GM GM to start repaying debt to U.S.o start repaying debt to U.S.
Cliff
[
General Motors said better results will allow it to start repaying government
loans sooner than expected, although the company continued to lose money in its
first quarter since emerging from bankruptcy.
The automaker said Monday it anticipates paying $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury
in December, along with $192 million to the Canadian and Ontario governments.
GM received $6.7 billion in loans from the U.S. Treasury as part of its
bankruptcy proceedings, along with help from Canada and Ontario. But this is
only a fraction of the $50 billion in help GM received from U.S. taxpayers since
the end of 2008.
]
F. George McDuffee
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:08:03 -0500, Cliff
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/news/companies/gm_results/
>[
>General Motors said better results will allow it to start repaying government
>loans sooner than expected, although the company continued to lose money in its
>first quarter since emerging from bankruptcy.
<snip>
=============
Only in 21st century America now that the USSR is history. Theme
song is "Yes! We have no bananas."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes!_We_Have_No_Bananas#References
http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/window/media/page/0,,3042318-6231457,00.html
Actual facts are that the "new" GMC continues to lose money by
the train load when looked at in the normal way, i.e. will the
"profit" result in a stockholder dividend or even taxable income.
What is being reported as positive earnings news is EBIDTA or
earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes and amortization.
The EBE [earnings before expenses] earnings look even better...
The loan "repayments" apparently will be made from new
government [tax payer] loans.
It is one thing for the "leadership" to put out a good line, but
it is dangerous when you start believe your own B/S.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
heytwo
> He that will not apply new remedies,
> must expect new evils:
> for Time is the greatest innovator: and
> if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
> and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
> what shall be the end?
>
> Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
> Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bacon was confused , a poet . NOT new remedies ...
Accountants say Dec 2010 is the factory closing time .
They say there is no more money , not even printing billions
will keep factories open .
Congress will listen to the unemployed ...
STOP all IMPORTs
USA Toyota , Honda factories will be closed
by act of Congress in 2011 .
Next is house abandonement .
No Paycheck , No house .
The "infrastructure" IS Houses ,,,,
house building ,
house financing ,
house maintainance
Real Estate
Home Depot
Lowes
Ronald RayGun said we can exist by maintaining each other !
BET .
F. George McDuffee
=============
You may well be right.
Adlai E. Stevenson [Democratic opponent to Eisenhower in his 2
elections] used the line "old wine in new bottles" to describe
the proposed Republican party platform.
While in hindsight he appears to have been correct, however he
also appears to have been unfinished in that the Democrat party
policies were and are of similar vintage, however a spelling
error or typo may have occurred and the word intended was "whine"
not "wine."
In any event, the environment in which the United States now
finds itself is totally different from the eras and ages in which
the traditional political socio-economic elixirs, tonics,
panaceas and "pink pills for pale people," evolved/developed, and
it is not surprising these are now having no positive effect and
in many cases are, as you note, simply making a bad situation
rapidly worse in the sense that the working capital, cash
reserves and seed corn are all being rapidly consumed in a futile
effort to sustain untenable levels of affluence and conspicuous
consumption and clearly and egregiously mistaken national
policies of globalization, deindustrialization, shift to a
service/financial based economy, financial deregulation to the
point of anarchy, and loss/ceding of national sovereignty and
emigration control.
I don't mind standing on a safe spot on the shore and watching
GM, CITI, CIT, AIG, BoA, Lehman, etc. etc. etc. go over Niagara
Falls in a barrel, I just don't want to have take the ride with
them.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
Too_Many_Tools
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/news/companies/gm_results/
> >[
> >General Motors said better results will allow it to start repaying government
> >loans sooner than expected, although the company continued to lose money in its
> >first quarter since emerging from bankruptcy.
>
> nationalized toy.
LOL...actually Winston is likely correct..but for a reason he didn't
mention.
While the Government has its money there, they can determine what
executive pay will be. ;<)
God help America that the executives won't be paid their obsence
bonuses.
It is the same reason why the banks are working hard to get that TARP
money paid back.
If the executives aren't happy, nobody is going to be happy. ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 16, 8:17 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >> >http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/news/companies/gm_results/
> >> >General Motors said better results will allow it to start repaying government
> >> >loans sooner than expected, although the company continued to lose money in its
> >> >first quarter since emerging from bankruptcy.
