Chrysler on the day they got bailed out the second time). These companies have built over the years an unsustainable business model. They are not cost competitive with the foreigners even if the foreigners make their cars here in the U.S. Are you aware of the GM jobs bank? Basically they pay workers from plants that have closed and don't have jobs anymore. This isn't a temporary deal. It's permanent. In other words they get paid to do nothing and of course their usual union wages. It's a very tough call as to what to do. If you let them go under and all 3 will without help this time. There will be much pain for more than just auto workers. Some whole towns will dissipeer because the whole local economy depends on the local plant. It will make the nasty recession/depression even worse. Not to mention who will make tanks and other necessary items for the defense industry. Can't rely in foreigners for that. I do look back to Gekko's post earlier in this thread when he said something to the affect of if you can't rely on your principles in tough times what good are they? I do believe in creative destruction. At some point in the future good things would come of letting them go under. Throwing more money at them won't help. A prestructured bankruptcy might help if it lets them get rid of all their pension/medical obligations and able to renegotiate contracts all over the place. Not to sound particin, but the democrats won't allow this with their union ties and maybe they shouldn't. Even if they (the employees) themselves are at least partly to blame. They were led to believe they could count on this for their retirement. An awful lot of people would have a very bleak future if you just made all that stuff go away. How's this for a solution. I'm not saying it's perfect. I just came up with it. Let's see what you think. A prestructured bankruptcy for all of them. Eliminating pensions, medical obligations for retirees, and new lower contracts with the unions and maybe some bridge loans to see this through. Then emerge out of bankruptcy under better circumstances and with, I insist, new management. Though I would accept Mullally and do think he was on the right path. The government backs up all the pensions and medical that is owned. Why not they're bailing out everybody else. I realize their could be huge holes in this plan. It took me all of 10 minutes to come up with it. What do you think? It's not creative destruction and it violates my pure free enterprise beliefs so I guess I'm throwing those principles out, but it might be a reasonable compromise. Sorry for the extra long post and congrats to anybody that reads the whole thing.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 4317
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Stock Market
when is John Q Taxpayer gonna get bailed out? what about John Q Tapayer's Children? we get left cleaning up the party after everyone has left.
someone has to payback this "bailout" money. why are we pouring money into companies that are poorly run and/or crooked?????????????
congress and paulson - just keep passing the buck to the good taxpayers and our children. you know there's nothing we can do about it, except TAKE IT UP THE ASS.
someone has to payback this "bailout" money. why are we pouring money into companies that are poorly run and/or crooked?????????????
congress and paulson - just keep passing the buck to the good taxpayers and our children. you know there's nothing we can do about it, except TAKE IT UP THE ASS.
Stock Market
Originally posted by bjoak:
it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. Not unless that politian is a complete idiot, Brian. That is what happens in recessions, weakly-positioned, poorly-managed firms fail. It's also why we recover - because production of those goods moves to stronger, better-run companies.
Maybe we could send Pelosi to school to take an ECON 101 class.
[ November 16, 2008, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. Not unless that politian is a complete idiot, Brian. That is what happens in recessions, weakly-positioned, poorly-managed firms fail. It's also why we recover - because production of those goods moves to stronger, better-run companies.
Maybe we could send Pelosi to school to take an ECON 101 class.
[ November 16, 2008, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Stock Market
Asumijet - I appreciate your comments as an insider, and I don't wish anyone to lose their job. But let me address two things. First, Ford's stock price should not have dropped because they raised debt - unless investors believed they were not investing it wisely. If the new CEO was in fact re-positioning the company with some success, good for him. But many turnarounds fail, especially when they begin with a lot of debt.
On to fairness ... if the turnaround plan works, shareholders and management benefit. But they won't sent me a check if its a success, and likewise I should not send them a check via Internal Revenue if their plan doesn't work.
On to philosophy - there is only one reason taxpayers should bail out any private enterprise - if it ultimately is in their best interest --- meaning that the economic damage caused would result in greater long-term losses to taxpayers/Federal revenue. I don't believe this to be the case.