>
> >> They are desperate to get Obama the hell out of running his new
> >> nationalized toy.
>
> >LOL...actually Winston is likely correct..but for a reason he didn't
> >mention.
>
> >While the Government has its money there, they can determine what
> >executive pay will be. ;<)
>
> developed and what doesn't. Think lots of nice little green things.
> You can buy them with a loan from GMACamma.
>
> AND - the beloved government has >> ITS << money there????? I
> thought it was taxpayer money. Just where does the Obama government
> get "its" money?
>
> Or are you talking about the stuff Helicopter Ben printed up with
> nothing to back it? Owning a press is a good thing. I bet that's
> what Little Bennie back in fifth grade thought they meant by "freedom
> of the press". Lord knows, Obama thinks it's cute.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Winston..your bitching is getting old.
If you have a better suggestion then offer it.
From what I am seeing, Obama is doing very well considering the
numerous disasters he was handed by the idiot George Bush.
Would you rather be in the midst of The Great Bush Depression?
From what I am aware of the history of the The Great Depression, what
you are advocating is what prolonged that economic disaster.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
===========
Proving yet again the old folk wisdom: (1) When you pay the
piper, you call the tune," and; (2) beggars can't be choosers."
IMNSHO -- The executives/officers/directors involved AT A MINIMUM
should have been banned from the financial services industry or
serving as an officer or "advisor" of a publicly traded company
under SEC/CFTC jurisdiction for 3 years, with the more
senior/responsible banksters and broksters banned for life.
There appears to be no reason, other than political influence,
that most of their assets have not been forfeited as the precedes
of criminal activities such as embezzlement, mail/wire fraud, tax
evasion, money laundering, and fraudulent conveyance [planned
bankruptcy/bust out scam].
cavelamb
You are a kind hearted fellow, George.
I think they should have been sentenced to two years at McDonalds.
"You want fries with that"?
F. George McDuffee
>You are a kind hearted fellow, George.
>
>I think they should have been sentenced to two years at McDonalds.
>"You want fries with that"?
=============
There is an even more serious problem than the money, which for
GMC is "only" 1.25 billion $US (on up to 50+ billion $US,
depending who is doing the accounting). This is the rapid
proliferation of "new speak" and "double think" in our political
discourse, economics, accounting and now bookkeeping, where a
reduction in the rate of loss is now seen as a gain or a profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
FWIW & IMNSHO -- if no income tax is paid on it, then it was not
a "profit." To continue on with this thought, it would appear
that corporations should be limited to paying dividends *ONLY*
from "income" on which income taxes were paid to prevent the
dissipation of working capital and the use of borrowed money to
pay stockholder "dividends," which theoretically are the
stockholders share of the corporate profits, less retained
"earnings."
By the day it is becoming clearer that the "prosperity" of the
current [and most likely the previous] generation was and is an
accountant's "wet dream" with no basis in reality, and has been
funded in large part by selling off the nation's patrimony
[manufacturing infrastructure, technology] at fire sale prices
and the "deferring" of essential maintenance on our roads,
bridges, canals, public utilities, etc.
What we are now seeing appears to be the accrual on the national
account books of all the debts that were incurred in the past but
not "booked" by the previous administrations and corporate
"leadership."
The question that we should be asking is "what went wrong, and
how can we prevent it from going wrong again," *NOT* "what did
you know and when did you know it?"
Special for John Carroll:
http://www.freep.com/article/20091117/OPINION05/91116067/1322/Restore-Glass-Steagall-protections
Restore Glass-Steagall protections
BY JOHN CONYERS JR.
This week marks an important anniversary that will go unnoticed
in many corners. Ten years ago, a little known Depression-era law
known as the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. It passed with
large margins in both houses of Congress and was signed by
President Bill Clinton. On Wall Street, the titans of capitalism
cheered while it went unnoticed by most Americans that an
important guard against financial instability and conflict of
interest had been wiped away.
The Glass-Steagall Act had a simple premise: America�s banking
sectors and investment houses need to remain separate to prevent
banks from gambling on the stock market with our savings.
President Franklin Roosevelt knew that banks, like other
institutions, could not be trusted to police themselves. After
witnessing the widespread failure of financial institutions in
the Great Depression. he recognized a firewall was needed between
the casino on Wall Street and the private investment engines of
Main Street
Unfortunately, we forgot this lesson. Without Glass-Steagall
serving as a critical check on the power of banks, the floodgates
of speculation were opened. The banks leveraged personal savings
accounts to trade in exotic securities and assets. <snip>
John R. Carroll
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:38:25 -0600, cavelamb
> <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Special for John Carroll:
>
http://www.freep.com/article/20091117/OPINION05/91116067/1322/Restore-Glass-Steagall-protections
> Restore Glass-Steagall protections
>
G/S only passed into law because the political will and capital existed to
get it through Congress.
You probably remember me mentioning that FDR had an easier time getting this
sort of thing through Congress. That has always been the reason underlying
my thinking that failure should be allowed to occur. You initially, and some
years ago, disagreed vigorously with that analysis, making your case around
the consequences. What you thought would be a bad thing had a silver lining
that was obvious to me at the time.
Had LTCM just been allowed to fall on its ass, Gramm Leach Bliley would have
been no more than a glimmer in Phil Gramm's eye and the world would be a
very different place today in both financial, banking and economic terms.
One example of that difference is the mortgage and real estate market.
Absent the cash flow and asset streams GLB flooded the markets with, few if
any of the flaky mortgages would have been done. There wouldn't have been
enough money to spur insane demand for mortgage backed securities. Followed
in reverse to the logical conclusion, real estate prices would have been
significantly more stable and that would have made the mortgages underlying
their purchase less of an onerous burden. The effect would have been the
same as an increase in real wages. That increase went, instead to people
that do transactions rather than people who make things and on that basis,
had a serious societal impact on America's future that will take a long
while to reverse. John Boggle, and manu others, weren't doing a chicken
little imitation when the said that you couldn't take 600 billion dollars
per year out of the US economy for compensation in the financial services
and banking sector for long without real consequenses to the real economy -
the one where that wealth is actually created. They were just calmly stating
a simple and obvious truth that every school kid either knows or ought to
know. Their mothers do. You can't empty the pantry faster than you fill it
forever eithout someone going hungry.
The British are breaking up their "Too Big To Fail" institutions. America is
watching but when the ass doesn't fall off of the UK's economy, and it
won't, Tim Geithner will either step up to the plate and quit coddling his
buddies or he'll be fired and replaced with someone who will. The American
Congress will either get serious about reforming financial and banking laws
and regulations or they will be out on their collective asses as well.
It isn't that to many peeps are unemployed at this point George, it's that
to few are working. Those aren't two flavors of the same thing. The
distinction has real consequences. The real test Obama faces is as the first
US president in the countries history to find himself in the position where
he literally can't afford to do whatever is deemed good for America on all
of the combined fronts without consulting the ledger first.
Such as that is great when it's by choice. By necessity, it's a prescription
for disaster, regardless the formulary or pharmacist.
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
========
If I remember my psychology and group dynamics classes correctly,
you are describing the classical "individual hitting bottom"
addiction scenario, with Greenspan, "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke,
"Bazooka" Paulson, et al. acting as "enablers."
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/enabler.htm
http://www.cyberrecovery.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4909
http://www.lovefirst.net/xarticles/article2.htm
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/enablers-addictions-codependency-faq.htm
This whole recession/depression thing now appears to be far more
of a group/individual mental health problem than a
financial/fiscal problem, with the FRB, FDIC, TARP, etc. part of
the problem, *NOT* part of the solution. Where is the NIMH
financial mental health research and treatment programs when we
need them?
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml
John R. Carroll
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:18:49 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> F. George McDuffee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:38:25 -0600, cavelamb
>>> <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
> If I remember my psychology and group dynamics classes correctly,
> you are describing the classical "individual hitting bottom"
> addiction scenario, with Greenspan, "Helicopter Ben" Bernanke,
> "Bazooka" Paulson, et al. acting as "enablers."
> http://www.drug-rehabs.org/enabler.htm
> http://www.cyberrecovery.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4909
> http://www.lovefirst.net/xarticles/article2.htm
>
http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/enablers-addictions-codependency-faq.htm
>
> This whole recession/depression thing now appears to be far more
> of a group/individual mental health problem than a
> financial/fiscal problem, with the FRB, FDIC, TARP, etc. part of
> the problem, *NOT* part of the solution. Where is the NIMH
> financial mental health research and treatment programs when we
> need them?