Look at the airline industry - most of those companies have been in and out of BK. And what happened ... the economy continued on, people still fly and it still does employ many workers. What else? Those executives make a lot less money, they have removed layers of middle management, and their costs are lower. All of that is good for the economy. How is the auto industry different? ... It isn't, other than it is bigger ... so you could reasonably argue, and I will, that the long-term benefit to our economy would be even bigger. Bottomline, let these companies fail, save the taypayers billions of dollars in the short-run and you create a stronger domestic auto industry for the long-run.
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. You've got to understand that any company, any industry could ask for a bailout. Thousands of small businesses will fail this year, why shouldn't we bail them out? For the same amount of taxpayer money we could save many more smaller, dynamic companies. The only reason the auto industry gets special treatment is because of union political power, not because it is in our best interests. It would be a massive failure in policy, a repudiation of our capitist system and a huge miscalculation by anyone that thinks the economy would be better off.
[ November 16, 2008, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
On to fairness ... if the turnaround plan works, shareholders and management benefit. But they won't sent me a check if its a success, and likewise I should not send them a check via Internal Revenue if their plan doesn't work.
On to philosophy - there is only one reason taxpayers should bail out any private enterprise - if it ultimately is in their best interest --- meaning that the economic damage caused would result in greater long-term losses to taxpayers/Federal revenue. I don't believe this to be the case.
Look at the airline industry - most of those companies have been in and out of BK. And what happened ... the economy continued on, people still fly and it still does employ many workers. What else? Those executives make a lot less money, they have removed layers of middle management, and their costs are lower. All of that is good for the economy. How is the auto industry different? ... It isn't, other than it is bigger ... so you could reasonably argue, and I will, that the long-term benefit to our economy would be even bigger. Bottomline, let these companies fail, save the taypayers billions of dollars in the short-run and you create a stronger domestic auto industry for the long-run.
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. You've got to understand that any company, any industry could ask for a bailout. Thousands of small businesses will fail this year, why shouldn't we bail them out? For the same amount of taxpayer money we could save many more smaller, dynamic companies. The only reason the auto industry gets special treatment is because of union political power, not because it is in our best interests. It would be a massive failure in policy, a repudiation of our capitist system and a huge miscalculation by anyone that thinks the economy would be better off.
[ November 16, 2008, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. Not unless that politian is a complete idiot, Brian. That is what happens in recessions, weakly-positioned, poorly-managed firms fail. It's also why we recover - because production of those goods moves to stronger, better-run companies.
Maybe we could send Pelosi to school to take an ECON 101 class. [/QUOTE]Well, you don't need me to tell you that if those companies become strong without having the bottom drop out of them it would be better for the economy now and in a sense later because it helps to prevent monopolization and helps to keep money and jobs from going out to other countries.
But my point was more that you can watch CNN all day and see all sorts of politicians and economists argue for and against the auto bailout. It seems unfair to say one politician is lining her pockets (purse) because she is in favor of it and pushing for it. There are plenty of people who fit that description.
quote:Originally posted by bjoak:
it seems fair for a politician to think that the economic fallout of major U.S. corporations failing right now would be very bad indeed. Not unless that politian is a complete idiot, Brian. That is what happens in recessions, weakly-positioned, poorly-managed firms fail. It's also why we recover - because production of those goods moves to stronger, better-run companies.
Maybe we could send Pelosi to school to take an ECON 101 class. [/QUOTE]Well, you don't need me to tell you that if those companies become strong without having the bottom drop out of them it would be better for the economy now and in a sense later because it helps to prevent monopolization and helps to keep money and jobs from going out to other countries.
But my point was more that you can watch CNN all day and see all sorts of politicians and economists argue for and against the auto bailout. It seems unfair to say one politician is lining her pockets (purse) because she is in favor of it and pushing for it. There are plenty of people who fit that description.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. And more to the point, no, I don't buy that. It is one more thing that has become a partisan issue, which is complete bs, but all the democrats aren't corrupt and in bed with the auto industry while all the republicans are innocent do-gooders as much as some of you guys might want to paint the picture that way.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. And more to the point, no, I don't buy that. It is one more thing that has become a partisan issue, which is complete bs, but all the democrats aren't corrupt and in bed with the auto industry while all the republicans are innocent do-gooders as much as some of you guys might want to paint the picture that way. [/QUOTE]I am non-partisan Brian. I spend my entire day analyzing companies and the economy and have no agenda to push on anyone. My only agenda is to be right, because when I am our clients generally make money.