> http://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml
Yeah.
LOL
Now you understand why I had such an interest in incorporating a behavioral
species into a mathematical model of the economy.
One thing that hasn't changed in my thinking George. I'm still amazed that
anyone finds this result shocking, or even surprising.
Given the opportunity, and they were, people did what people do and always
have. Why would anyone expect otherwise?
--
John R. Carroll
F. George McDuffee
=============
You may find the following article of interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6599281/Societe-Generale-tells-clients-how-to-prepare-for-global-collapse.html
Societe Generale was one of the European banks that put the wood
to AIG [and the taxpayers]
Note that for in depth economic coverage foreign news media are
increasingly required.
John R. Carroll
Interesting comment here:
From a micro level when the average man on an average wage cannot afford the
average house, then the balance will be corrected.
At the macro level, governments the World over cannot afford the debts that
they owe. They are not prepared to tax their citizens to reduce it because
those very same citizens are so indebted that raising the tax take to
balance budgets and national accounts, will break the tax payers.
How can there be a 'global' recovery as usual recoveries after recessions
have occurred when no one can afford to spend money that gives life blood to
the recovery. A slow stablization is all I can see ahead, until, governments
lazily chase the deflating debt solution of inflation. Isn't it always
easier to inflate by 10% having paid a 5% return to reduce your debt by 5%
year on year?
--
John R. Carroll
cavelamb
>
> Interesting comment here:
>
> From a micro level when the average man on an average wage cannot afford the
> average house, then the balance will be corrected.
> At the macro level, governments the World over cannot afford the debts that
> they owe. They are not prepared to tax their citizens to reduce it because
> those very same citizens are so indebted that raising the tax take to
> balance budgets and national accounts, will break the tax payers.
> How can there be a 'global' recovery as usual recoveries after recessions
> have occurred when no one can afford to spend money that gives life blood to
> the recovery. A slow stablization is all I can see ahead, until, governments
> lazily chase the deflating debt solution of inflation. Isn't it always
> easier to inflate by 10% having paid a 5% return to reduce your debt by 5%
> year on year?
>
>
>
It comes to me that *none* of this matters - compared to getting reelected.
Cliff
> I do see a lot of indicators that are now
>worse than under Bush and are getting even increasingly worse as we
>progress into Obama's term.
You forget that busco & the rethugs started out with the Clinton
prosperity ... while Obama had to start out with the rethug
& bushco exploding disasters.
--
Cliff
John R. Carroll
Remind me again who casts those votes will ya'..................
--
John R. Carroll
cavelamb
Well, they sure weren't pandering to ME!
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html
* 2008 Detailed tables
Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election,
U.S. Census Bureau Reports Data Show Significant Increases Among
Hispanic, Black and Young Voters
About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential
election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package
released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million
more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian
voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically
unchanged.
Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a
statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008
compared with 47 percent in 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate among 18-
to 24-year-old voters � 55 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2004. The
increased turnout among certain demographic groups was offset by stagnant or
decreased turnout among other groups, causing overall 2008 voter turnout to
remain statistically unchanged � at 64 percent � from 2004.
�The 2008 presidential election saw a significant increase in voter
turnout among young people, blacks and Hispanics,� said Thom File, a voting
analyst with the Census Bureau�s Housing and Household Economic Statistics
Division. �But as turnout among some other demographic groups either decreased
or remained unchanged, the overall 2008 voter turnout rate was not statistically
different from 2004.�
F. George McDuffee
=================
IMNSHO the Clinton prosperity was another hallucination, e.g. the
dot con bubble.
NAFTA was ratified by the senate, Glass-Steagall was repealed,
and derivatives were removed from CFTA oversight on his watch.
The looting of the U.S. economy including the industrial base,
the intellectual property base [many by the companies themselves
through the establishment of foreign operations] and pension
plans was totally a bipartisan effort, with bankster/brokster
money buying excessive influence in both parties.
The bills for a generation [or more] of profligate spending and
outright looting are now coming due or at least now accruing on
the books.