You can find dissenting opinions on any issue among economists and politicians - on this I think you will find they are uninformed and/or pushing an agenda/ideology, or just plain bad analysts. I don't know of any economist or other professional in my business that I respect who thinks a bailout is a good idea.
[ November 16, 2008, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
quote:
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. And more to the point, no, I don't buy that. It is one more thing that has become a partisan issue, which is complete bs, but all the democrats aren't corrupt and in bed with the auto industry while all the republicans are innocent do-gooders as much as some of you guys might want to paint the picture that way. [/QUOTE]I am non-partisan Brian. I spend my entire day analyzing companies and the economy and have no agenda to push on anyone. My only agenda is to be right, because when I am our clients generally make money.
You can find dissenting opinions on any issue among economists and politicians - on this I think you will find they are uninformed and/or pushing an agenda/ideology, or just plain bad analysts. I don't know of any economist or other professional in my business that I respect who thinks a bailout is a good idea.
[ November 16, 2008, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Stock Market
I don't know of any economist or other professional in my business that I respect who thinks a bailout is a good idea.
Okay, but you are proving exactly what I am saying in your blanket statement on bailouts here. You are saying we should let the automakers fail and the business will recover in a different form which is essentially the same exact argument as saying we should let the economy fail and it will eventually recover.
So a few things: You are 100% right. No one thinks a bailout is a good idea. But at the same time a lot of people aren't as ready to take a headfirst dive to the bottom as you are so it is the lesser of two evils.
Furthermore, since the auto bailout in its current form is only comprised of money that was already designated for bailouts, your point is moot because if it wasn't this it'd be something else that you could make the same exact argument about.
I really don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do argue that there are two points of view here and that it is ridiculous to say a politician is corrupt just because she supports one of them.
Okay, but you are proving exactly what I am saying in your blanket statement on bailouts here. You are saying we should let the automakers fail and the business will recover in a different form which is essentially the same exact argument as saying we should let the economy fail and it will eventually recover.
So a few things: You are 100% right. No one thinks a bailout is a good idea. But at the same time a lot of people aren't as ready to take a headfirst dive to the bottom as you are so it is the lesser of two evils.
Furthermore, since the auto bailout in its current form is only comprised of money that was already designated for bailouts, your point is moot because if it wasn't this it'd be something else that you could make the same exact argument about.
I really don't disagree with anything you've said, but I do argue that there are two points of view here and that it is ridiculous to say a politician is corrupt just because she supports one of them.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
I didn't make the comment that she is corrupt because of this, but based on what I have seen of her on many issues I'd say she personifies what is wrong with Congress; which including selling out to the highest bidder, not comprehending many critical issues and in general constantly "playing" politics to advance herself.
Stock Market
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Asumijet - I appreciate your comments as an insider, and I don't wish anyone to lose their job. But let me address two things. First, Ford's stock price should not have dropped because they raised debt - unless investors believed they were not investing it wisely. If the new CEO was in fact re-positioning the company with some success, good for him. But many turnarounds fail, especially when they begin with a lot of debt.
Kevin- I appreciate or insight as well, just differ on the impact on the country should Big-3 not acquire these loans. Your point above is spot-on, in that the value of a company is its debt + it equity. If the debt is not invested wisely, as you point out, the value of the equity should decrease. In turnarounds when a lot of debt is put on the books and when shareholders are pushed further down the line, the value of equity historically decreases almost immediately. The fact that the market stood by Mulally and Ford until the oil and financial shocks is a testimate to the plan.
On to fairness ... if the turnaround plan works, shareholders and management benefit. But they won't sent me a check if its a success, and likewise I should not send them a check via Internal Revenue if their plan doesn't work.