F. George McDuffee
<cave...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>John R. Carroll wrote:
>>
>> Interesting comment here:
>>
>> From a micro level when the average man on an average wage cannot afford the
>> average house, then the balance will be corrected.
>> At the macro level, governments the World over cannot afford the debts that
>> they owe. They are not prepared to tax their citizens to reduce it because
>> those very same citizens are so indebted that raising the tax take to
>> balance budgets and national accounts, will break the tax payers.
>> How can there be a 'global' recovery as usual recoveries after recessions
>> have occurred when no one can afford to spend money that gives life blood to
>> the recovery.
IMNSHO the first step is to stop the corporate and governmental
looting by the politicians and bankers.
>>A slow stablization is all I can see ahead, until, governments
>> lazily chase the deflating debt solution of inflation. Isn't it always
>> easier to inflate by 10% having paid a 5% return to reduce your debt by 5%
>> year on year?
It took 20 years or more to cause this debacle, so why would
anyone expect an overnight cure?
We must increase the number/amount of value added operations,
generally this means manufacturing and industry.
There is no way to "magic" our way back to prosperity, and the
cornucopia, "horn of plenty" or "money tree" are myths. If we
want more wealth, measured as the amount of goods and services
available per individual, the only way to accomplish this is to
produce more, either through farming/ranching, manufacturing,
mining, etc. Anything else is just stealing from the many for
the benefit of the few. When you want more, the only thing to do
is make more. In the case of the US, average consumption must be
limited and production significantly increased with the "surplus"
both used to pay the existing debts, and to provide working
capital and investment. The banksters, broksters, politicians,
scam artists and sharpies must not be allowed to again skim this
generated surplus.
=================
>
>It comes to me that *none* of this matters - compared to getting reelected.
>
=================
In many ways this is getting elected Captain of the Titanic,
unless some very significant changes are made... We all need to
take a good hard look at Argentina to see where we are rapidly
heading.
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>In many ways this is getting elected Captain of the Titanic,
>unless some very significant changes are made...
Wingers demand NO changes.
--
Cliff
D Murphy
news:qvvag5dfkcv0hkr5l...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:06 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I do see a lot of indicators that are now
>>worse than under Bush and are getting even increasingly worse as we
>>progress into Obama's term.
So the nearly $800 billion pork barrel deficit spending didn't stimulate
anything except perhaps some more government corruption?
And what about this? - http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx
It's an out an out fraud. If Obama were a Republican you'd be shrieking
like a little girl about his web (site) of deciet.
Although I notice the claim of 1 million jobs saved or created is down to
640,000 and dropping like a stone as the fraudulent numbers claimed don't
bear out under the slightest bit of scrutiny or publicity.
>
> You forget that busco & the rethugs started out with the Clinton
> prosperity ... while Obama had to start out with the rethug
> & bushco exploding disasters.
Internet and telecom bubbles bursting along with a recession and a
terrorist attack are how you define prosperity?
--
Dan
Cliff
>> You forget that busco & the rethugs started out with the Clinton
>> prosperity ... while Obama had to start out with the rethug
>> & bushco exploding disasters.
>
>Internet and telecom bubbles bursting along with a recession and a
>terrorist attack are how you define prosperity?
NOT bushco & rethug exploding disasters.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:qvvag5dfkcv0hkr5l...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:06 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do see a lot of indicators that are now
>>>worse than under Bush and are getting even increasingly worse as we
>>>progress into Obama's term.
>
>So the nearly $800 billion pork barrel deficit spending didn't stimulate
>anything except perhaps some more government corruption?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3790783
"TARP inspector general says Bush administration specifically considered and
approved AIG bonuses."
D Murphy
news:sf9gg59195v9g486c...@4ax.com:
Thanks to Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide Mortgage) he didn't have any choice but
to pay the bonuses once TARP was enacted as law.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/nyregion/20dodd.html?_r=1
But I'll bet you still don't think these bills need to be read, right?
Wait until Obamacare passes. You'll love the pork and corruption in that
POS.
--
Dan
F. George McDuffee
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:22:40 GMT, D Murphy
<spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>So the nearly $800 billion pork barrel deficit spending didn't stimulate
>anything except perhaps some more government corruption?
<snip>
On the contrary, consumer manufacturing and industry are booming
as a result.
The problem is that in the main consumer manufacturing and
industry, and much of the feedstock production are no longer
located in the U.S., and the "off shoring" is rapidly increasing,
with significant liquidation of domestic industrial capacity.
This does not seem to be the result of some sort of organized
plot, but rather policy makers/executives as a group that are
totally out of touch with the current domestic economic-social
and global political realities and that continue to apply the
discredited and obsolete economic nostrums, elixirs, panaceas,
etc. from the 1960s and 1970s in 2009, 2010, etc. to cure the
situations they caused.
We wouldn't expect the machines and techniques from the 1930s and
1940s to be viable in today's production environment, so why
would we expect the slogans and catch-phrases from the 1930s and
1940s to produce any better financial/economic/fiscal effect?
More of the same only better is not viable when the major problem
is that the basic organization, structure and scope of the
economy/society have changed.
Either the U.S. society/economy must be restored (at least
halfway) to what it was, including regulation such as
Glass-Steagall, or completely new solutions must be found and
applied.
In any event we are living in interesting times....
D Murphy
news:h0dgg5htdhb71rbci...@4ax.com:
> distro pruned to amc & rcm
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:22:40 GMT, D Murphy
> <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>So the nearly $800 billion pork barrel deficit spending didn't
>>stimulate anything except perhaps some more government corruption?
> <snip>
> On the contrary, consumer manufacturing and industry are booming
> as a result.
>
> The problem is that in the main consumer manufacturing and
> industry, and much of the feedstock production are no longer
> located in the U.S., and the "off shoring" is rapidly increasing,
> with significant liquidation of domestic industrial capacity.
Do you have numbers to back that up? In 05 the US percentage of the
world's industrial output was around 18%. China by comparison was 8%. No
other single nation even comes close to the US.
Now figure in that our service sector represents almost 38% of the world
economy's total value of that sector and you are talking about some
serious scratch.
>
> This does not seem to be the result of some sort of organized
> plot, but rather policy makers/executives as a group that are
> totally out of touch with the current domestic economic-social
> and global political realities and that continue to apply the
> discredited and obsolete economic nostrums, elixirs, panaceas,
> etc. from the 1960s and 1970s in 2009, 2010, etc. to cure the
> situations they caused.
>
> We wouldn't expect the machines and techniques from the 1930s and
> 1940s to be viable in today's production environment, so why
> would we expect the slogans and catch-phrases from the 1930s and
> 1940s to produce any better financial/economic/fiscal effect?
>
> More of the same only better is not viable when the major problem
> is that the basic organization, structure and scope of the
> economy/society have changed.
>
> Either the U.S. society/economy must be restored (at least
> halfway) to what it was, including regulation such as
> Glass-Steagall, or completely new solutions must be found and
> applied.
>
> In any event we are living in interesting times....
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
We might not make high quantities of low value crap here anymore and
even if it were feasible, the cost to society and the environment is
probably greater than the return.
--
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:31qgg5tbpauo6n30v...@4ax.com...
> discussion. Do try to break out of your bipolar world.
>
> First, the Clinton "prosperity" hit it's peak in early 2000. The DOW
> continued down for the rest of Clinton's term and into Bush term. It
> dived after 9-11.
>
> Second, I have no problem laying the blame at Bush's feet. He screwed
> it up. Partly with a tax cut that was not compensated for in the
> budget, partly by two elective wars without putting the economy on a
> war time footing, partly by massive borrow and spend liberalism.
>
> News flash: Bush is not president anymore.
>
> The question for here and now is what is Obama going to do to fix
> Bush's mess and when do you think he will start?
The bigger question is what *can* be done to fix it. What are the limits of
intervention?
History isn't encouraging in that regard. We have a pretty good idea what
you can do to *destroy* the economy when you're headed into a severe
recession -- nothing at all, as in the last days of Herbert Hoover. And we
have enough data to suggest that forceful deficit spending will ease the
pain and *possibly* shorten the down-swing of the business cycle. But there
is nothing like enough experience to analyze exactly where, when, how much,
and for how long such deficit-spending stimulus should be applied for
optimum results -- nor is there much info the tell us what optimum results
might be.