I agree with you with you for the most part. Again, I strongly believe that you let customer vote with their dollars. However, in this situation the debt markets are effectively closed. The only place the Big-3 can go for the cash flow to sustain themselves through these unique times is the collective taxpayers. We entrust our Government leaders to use our tax dollars for a number of purposes for the common good. But note, the autos are asking for a loan, not a grant. The loan comes with interest, albeit not reward adequately for the implied risk. But in that temporarily floating the industry is in the best interest of the common good, we gain in other ways. If the major manufacturing base of the US is eliminated, our savings via the equity and debt markets will suffer.
On to philosophy - there is only one reason taxpayers should bail out any private enterprise - if it ultimately is in their best interest --- meaning that the economic damage caused would result in greater long-term losses to taxpayers/Federal revenue. I don't believe this to be the case.
I disagree with you here. I think the loss of 2.5 million direct jobs and that losses impact on the economy would not be in the best interest of the economy.
But lets also take a quick cost-benefit look at the loan opportunity. Lets assume for the sake of argument that taxpayers are getting 10-points less than they should be when loaning the money to the automakers. Fed loans at 2.5% and the implied risk says we should be getting 12.5%. Lets say the Fed loans the autos 75 Billion. The really cost to the tax payers is 7.5 billion. Or $3000 per the 2.5 million jobs that make $50,000 per year and pay $7000/yr in taxes. A lot of math and assumptions, but there is a reasonable business case to be made.
Look at the airline industry - most of those companies have been in and out of BK. And what happened ... the economy continued on, people still fly and it still does employ many workers. What else? Those executives make a lot less money, they have removed layers of middle management, and their costs are lower. All of that is good for the economy. How is the auto industry different? ... It isn't, other than it is bigger ... so you could reasonably argue, and I will, that the long-term benefit to our economy would be even bigger. Bottom line, let these companies fail, save the taxpayers billions of dollars in the short-run and you create a stronger domestic auto industry for the long-run.
And of course this will be our biggest point of difference. Not just because GM out paces United by 180 Billion to 20 Billion in annual revenue, but because if United or American or Northwest fail, they don't take down all the rest of the domestic airlines and their major suppliers with them. And that is how they are different. Also, BK doesn't ruin an airline. It doesn't make them less safe to fly and does not prevent them from fulfilling their commitment to the customer. You spend a few hundred on an airline ticket and the contract is finished in a few hours. You spend $10,000s of dollars on an auto and expect a commitment from the company for an average of 6-7 years.
I will point out that the autos have already cut 10,000s of jobs, decreased management and salary and cut billions out of their cost structure.
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. You've got to understand that any company, any industry could ask for a bailout.
That train left the building when we decided to bailout the financial firms and restore liquidity to our "free market". Problem is, at least for Ford, is that the same repercussions that led to the financial form bailout have crippled the auto industry. Banks are not extending the credit necessary for customers to purchase the vehicles. Ford has enough liquidity to make it through this situation. However, if GM goes down, it will take the other two US autos, suppliers with them, as well as negatively impact the foreign firms manufacturing in the US.
Thousands of small businesses will fail this year, why shouldn't we bail them out? For the same amount of taxpayer money we could save many smaller, dynamic companies. The only reason the auto industry gets special treatment is because of union political power, not because it is in our best interests. It would be a massive failure in policy, a repudiation of our capitist system and a huge miscalculation by anyone that thinks the economy would be better off.
I respect the opinion, but disagree. We don't bail out small business because the trickle down impact is not as significant. And I am not sure what special treatment is being received because of the UAW political power. Last I checked, the government was still mandating CAFE standards, safety standards, and opening our market to all manufactures in a way that China, Japan and Korea fail to do for our American manufactures.
I fail to see how a $25 to 75 Billion dollar loan in distressed times is a massive failure of public policy and repudiation of our capitalist system; so I will have to buy you a beer in Vegas and have you explain that as well as some fantasy auction strategy.
One last point- if one of the Big-3 were about to fail a year ago, absent the combined oil shock and financial system collapse, I would likely argue to let the company go down, as long as they didn’t take the rest of the industry with them. But we are at a critical point in our financial history, where we have the opportunity to learn from our experiences from the Great Depression. Government acting for the people can take actions to prevent the pains of the past. So, I don't think its quite the no-brainer for our government lead
Asumijet - I appreciate your comments as an insider, and I don't wish anyone to lose their job. But let me address two things. First, Ford's stock price should not have dropped because they raised debt - unless investors believed they were not investing it wisely. If the new CEO was in fact re-positioning the company with some success, good for him. But many turnarounds fail, especially when they begin with a lot of debt.
Kevin- I appreciate or insight as well, just differ on the impact on the country should Big-3 not acquire these loans. Your point above is spot-on, in that the value of a company is its debt + it equity. If the debt is not invested wisely, as you point out, the value of the equity should decrease. In turnarounds when a lot of debt is put on the books and when shareholders are pushed further down the line, the value of equity historically decreases almost immediately. The fact that the market stood by Mulally and Ford until the oil and financial shocks is a testimate to the plan.
On to fairness ... if the turnaround plan works, shareholders and management benefit. But they won't sent me a check if its a success, and likewise I should not send them a check via Internal Revenue if their plan doesn't work.
I agree with you with you for the most part. Again, I strongly believe that you let customer vote with their dollars. However, in this situation the debt markets are effectively closed. The only place the Big-3 can go for the cash flow to sustain themselves through these unique times is the collective taxpayers. We entrust our Government leaders to use our tax dollars for a number of purposes for the common good. But note, the autos are asking for a loan, not a grant. The loan comes with interest, albeit not reward adequately for the implied risk. But in that temporarily floating the industry is in the best interest of the common good, we gain in other ways. If the major manufacturing base of the US is eliminated, our savings via the equity and debt markets will suffer.
On to philosophy - there is only one reason taxpayers should bail out any private enterprise - if it ultimately is in their best interest --- meaning that the economic damage caused would result in greater long-term losses to taxpayers/Federal revenue. I don't believe this to be the case.
I disagree with you here. I think the loss of 2.5 million direct jobs and that losses impact on the economy would not be in the best interest of the economy.
But lets also take a quick cost-benefit look at the loan opportunity. Lets assume for the sake of argument that taxpayers are getting 10-points less than they should be when loaning the money to the automakers. Fed loans at 2.5% and the implied risk says we should be getting 12.5%. Lets say the Fed loans the autos 75 Billion. The really cost to the tax payers is 7.5 billion. Or $3000 per the 2.5 million jobs that make $50,000 per year and pay $7000/yr in taxes. A lot of math and assumptions, but there is a reasonable business case to be made.
Look at the airline industry - most of those companies have been in and out of BK. And what happened ... the economy continued on, people still fly and it still does employ many workers. What else? Those executives make a lot less money, they have removed layers of middle management, and their costs are lower. All of that is good for the economy. How is the auto industry different? ... It isn't, other than it is bigger ... so you could reasonably argue, and I will, that the long-term benefit to our economy would be even bigger. Bottom line, let these companies fail, save the taxpayers billions of dollars in the short-run and you create a stronger domestic auto industry for the long-run.
And of course this will be our biggest point of difference. Not just because GM out paces United by 180 Billion to 20 Billion in annual revenue, but because if United or American or Northwest fail, they don't take down all the rest of the domestic airlines and their major suppliers with them. And that is how they are different. Also, BK doesn't ruin an airline. It doesn't make them less safe to fly and does not prevent them from fulfilling their commitment to the customer. You spend a few hundred on an airline ticket and the contract is finished in a few hours. You spend $10,000s of dollars on an auto and expect a commitment from the company for an average of 6-7 years.
I will point out that the autos have already cut 10,000s of jobs, decreased management and salary and cut billions out of their cost structure.
This is a no-brainer, contrary to arguments you hear by those who have political or financial skin in the game. You've got to understand that any company, any industry could ask for a bailout.
That train left the building when we decided to bailout the financial firms and restore liquidity to our "free market". Problem is, at least for Ford, is that the same repercussions that led to the financial form bailout have crippled the auto industry. Banks are not extending the credit necessary for customers to purchase the vehicles. Ford has enough liquidity to make it through this situation. However, if GM goes down, it will take the other two US autos, suppliers with them, as well as negatively impact the foreign firms manufacturing in the US.
Thousands of small businesses will fail this year, why shouldn't we bail them out? For the same amount of taxpayer money we could save many smaller, dynamic companies. The only reason the auto industry gets special treatment is because of union political power, not because it is in our best interests. It would be a massive failure in policy, a repudiation of our capitist system and a huge miscalculation by anyone that thinks the economy would be better off.
I respect the opinion, but disagree. We don't bail out small business because the trickle down impact is not as significant. And I am not sure what special treatment is being received because of the UAW political power. Last I checked, the government was still mandating CAFE standards, safety standards, and opening our market to all manufactures in a way that China, Japan and Korea fail to do for our American manufactures.
I fail to see how a $25 to 75 Billion dollar loan in distressed times is a massive failure of public policy and repudiation of our capitalist system; so I will have to buy you a beer in Vegas and have you explain that as well as some fantasy auction strategy.
One last point- if one of the Big-3 were about to fail a year ago, absent the combined oil shock and financial system collapse, I would likely argue to let the company go down, as long as they didn’t take the rest of the industry with them. But we are at a critical point in our financial history, where we have the opportunity to learn from our experiences from the Great Depression. Government acting for the people can take actions to prevent the pains of the past. So, I don't think its quite the no-brainer for our government lead
Neal Moses
Stock Market
I am also non-partisan, well, unless I get personal and start talking about Bush or Pelosi. Thats the thing that has kept this thread interesting, it hasn't broken down to a political party joust.
I know that the business/financial problems get the headlines with the bailouts, 1,000 point moves on the DOW, and eroding 401k's but if the Fed had to just run the country like a business at least in some factions, I think we would could see some solid results.
I'd like to see quarterly reports from each department of the Fed detailing the outlay of monies, much like any other company. Every quarter. Social Security, Medicare, unemploment, and food stamps. Run these like insurance companies. Before mindlessly printing checks and assuming that each check goes to a person in need, run computer checks to see how long they've been receiving the checks, the amounts, and other anomalies. Send out actual people to follow up on all checks that are red flagged. Right now, we have a lot of folks that are collecting benefits that shouldn't and with the wave of others that will need help during a recession, we need to get the scammers, derelicts, and moochers off the books. These low-lifes are sucking the life out of Joe Taxpayer.
Like a well run company, the Heads of any department that is well over budget without production to show for it will be fired or demoted.
These ideas are simplistic and would probably be easy to enact, so, of course, it'll never happen. The Government does not do anything on a small scale and that brings us right back to the bailouts, 1,000 point moves on the DOW and eroding 401k's. :rolleyes:
[ November 19, 2008, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
I know that the business/financial problems get the headlines with the bailouts, 1,000 point moves on the DOW, and eroding 401k's but if the Fed had to just run the country like a business at least in some factions, I think we would could see some solid results.
I'd like to see quarterly reports from each department of the Fed detailing the outlay of monies, much like any other company. Every quarter. Social Security, Medicare, unemploment, and food stamps. Run these like insurance companies. Before mindlessly printing checks and assuming that each check goes to a person in need, run computer checks to see how long they've been receiving the checks, the amounts, and other anomalies. Send out actual people to follow up on all checks that are red flagged. Right now, we have a lot of folks that are collecting benefits that shouldn't and with the wave of others that will need help during a recession, we need to get the scammers, derelicts, and moochers off the books. These low-lifes are sucking the life out of Joe Taxpayer.
Like a well run company, the Heads of any department that is well over budget without production to show for it will be fired or demoted.
These ideas are simplistic and would probably be easy to enact, so, of course, it'll never happen. The Government does not do anything on a small scale and that brings us right back to the bailouts, 1,000 point moves on the DOW and eroding 401k's. :rolleyes:
[ November 19, 2008, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I didn't make the comment that she is corrupt because of this, but based on what I have seen of her on many issues I'd say she personifies what is wrong with Congress; which including selling out to the highest bidder, not comprehending many critical issues and in general constantly "playing" politics to advance herself. Can I get an AMEN.
I didn't make the comment that she is corrupt because of this, but based on what I have seen of her on many issues I'd say she personifies what is wrong with Congress; which including selling out to the highest bidder, not comprehending many critical issues and in general constantly "playing" politics to advance herself. Can I get an AMEN.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stock Market
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
I am also non-partisan, well, unless I get personal and start talking about Bush or Pelosi. Are you one of the 'non-partisans' who wrote in Michael Savage on your presidential ballot?
:rolleyes:
I am also non-partisan, well, unless I get personal and start talking about Bush or Pelosi. Are you one of the 'non-partisans' who wrote in Michael Savage on your presidential ballot?
:rolleyes:Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
Originally posted by bjoak:
quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
I am also non-partisan, well, unless I get personal and start talking about Bush or Pelosi. Are you one of the 'non-partisans' who wrote in Michael Savage on your presidential ballot? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]I don't know Michael Savage. With a name like that he could either be a WWF wrestler or a gay rights activist.
I left my Presidential vote empty. Until they have a candidate that I vote FOR and not against, I won't select one. The last President I voted for was Reagan.
After reading this thread, I would consider a KJ/Spartacus ticket.
quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
I am also non-partisan, well, unless I get personal and start talking about Bush or Pelosi. Are you one of the 'non-partisans' who wrote in Michael Savage on your presidential ballot?
:rolleyes: [/QUOTE]I don't know Michael Savage. With a name like that he could either be a WWF wrestler or a gay rights activist. I left my Presidential vote empty. Until they have a candidate that I vote FOR and not against, I won't select one. The last President I voted for was Reagan.
After reading this thread, I would consider a KJ/Spartacus ticket.
On my tombstone-
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Wait! I never had the perfect draft!
Stock Market
Okay, I'd say I am more or less satisfied that you are non-partisan. Kind of unusual to have such strong feelings about the gd speaker of the house unless you are die-hard for the other ticket, imo. Michael Savage is a creepy right wing talk show host whom I guess is a little east of republican at this point. I do not like creepy left wing talk shows either for the record.
You are thinking of our friend Chest Rockwell who has the name to fit a WWE gay rights activist.
You are thinking of our friend Chest Rockwell who has the name to fit a WWE gay rights activist.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Stock Market
I suppose we could run on the Free Market Labor Ticket, but what could we offer? 5 Mutual funds and a Mule 
bob
-
headhunters
- Posts: 1976
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:00 pm
Stock Market
bjoak- believe it or not- i am non partisan also- in the sense that i believe that both parties are to " blame". Regarding what you are saying about autos- you can slice it, dice it, spin it any way you want- it is socialism. one of the most important things i believe needs to happen ( but probably won't) we need to have people admit they are socialists. since you are in education- with everyone agreeing education is important- why do they costs to enter keep rising 3 -5 times the inflation rate. shouldn't we want education to be more affordable- not less. geez- if detriot was THAT inefficient over the last 20 years- autos would be $100,000 each. answer- no competition. so- is competition good or isn't it. is free enterprise good or isn't. what i am sick of is everyone saying "i am for free enterprise BUT". but this and but that. just admit you ( meaning the collective- not you bjoak) are a socialist. daly in chicago is a socialist, california is, in my opinion, the largest socialist economy in the world. is it close to bankruptcy? and you have no auto industry to blame. if ( in my opinion) pelosi and all the dems and repubs can to that to the most blessed state ( if- like i said- great schools great natural resources make you " blessed") just think what this will do for the other 49 states.
Stock Market
As I said before, I don't care if something is conservative or liberal or capitalist or socialist or communist as long as it works. I am not hung up on political terms. And I don't think your brand of McCarthyism is doing much to help this country right now (as long as we are haphazardly throwing around terms that Americans cower in fear from).
[ November 17, 2008, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
[ November 17, 2008, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: bjoak ]
Chance favors the prepared mind.