It's a vague business. So far, the recovery is following a normal pattern,
with GDP zeroing out before unemployment has even peaked. But it's going to
be a slow recovery, based on the numbers so far.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:24:06 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do see a lot of indicators that are now
>>>>>worse than under Bush and are getting even increasingly worse as we
>>>>>progress into Obama's term.
>>>>
>>>> You forget that busco & the rethugs started out with the Clinton
>>>>prosperity ... while Obama had to start out with the rethug
>>>>& bushco exploding disasters.
>>>
>>> Why must everything be D vs R with you? That is not the point of the
>>> discussion. Do try to break out of your bipolar world.
>>>
>>> First, the Clinton "prosperity" hit it's peak in early 2000. The DOW
>>> continued down for the rest of Clinton's term and into Bush term. It
>>> dived after 9-11.
>>>
>>> Second, I have no problem laying the blame at Bush's feet. He screwed
>>> it up. Partly with a tax cut that was not compensated for in the
>>> budget, partly by two elective wars without putting the economy on a
>>> war time footing, partly by massive borrow and spend liberalism.
>>>
>>> News flash: Bush is not president anymore.
>>>
>>> The question for here and now is what is Obama going to do to fix
>>> Bush's mess and when do you think he will start?
>>
>>The bigger question is what *can* be done to fix it. What are the limits
>>of
>>intervention?
>>
>>History isn't encouraging in that regard.
>
> Not a happy thought.
>
>>We have a pretty good idea what
>>you can do to *destroy* the economy when you're headed into a severe
>>recession -- nothing at all, as in the last days of Herbert Hoover.
>
> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=depression+1922+harding&btnG=Google+Search>
Interesting, and an old story, but baloney. <g> Harding did NOT cut
spending. In fact, it was falling fast when he enterred office, but he
stopped the decline:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FYONET
(use the editing tool to show 1915 - 1930).
Contrary to what that article says, federal receipts fell BEFORE Harding
took office, and then remained flat until 1930:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FYFR
And the federal surplus, which had swung positive before Harding took
office, remained virtually flat until 1930:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FYFSD
There was some paying down of the debt during his term, but the pattern was
already set before Harding. After WWI, the balance went positive and it
stayed there for a decade. In other words, the Harding as Hero story is
completely bogus. I've been hearing that story, BTW, since the 1970s. <g>
>
>>And we
>>have enough data to suggest that forceful deficit spending will ease the
>>pain and *possibly* shorten the down-swing of the business cycle. But
>>there
>>is nothing like enough experience to analyze exactly where, when, how
>>much,
>>and for how long such deficit-spending stimulus should be applied for
>>optimum results -- nor is there much info the tell us what optimum results
>>might be.
>>
>>It's a vague business. So far, the recovery is following a normal pattern,
>>with GDP zeroing out before unemployment has even peaked. But it's going
>>to
>>be a slow recovery, based on the numbers so far.
>
> The last several recessions saw jobless recoveries and this one seems
> to be on that track. Not encouraging.
I agree. I always worry about where the jobs will come from. I'm a worry
wart about employment.
--
Ed Huntress
F. George McDuffee
==================
While some don't agree we have a completely new socio-economic
situation, it still stands that the economic stimulus and other
measures being taken were developed for an economy/society very
different than the one in which we are currently living.
It is very unclear what rules now apply. For example the U.S.
dollar is now the basis for a rapidly increasing "carry trade"
currently fueling Asian stock and real estate bubbles.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ec41a1a-d616-11de-b80f-00144feabdc0.html
Not only are bubbles [and the foundation for yet another
collapse] being created, the domestic savers are being cheated
out of their returns.
IMNSHO because no in depth and rigorous investigation has been
made to determine what went wrong and why with the economy, the
administration, Congress, the FRB, etc. are shooting at random
shapes and noises in the dark. Not only does this expend the few
remaining reserves with no results, it makes another crash
inevitable.
If you think you have a "consumer economy" then one of the first
things that must be done is to insure that the people have enough
income to consume.
While the numbers on someone's spreadsheet may look better, it
does not appear that much has actually improved, and indeed
things appear to be looking worse for the typical individual that
lives in the typical urban area.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQsHAD0w1egE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125866320178356259.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories
I suggest the folk wisdom "When you are in a hole, the first
thing to do is stop digging," is unusually applicable to the
current situation.
Ed Huntress
"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
news:n04hg5hl2lgaojd7t...@4ax.com...
It isn't clear what your solution is, George. If by "stop digging" you mean
allow interest rates to move up (thus ending the "carry trade"), you'll make
Germany and China happy, but you may (probably will) stick a knife into the
heart of any new investments in the US. If you mean to stop spending, that
probably would sink us into a liquidity trap like Japan has suffered. You
may have noticed that British economists fear that the UK is on the verge of
a liquidity trap right now. They probably cut off the stimulus spending too
soon. If they wind up going there, they'll sink into a pretty sorry state
for a decade or more. They may never fully recover.
Let's ignore the newsgroup economists for a minute and look at what real
economists are saying. There's widespread agreement that the stimulus is
working, although more slowly than anyone would wish. Conservative
economists as well as liberal ones say the stimulus was necessary. (I'm not
talking about the von Mises crackpots, but rather economists who advise
people responsible for large amounts of money.) The main disagreement is how
large it should have been. NO ONE is saying it should have been less than it
is. Those who most strongly favor the stimulus approach seem to agree that
it should have been between 50% and 100% larger. But that was politically
impossible, so we have to struggle through with what we have.
As for the low interest rates and the "carry trade," that's a risk that
affects the other big exporting countries more than us, but it is a
potential risk. But everything is a risk. Bernanke and Obama's advisors are
playing a very risky game, because they have no choice. They're trying to
get the economy going before we sink into a liquidity trap (just look at the
current CPI rates -- Jesus, if that doesn't scare the hell out of you and
make you want to stimulate more, then you have no nerves <g>). We're on the
verge; the economy is running (or hobbling is more like it) on optimism and
wishful thinking, because even as GDP has turned slightly upward, we're
still showing negative inflation. Scared yet? You should be. There's nothing
we need more now that a little old-fashioned inflation. Desperately.
Bernanke is counting on being able to adjust interest rates upward, and
money supply downward, as the economy starts to show signs of warming up.
We'd all better hope that he's right. (He probably is -- we know a lot more
about doing that than we did, say, in 1978.) If he chickens out now, or if
the Republican Congressional Dunderheads, who know little about economics
but who recognize a weapon for gaining political advantage when they see
one, are able to withhold planned stimulus payments, we're going to be right
where the UK is now: facing a potential decade of economic misery. Credit
has not moved in a positive direction; tighten interest rates up, and credit
will shrivel like a scrotum in an icy stream.
Germany wants to get back to their mercantilist policies -- getting rich at
everyone else's expense -- and China does, too. Those days may be over. The
good burghers and the Communist Party economists have their goals, and they
aren't necessarily good for everyone else. It's good for us if they get
healthy and make a lot of money, but not if it comes by beggaring us We have
an employment problem and a simultaneous credit problem, augmented by a
deflation risk, and we aren't going to commit suicide for their sake.
They're rightly worried about another bubble. We are, too, but we're more
worried about a Japanese-style liquidity trap and high unemployment numbers
as far as the eye can see. The prospects of that make a deficit that's, say,
70% of GDP, look like a safe haven by comparison.
I think we have the smartest and best central bankers in the world,
especially now that Greenspan and his wackadoodle Austrian School policies
have been disgraced and exposed. We aren't likely to make the same mistakes
again. Still, we're forced to walk a tightrope, in which we could fall
either into another runaway bubble on one side, or a deflationary spiral on
the other. I'll go with Bernanke and support our current policies. So do
most real economists. If we're still dragging ass by the 2010 elections and
we wind up with know-nothing reactionaries controlling Congress, that's when
it will be time to buy ammunition and change your money into gold.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>For an alternate view google Harding and 1922.
><http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=depression+1922+harding&btnG=Google+Search>
a very interesting article. Stuff Id not known actually.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWI2OWUyOWE2NmZjMmQ2ZTg5YzIzZjczY2I2Mzg2N2Q=
Gunner
Ed Huntress
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:oabhg5pbhhko3laio...@4ax.com...
However, it's "stuff" that's not accurate.
I'm sure, though, we'll encounter it again, when you drag it out as "proof"
of something or other that you really don't understand. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress