Manufacturing leaving the country
JerryD(upstateNY)
and move out of the country but one thing is for sure.
If Obama gets his crap and tax bill passed, any companies that still have
plants here will be moving out, leaving more people unemployed.
Every one of the bills he wants to pass will hinder free enterprise, which
is the only thing that will get this country back to where it was when the
Democrats took over.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
nothermark
Don't worry - modern business management teaches that is a good
strategy. We don't need no stinking factories.
:-(
Bob Giddings
<jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
You really want to go back to January of this year, when the
Democrats took over?
Do you remember what the economy was like back in January?
In the previous 4 months, the stock market had lost a third of
it's value. Seems like "free enterprise", at least as
Republicans understood it, had done a pretty good job of
hindering itself.
We are still trying to climb out of the hole they left us in.
Bob
Peter Pan
"Bob Giddings" <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slja55hd987p0o000...@4ax.com...
odd, aren't you forgetting they took over two years ago? congress makes the
laws, not the pres....
Lone Haranguer
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:36:10 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
> <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> We can argue forever about what caused our manufacturing plants to close up
>> and move out of the country but one thing is for sure.
>> If Obama gets his crap and tax bill passed, any companies that still have
>> plants here will be moving out, leaving more people unemployed.
>> Every one of the bills he wants to pass will hinder free enterprise, which
>> is the only thing that will get this country back to where it was when the
>> Democrats took over.
>
> You really want to go back to January of this year, when the
> Democrats took over?
More dishonesty from Bobby Fiction. The Democrats took over both houses
of Congress in January of 2007.
>
> Do you remember what the economy was like back in January?
Sure do. Obama was going to fix everything with his stimulus
package.........we're still waiting.
>
> In the previous 4 months, the stock market had lost a third of
> it's value. Seems like "free enterprise", at least as
> Republicans understood it, had done a pretty good job of
> hindering itself.
People unloaded their stocks once it became apparent that Obama would
win the election.
>
> We are still trying to climb out of the hole they left us in.
Actually Obama & Co. are digging a much deeper hole and it looks to be
deliberate. Equal poverty for all seems to be the goal.
LZ
>
> Bob
Pegleg
> Actually Obama & Co. are digging a much deeper hole and it looks to be
> deliberate. Equal poverty for all seems to be the goal.
> LZ
Our great grand children are going to saddled with
this mess. Now they are saying there wasn't that
much in the way of shovel ready money in the
stimuls and we need more even though they also say
it is going to take more time for the original
monay to get where it needs to be.
There are alos severe problems with how the
individual States are handling the money.
Brian
Lone Haranguer
The money will be used to buy votes and the projects will be chosen
accordingly.
LZ
JerryD(upstateNY)
You really want to go back to January of this year, when the Democrats took
over?
The Democrats took over in 2006.
Here's proof if you don't believe me.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
JerryD(upstateNY)
You really want to go back to January of this year, when the Democrats took
over?<<<<
The Democrats took over in 2006 not 2009.
Here's proof if you don't believe me.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/
The DOW was at 14,000 when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.
It's just above 8,000 today, thanks to the Democrats.
How's your 401-K (or whatever you have your money in) doing ?
Be sure to thank your Democrats for the change.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Frank Howell
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:36:10 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
> <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> We can argue forever about what caused our manufacturing plants to
>> close up and move out of the country but one thing is for sure.
>> If Obama gets his crap and tax bill passed, any companies that still
>> have plants here will be moving out, leaving more people unemployed.
>> Every one of the bills he wants to pass will hinder free enterprise,
>> which is the only thing that will get this country back to where it
>> was when the Democrats took over.
>
> You really want to go back to January of this year, when the
> Democrats took over?
What year? Try 2006 when we had an election and the Democrats took over the
house and senate.
>
> Do you remember what the economy was like back in January?
>
> In the previous 4 months, the stock market had lost a third of
> it's value. Seems like "free enterprise", at least as
> Republicans understood it, had done a pretty good job of
> hindering itself.
How did they do that with the Democrats holding majority of both house and
senate?
>
> We are still trying to climb out of the hole they left us in.
>
> Bob
How do you reconcile the fact that the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs is headed by a ranking Democratic Senator?
For years!
Did they have absolutely no culpability in this matter? Selective amnesia?
--
Frank Howell
Pegleg
> How do you reconcile the fact that the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
> and Urban Affairs is headed by a ranking Democratic Senator?
> For years!
>
> Did they have absolutely no culpability in this matter? Selective amnesia?
Chuck Schummer, Chris Dodd and good ole Barney
Frank had a major role in the housing crisis with
their "make home loans to everybody whether, they
are qualified or not, so they can realize the
American Dream" .
Brian
Lone Haranguer
LZ
Technobarbarian
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:h33doh$83q$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...
It figures that this thread was started by one of the resident idiots,
without any facts to back up the bullshit.
http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2006/09/us-manufacturing.pdf
"Real value-added manufacturing output in the United States has risen very
year since 1987, except for brief declines during the 1990-91 and 2000-01
recessions."
"The US share of global manufacturing is just over 22 percent--the same as
it was in 1995 (it has been hovering around 20 percent since 1982)."
Employment in manufacturing is down because we're so good at what we
do. Productivity is up.
Those are pre-recession 2006 numbers. Since the recession began our
output has dropped, but so has output in every other industrialized nation.
Here's some 2007 numbers:
http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/
TB
Bob Giddings
So what specific legislation did the Democrats pass, after they
"took over Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and
stock market plunge under a Republican President?
Here's where some of that "data" would come in handy. Hmm?
Be careful. You're liable to twist yourself in a knot you can't
untie.
Bob
Bruce S
"Technobarbarian" <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00863db1$0$22964$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
It is worth nothing that during the same time period during which everyone
has been whining about all the American jobs being moved to China, the
Chinese have lost the same number of manufacturing jobs that we have.
Increased productivity does the same thing to their labor market that it
does to ours. If we are going to worry that lost jobs means lost
production, maybe we should worry about lost farm jobs - does that mean farm
production is down so far that we are in danger of starvation?
Bruce
bill horne
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:26:08 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
> <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Giddings" wrote in message
>> You really want to go back to January of this year, when the Democrats took
>> over?<<<<
>>
>> The Democrats took over in 2006 not 2009.
>> Here's proof if you don't believe me.
>> http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/
>>
>> The DOW was at 14,000 when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.
>> It's just above 8,000 today, thanks to the Democrats.
>> How's your 401-K (or whatever you have your money in) doing ?
>> Be sure to thank your Democrats for the change.
>
> So what specific legislation did the Democrats pass, after they
> "took over Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and
> stock market plunge under a Republican President?
So what specific thing did a Republican President do that brought
about the fiscal crisis and stock market plunge?
> Here's where some of that "data" would come in handy. Hmm?
>
> Be careful. You're liable to twist yourself in a knot you can't
> untie.
>
> Bob
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Technobarbarian
"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
news:009eb403$0$22192$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Bob Giddings wrote:
>> So what specific legislation did the Democrats pass, after they
>> "took over Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and
>> stock market plunge under a Republican President?
>
> So what specific thing did a Republican President do that brought about
> the fiscal crisis and stock market plunge?
While I would suggest taking this version with a healthy dose of
skepticism, here's another, plenty of blame to go around, version of events:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
TB
William Boyd
I always thought liberals went around with their head in the clouds, and
now I know they do.
--
Bob Giddings
wrote:
>> So what specific legislation did the Democrats pass, after they
>> "took over Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and
>> stock market plunge under a Republican President?
>
>So what specific thing did a Republican President do that brought
>about the fiscal crisis and stock market plunge?
You are kidding, right? This is not a serious question.
Did you not notice the constant Republican drumbeat for the last
couple of decades that the markets would take care of themselves,
that they didn't need regulation?
This is what Republicans all ran on. This is what they
accomplished.
They got what they wanted, and now they have to live with it.
Bob
Lone Haranguer
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 04:26:08 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
> <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Giddings" wrote in message
>> You really want to go back to January of this year, when the Democrats took
>> over?<<<<
>>
>> The Democrats took over in 2006 not 2009.
>> Here's proof if you don't believe me.
>> http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/
>>
>> The DOW was at 14,000 when the Democrats took over Congress in 2006.
>> It's just above 8,000 today, thanks to the Democrats.
>> How's your 401-K (or whatever you have your money in) doing ?
>> Be sure to thank your Democrats for the change.
>
> So what specific legislation did the Democrats pass, after they
> "took over Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and
> stock market plunge under a Republican President?
The public lost confidence and Schumer started the first bank
run.....which started the domino effect. 74 banks have failed since
Schumer
sank IndyMac by DELIBERATELY making public information he got while
chairing the Senate Banking Committee.
2008 and 2009 Bank and Thrift Failures ($Mil)
Date
Failed Institution
City
Regulator
Total Assets
FDIC Insurance Fund's Estimated Loss
Acquired By
Uninsured Deposits not Acquired
Dividends on Uninsured Deposits
07/03/09 Founders Bank Worth, Ill. State $963 $188.5 The
PrivateBank and Trust Company, Chicago, Ill. $0.0 N/A
07/03/09 Millenium State Bank of Texas Dallas State $118 $47.0
State Bank of Texas, Irving, Texas $0.0 N/A
07/03/09 First National Bank of Danville Danville, Ill. OCC $166
$24.0 First Financial Bank, National Association, Terre Haute, Ind.
$0.0 N/A
07/03/09 Elizabeth State Bank Elizabeth, Ill. State $56 $11.2
Heartland Financial, USA (HTLF) $0.0 N/A
07/03/09 Rock River Bank Oregon, Ill. State $77 $27.6 The Harvard
State Bank, Harvard, Ill. $0.0 N/A
07/03/09 First State Bank of Winchester Winchester, Ill. State $36
$6.0 The First National Bank of Beardstown, Beardstown, Ill. $0.0 N/A
07/03/09 The John Warner Bank Clinton, Ill. State $70 $10.0 State
Bank of Lincoln, Lincoln, Ill. $0.0 N/A
06/29/09 Community Bank of West Georgia Villa Rica, Ga. State
$199 $1 None $0.0 N/A
06/29/09
Neighborhood Community Bank
Newnan, Ga. State $222 $0 CharterBank, West Point, Ga. $0.0 N/A
06/29/09 Horizon Bank Pine City, Minn. State $88 $0 Stearns Bank,
NA, St. Cloud, Minn. $0.0 N/A
06/29/09 MetroPacific Bank Irvine, Calif. State $80 $0 Sunwest
Bank, Tustin, Calif. $0.0 N/A
06/29/09 Mirae Bank Los Angeles State $456 $0 Wilshire Bancorp
(WIBC), Los Angeles, Calif. $0.0 N/A
06/22/09 Southern Community Bank Fayetteville, Ga. State $377 $114
United Community Banks (UCBI), Blairsville, Ga.
$0.0 N/A
06/22/09 Cooperative Bank Wilmington, N.C. State $970 $217
First Bancorp (FBNC), Troy, N.C.
$0.0 N/A
06/22/09
First National Bank of Anthony
Anthony, Kan. State $157 $32 Southwest Bancorp (OKSB), Stillwater,
Okla. $0.0 N/A
06/05/09 Bank of Lincolnwood Lincolnwood, Ill. State $214 $83
Republic Bank of Chicago, Oak Brook, Ill. $0.0 N/A
05/22/09 Strategic Capital Bank Champaign, Ill. State $537 $173
Midland States Bank, Effingham, Ill. $0.0 N/A
05/22/09 Citizens National Bank Macomb, Ill. State $437 $106
Morton Community Bank, Morton, Ill. $0.0 N/A
05/21/09 BankUnited, FSB Coral Gables, Fla. OTS $12,800 $4,900
BankUnited- A consortium of private equity firms, including WL Ross &
Co., Carlyle Group, Blackstone Group (BX) and Centerbridge Capital
Partners. $0.0 N/A
05/11/09 Westsound Bankl Bremerton, Wash. State $335 $108 Kitsap
Bank, Port Orchard, Wash. $0.0 N/A
05/03/09 Silverton Bank, NA Atlanta State $4,100 $1,300 None
$0.18 N/A
05/03/09 Citizens Community Bank Ridgewood, N.J. State $45 $18
North Jersey Bank, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. $0.0 N/A
05/03/09 America West Bank Layton, Utah State $299 $119 Cache
Valley Bank, Logan, Utah $0.0 N/A
04/27/09 American Southern Bank Kennesaw, Ga. State $112 $42 Bank
of North Georgia, Alpharetta, Ga. (held by Synovus Financial Corp.
(SNV)) $0.0 N/A
04/27/09 Michigan Heritage Bank Farmington Hills, Mich. State
$185 $71 Level One Bank, Farmington Hills, Mich. $0.0 N/A
04/27/09 First Bank of Beverly Hills Calabasas, Calif. State
$1,500 $394 None $0.18 N/A
04/27/09 First Bank of Idaho Ketchum, Idaho OTS $489 $191 U.S.
Bancorp. (USB) $0.0 N/A
04/20/09 American Sterling Bank
Sugar Creek, Mo.
OTC
$181
$0
Metcalf Bank, Lee's Summit, Mo.
$0.0
N/A
04/20/09
Great Basin Bank of Nevada
Elko, Nev.
State
$271
$0
Nevada State Bank, held by Zions Bancorp (ZION)
$0.0
N/A
04/13/09
Cape Fear Bank
Wilmington, N.C.
State
$492
$131
First Federal S&L of Charleston (held by First Financial Holdings
(FFCH)) Charleston, S.C.
$0.0
N/A
04/13/09
New Frontier Bank
Greely, Col.
State
$2,000
$670
None
$150.0
N/A
03/27/09 Omni National Bank
Atlanta
State
$956
$290
SunTrust Bank (STI) to act as paying agent until April 27
$2.0
N/A
03/06/09 TeamBank, NA
Paola, Kan.
State
$670
$98
Great Southern Bancorp (GSBC), Springfield, Mo.
$0.0
N/A
03/06/09 Colorado National Bank
Colorado Springs
State
$124
$9
Herring Bank, Amarillo, Texas
$0.0
N/A
03/06/09 FirstCity Bank
Stockbridge, Col.
State
$297
$100
None
$.78
N/A
03/06/09 Freedom Bank of Georgia
Commerce, Ga.
State
$173
$36.2
Northeast Georgia Bank, Lavonia, Ga.
$0.0
N/A
02/27/09 Security Savings Bank
Henderson, Nev.
State
$238
$59.1
Bank of Nevada, Las Vegas (held by Western Alliance Bancorp (WAL))
$0.0
N/A
02/27/09 Heritage Community Bank
Glenwood, Ill.
State
$233
$41.6
MB Financial, Inc. (MBFI), Chicago, Ill.
$0.0
N/A
02/20/09 Silver Falls Bank
Silverton, Ore.
State
$131
$48.6
Citizens Bank, Corvallis, Ore.
$0.0
N/A
02/13/09 Pinnacle Bank
Beaverton, Ore.
State
$73
$12.1
Washington Trust Bank, Spokane, Wash.
$0.0
N/A
02/13/09 Sherman County Bank
Loup City, Neb.
State
$130
$28.1
by Heritage Bank, Wood River, Neb.
$0.0
N/A
02/13/09 Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast
Cape Coral, Fla.
State
$539
$201.5
TIB Financial Corp (TIBB) Naples, Fla.
$0.0
N/A
02/13/09 Corn Belt Bank & Trust
Pittsfield, Ill.
State
$272
$100.7
Carlinville National Bank, Carlinville, Ill.
$0.0
N/A
02/06/09 FirstBank Financial Services
McDonough, Ga.
State
$337
$112.2
Regions Financial (RF)
$0.0
N/A
02/06/09 Alliance Bank
Culver City, Calif.
State
$1,140
$205.9
California Bank & Trust, held by Zions Bancorporation (ZION).
$0.0
N/A
02/06/09 County Bank
Merced, Calif.
State
$1,700
$135.8
Westamerica Bancorporation (WABC)
$0.0
N/A
01/30/09 Suburban FSB
Crofton, Md.
OTS
$360
$126.3
Bank of Essex, Tappahannock, Va.
$0.0
N/A
01/30/09 Ocala National Bank
Ocala, Fla.
OCC
$224
$99.6
CenterState Banks of Florida (CSFL)
$0.0
N/A
01/30/09 Magnet Bank
Salt Lake City
State
$293
$129.3
No Acquirer.
$0.0
N/A
01/23/09 1st Centennial Bank
Redlands, Calif.
State
$803
$226.6
First Califorina Financial Group (FCAL), Camarillo, Calif.
$12.8
0%
01/16/09 Bank of Clark County
Vancouver, Wash.
State
$447
$131.4
Umpqua Holdings Corp. (UMPQ), Roseburg, Ore.
$39.3
0%
01/16/09 National Bank of Commerce
Berkely, Ill.
OCC
$431
$97.1
Republic Bank of Chicago, Oak Brook, Ill.
$0.0
N/A
12/12/08 Haven Trust Bank
Duluth, Ga.
State
$572
$208.0
BB&T Corp. (BBT)
$0.0
N/A
12/12/08 Sanderson State Bank
Sanderson, Texas
State
$37
$9.6
The Pecos County State Bank, Fort Stockton, Texas
$0.0
N/A
12/05/08 First Georgia Community Bank
Jackson, Ga.
State
$238
$52.0
United Bank, Zebulon, Ga.
$0.0
N/A
11/21/08 PFF Bank & Trust
Pomona, Calif.
OTS
$3,700
$729.6
U.S. Bancorp (USB)
$0.0
N/A
11/21/08 Downey Savings & Loan, FA
Newport Beach, Calif.
OTS
$12,800
$1,374.6
U.S. Bancorp (USB)
$0.0
N/A
11/21/08 The Community Bank
Loganville, Ga.
State
$681
$247.3
Bank of Essex, Tappahannock, Va.
$0.0
N/A
11/07/08 Franklin Bank, SSB
Houston
State
$5,100
$1,361.6
Prosperity Bancshares (PRSP), Houston, Texas
$0.0
N/A
11/07/08 Security Pacific Bank
Los Angeles
State
$561
$175.5
Pacific Western Bank, San Diego, Calif., held by PacWest Bancorp (PACW).
$0.0
N/A
10/31/08 Freedom Bank
Bradenton, Fla.
State
$287
$92.9
Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB)
$0.0
N/A
10/24/08 Alpha B&T
Alpharetta, Ga.
State
$354
$159.9
Stearns Bank, NA, St. Cloud, Minn.
$0.4
0%
10/10/08 Meridian Bank
Eldred, Ill.
State
$39
$14.5
National Bank, Hillsboro, Ill.
$0.0
N/A
10/10/08 Main Street Bank
Northville, Mich.
State
$98
$32.1
Monroe Bank & Trust, Monroe, Mich.
$0.0
N/A
09/25/08 Washington Mutual Bank
Seattle
OTS
$307,000
$0.0
JPMorgan Chase (JPM)
$0.0
N/A
09/19/08 Ameribank, Inc.
Welchm W.Va.
OTS
$115
$33.4
Pioneer Community Bank, Iaeger, W. Va., and The Citizens SB, Martins
Ferry, Ohio.
$0.0
N/A
09/05/08 Silver State Bank
Henderson, Nev.
State
$1,957
$553.1
Nevada State Bank, Las Vegas, held by Zions Bancorporation (ZION).
$26.1
0%
08/29/08 Integrity Bank
Alpharetta, Ga.
State
$1,107
$210.8
Regions Financial (RF)
$0.0
N/A
08/22/08 The Columbian B&TC
Topeka, Kan.
State
$752
$232.1
Citizens B&T, Chillicothe, Mo,
$28.2
0%
08/01/08 First Priority Bank
Bradenton, Fla.
State
$259
$81.2
SunTrust Banks, Inc. (STI)
$2.1
1%
07/25/08 First Heritgage Bank, NA
Newport Beach, Calif.
OCC
$254
$33.1
Mutual of Omaha Bank, Omaha, Neb.
$0.0
N/A
07/25/08 First NB of Nevada
Reno, Nev.
OCC
$3,411
$706.1
Mutual of Omaha Bank, Omaha, Neb.
$0.0
N/A
07/11/08 IndyMac Bank, FSB
Pasadena, Calif.
OTS
$30,699
$10,725.0
FDIC conservatorship, since sold to consortium led by J.C. Flowers & Co.
$539.6
50%
>
> Here's where some of that "data" would come in handy. Hmm?
Here it is. Why have you been pretending you weren't aware of it?
>
> Be careful. You're liable to twist yourself in a knot you can't
> untie.
Your nose must be 2 miles long by now.....considering the lies you've
told here.
LZ
>
> Bob
Lone Haranguer
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:22:47 -0400, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> So what specific legislation did the Democrats pass, after they
>>> "took over Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and
>>> stock market plunge under a Republican President?
>> So what specific thing did a Republican President do that brought
>> about the fiscal crisis and stock market plunge?
>
> You are kidding, right? This is not a serious question.
>
> Did you not notice the constant Republican drumbeat for the last
> couple of decades that the markets would take care of themselves,
> that they didn't need regulation?
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/akron-oh/T7GG2N5342O0NKTO6
"Politically, the pertinent question is this: Which candidate foresaw
the credit crisis and tried to do something about it? As it turns out,
John McCain did — and partnered with three other Senate Republicans to
reform the government’s involvement in lending three years ago, after an
attempt by the Bush administration died in Congress two years earlier.
McCain spoke forcefully on May 25, 2006, on behalf of the Federal
Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005."
"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the
company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years
were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the
company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion
accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to
say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated
financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses
for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s
former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of
Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied
to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at
Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at
Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to
lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s
examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some
weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement
with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure
reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated
over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that
governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored
entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role
they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing
to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary.
OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed
without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory
Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage
of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial
system, and the economy as a whole."
>
> This is what Republicans all ran on. This is what they
> accomplished.
Liar.
http://patterico.com/2009/03/19/barney-frank-cannot-hide-his-fannie-role/
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has a piece at the HuffPo, attempting to place
all of the blame for the current economic downturn on Republicans and
pretend he had nothing to do with it, including the implosion of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. Frank writes, “we have tools to aid memory —
pencil and paper, word processing, transcripts, newspapers, and the
Congressional record.” Indeed we do, but Frank fails to specifically
cite to or quote any of them. There are reasons for that.
In the real world, Frank opposed increased oversight of Fannie and
Freddie as far back as 1992.
rank then skips over most of the Clinton Administration, particularly
the series of decisions by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo between 1997 and
2001 that helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets
without meaningful oversight. Perhaps Frank is hoping everyone will
forget that Frank’s boyfriend at the time was Fannie’s assistant
director for product initiatives. Some might question whether that was
a conflict of interest, though Frank — who once fixed tickets for
another boyfriend on probation for drug possession and for possession of
child pornography — apparently saw no potential conflict.
Frank is proud that he voted against the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “which
overturned a Depression-era law preventing commercial banks from acting
like investment banks.” Frank again omits that this law had broad
bipartisan support in Congress, as well as the Clinton Administration
(with help from Larry Summers, now one of Pres. Obama’s top economic
advisors). Frank may also be hoping readers do not know that
economists from Tyler Cowen to Brad DeLong agree that the
diversification did considerably more good than harm, as it allowed
sounder commercial banks to help bail out the troubled investment banks.
In 2003, when the Bush administration proposed creating a new agency to
assume supervise Fannie and Freddie, Frank’s response was that Fannie
and Freddie “are not facing any kind of financial crisis… The more
people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these
companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
Frank nevertheless touts his efforts during this period with Rep. Mike
Oxley (R-OH) on a bill to increase regulation of Fannie and Freddie,
blaming House Republicans and the Bush Administration for its demise.
Sam Dealey dealt with this bill — and its fate — last year:
A month after warmly receiving [Bush Treasury Secretary] Snow’s
proposal, House Finance Chairman Mike Oxley unveiled a bill. It lacked
two key components, however. First, the new regulator of the sibs would
not be Treasury itself but a newly created “independent unit” within
Treasury. That’s the same arrangement that already existed—the sibs were
presently under an “independent unit” that time and again proved
incapable of detecting Fannie and Freddie shenanigans. Second, the bill
would grant the Housing department oversight—largely toothless because
it lacked the authority to contain the investment risks the sibs were
taking. Faced with stiff opposition from the White House, the Ohio
Republican pulled his bill the night before the committee’s final vote.
In 2005, Oxley (with Frank) tried again. The legislation was
stronger than before, but again failed to provide a regulator with the
authority to curtail the kinds of assets Fannie and Freddie could hold.
Indeed, the bill even expanded Fannie and Freddie’s abilities to
purchase mortgages. Financially responsible people saw the writing on
the wall and threw their support behind a tougher Senate bill [which
died in the face of opposition from Senate Democrats --K].
Regardless, Oxley’s bill passed the House and Frank now leaves the
impression that he supported it…
In fact, praises for bipartisanship notwithstanding, Frank voted
against the 2005 bill. As the chairman tells it, this is because “the
Republican majority inserted language at the last moment that would
prohibit religious organizations from participating” in providing
low-income housing financing. “It is only because of this ridiculous
action by archconservative Republicans that I cast my vote ‘no.’ ”
That’s a pretty loosey-goosey rendering of what went down. The
provision Frank references was his pet project, which would designate 5
percent of the sibs’ after-tax profits for grants to outside
organizations to promote low-income housing. As Frank says, the grants
could have gone to religious groups like the Catholic and Lutheran
churches (it’s good to see Frank now fully supports Bush’s faith-based
initiative, by the way) but also to decidedly secular and politically
active organizations like the Child Welfare League of America and
Volunteers of America.
Many in Congress opposed Frank’s baby because it was a step
backward in reform.
Supporting toothless alternatives is one of the oldest tricks in the
Congressional book. Frank’s true attitude during this period was shown
in 2004, when Fannie’s regulator leveled serious charges amounting to
fraud against Fannie and its executives. Frank commented, “I don’t see
anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.”
Frank blasts former Pres. Bush for demanding that Fannie and Freddie
increase the percentage of subprime loans they purchased, “supposedly
because of his belief in an ‘ownership society.’” He ignores that —
however ill-advised — this was a continuation of the aforementioned
Clinton Administration policies and that Bush at least pushed the
independent oversight of Fannie and Freddie that Frank opposed.
Frank also blames the Fed – and cheap money both here and abroad helped
cause the housing bubble. However, Frank ignores that the Boston Fed
(yes, in Frank’s virtual backyard) was among those pushing lower lending
standards across the board in order to make more minority loans — which
Frank has championed for years. Moreover, former Fed Chairman Alan
Greenspan repeatedly warned Frank and his friends that Fannie and
Freddie carried systemic risks requiring legislative action, above and
beyond tighter regulation of these government sponsored enterprises.
Frank turned a deaf ear to these alarms.
Frank ultimately concedes ”that the present financial crisis has many
fathers.” Frank can dance, but he cannot hide from the fact that he was
one of them. Is Frank being intentionally dishonest, or is he merely as
clueless as he claimed to be about the prostitution ring run out of his
apartment? Neither possibility seems very comforting, particularly as
Frank’s plan to “fix” Fannie and Freddie is mostly to give them more
capital.
>
> They got what they wanted, and now they have to live with it.
Wrong again. This is what Democrats wanted and now they refuse to
accept any blame.
http://forum.brokeroutpost.com/loans/forum/2/242135.htm
From 2003
"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is
on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
(From the Article)
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago. . . .
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Despite the attempt to curb the waste, fraud, and abuse, some Democrats
were not on board. Barney Frank really looks like a genius on this one.
And this guy was the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.
*******
Bobby Fiction--still dodging and weaving for the crooks.
LZ
>
> Bob
Bob Giddings
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:05:36 -0500, Bob Giddings
><bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You really want to go back to January of this year, when the
>>Democrats took over?
>
>No, I want to go back to January 07 when the Democrats took over the
>majority in Congress and started ruining our economy.
>
>>Do you remember what the economy was like back in January?
>>
>>In the previous 4 months, the stock market had lost a third of
>>it's value. Seems like "free enterprise", at least as
>>Republicans understood it, had done a pretty good job of
>>hindering itself.
>>
>>We are still trying to climb out of the hole they left us in.
>
>I looks like you are Climbing into a hole not out. In Jan 09 it was
>over 9000, about 800 above where it is now. In January 2007 it was
>over 12,000, that is 4,000 over where your party has taken it.
>
Humbug. On Jan 19th, Bush's last full day in office, the DOW
ended up at 8281.
On Jan 1st it was 8776.
Another Zimmerman wannabe troll. You can't argue with people who
make up their own "facts". All you can do is drive a stake
through their evil hearts at the polls. Again and again and
again.
And that's just what we'll do.
Bob
Lone Haranguer
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:25:53 -0400, demo...@thedump.org wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:05:36 -0500, Bob Giddings
>> <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You really want to go back to January of this year, when the
>>> Democrats took over?
>> No, I want to go back to January 07 when the Democrats took over the
>> majority in Congress and started ruining our economy.
>>
>>> Do you remember what the economy was like back in January?
>>>
>>> In the previous 4 months, the stock market had lost a third of
>>> it's value. Seems like "free enterprise", at least as
>>> Republicans understood it, had done a pretty good job of
>>> hindering itself.
>>>
>>> We are still trying to climb out of the hole they left us in.
>> I looks like you are Climbing into a hole not out. In Jan 09 it was
>> over 9000, about 800 above where it is now. In January 2007 it was
>> over 12,000, that is 4,000 over where your party has taken it.
>>
>
> Humbug. On Jan 19th, Bush's last full day in office, the DOW
> ended up at 8281.
And when did it jump off the cliff? When Obama won the election. The
stock market is all about consumer confidence and it evaporated
when Obama was elected. Even present levels are artificial because the
Osama administration is playing with the numbers and concealing information.
http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1986.html
>
> On Jan 1st it was 8776.
>
> Another Zimmerman wannabe troll. You can't argue with people who
> make up their own "facts". All you can do is drive a stake
> through their evil hearts at the polls. Again and again and
> again.
The anguished screams of a loser. Obama's numbers are down, the stock
market is down, unemployment is up and the stimulus
money is being used to buy votes in the ghettos.
>
> And that's just what we'll do.
Only with illegal campaign funding and rigged voting with the help of ACORN.
LZ
>
> Bob
nothermark
wrote:
In a way, yes. The industrial farm model is very vulnerable to both
biologocal problems and foreign competition.
Peter Pan
and todays close it was 8183, and it only cost how many billions to do
nothing, and have it go further down....
Frank Howell
Be that it maybe, I thought that 70% of the economy was consumer spending
and that's the problem. Consumers are now deleveraging.
The other problem is a lending crisis. Most of the largest banks are
insolvent. Most of the large banks are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Commercial loans and prime mortgages. There are many shopping malls, hotels
and other commercial property that are delinquent and bankrupt, but the
banks are reluctant to call the loans, as who would buy a mall today. In
California there are 75 hotels that are bankrupt, but again who wants to
foreclose and take over a hotel in these times? The result is banks can't
lend with liabilities like these on the books. Since consumer spending
depends on credit, you can forget about 70% of the economy today, tomorrow
and the next few years.
Not Obama's fault nor was it Bush's fault. Without cheap lending, none of
this could happen. The problem lies with Alan Greenspan and his cheap money
policy that lasted far too long. Maybe he wanted to live up to his name!
--
Frank Howell
Lone Haranguer
Alan Greenspan and his super low interest along with pressure from CRA
bureaucrats and Congressional Democrats
to make sure ANYONE could buy a house.
LZ
JerryD(upstateNY)
Congress", that brought about the fiscal crisis and stock market plunge
under a Republican President?
Here's where some of that "data" would come in handy. Hmm?
Be careful. You're liable to twist yourself in a knot you can't
untie.<<<<<<<<<
I don't have to be "real careful" because I have data.
The Democrats pushing Fannie and Freddie to make banks to make sub-prime
loans was the cause of the "fiscal crisis and stock market plunge".
The Republicans tried to get some oversite on Freddie and Frannie but the
Democrats blocked it.
Take a look at this video.
It has actual footage so it's not just someone's opinion of what happened.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/09/fanniefreddie_timeline.html
I know this is a waste of my time typing this because even though it has
actual footage of Barney Frank and quotes from Chuckie Schumer....you won't
believe it because you are brainwashed.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
JerryD(upstateNY)
couple of decades that the markets would take care of themselves,
that they didn't need regulation?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You just don't know what you are talking about.
If the market was allowed to take care of itself, we wouldn't be in this
situtition right now.
It was government interference that caused the problem.
Fannie and Freddie REQUIRED the banks to make sub-prime loans, which is the
cause of this whole problem.
They got what they wanted, and now they have to live with it.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No, the Democrats got what they wanted.............poor people owning their
own homes.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
matt_colie
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:48:32 -0500, Bob Giddings
> <bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Humbug. On Jan 19th, Bush's last full day in office, the DOW
>> ended up at 8281.
>>
>> On Jan 1st it was 8776.
>
> today. Why is that?
>> Another Zimmerman wannabe troll. You can't argue with people who
>> make up their own "facts". All you can do is drive a stake
>> through their evil hearts at the polls. Again and again and
>> again.
>> And that's just what we'll do.
>
>> Bob
>
>
> his way to winning the election and everyone knew what was coming.
> How about you try to address the other part of the statement where the
> Democrats gained a majority and the market tanked.
>
> I have noticed a few times that you will try to pick the weakest part
> of any post, try to make it look bad, then act like you have addressed
> the whole post. Will you answer the rest of the question or ignore
> it like it does not exist?
>
> You are correct I am trolling. One of my favorite ways to catch fish.
> You are one of the biggest fish I have ever had on the line.
>
> --
> The Universal Visionary
Please give Bob the credit he is due.
He does absorb and process information.
He tries to build the case as he sees it.
This is so vastly different from the name-calling and shouting down that
so many others do (that can not seem to collect and process information
at all) that it is refreshing.
The name-calling is to tiresome.
Matt
nothermark
Let me give you a different twist. The only reason Greenspan was
looking at housing numbers was the housing industry was still a major
domestic business sector.
What is interesting is the growth in exports and the supposed increase
in productivity. Exports grew as we shipped parts to Canada and
Mexico for assembly into finished products sent back here at a higher
value. For every dollar we exported we imported a $1+ in return. The
real export was assembly line jobs. That is also how we became more
efficient. Before exporting manufacturing 1 bean counter and 1
assembler made 1 car/day. After the assembly line was exported 1 bean
counter made 1car/day. Computers then eliminated 2/3 of the bean
counters but added most back as computer support. Now we are
exporting computer support to India. The only real growth is in
exported jobs. The big question is how do all those displaced workers
buy a new house?
Frank Howell
They won't.
--
Frank Howell
Technobarbarian
More news on the fictional decline in American manufacturing:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZ8aww_NkB7k#
Trade Deficit in U.S. Narrowed in May as Exports Rose
By Bob Willis
July 10 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly narrowed in May
to the lowest level in almost a decade as exports jumped while imports of
crude oil and auto parts declined.
The gap between imports and exports decreased 9.8 percent to $26 billion,
the smallest deficit since November 1999, from a revised $28.8 billion in
April that was lower than previously estimated, the Commerce Department said
today in Washington. Imports fell while exports rose the most since July
2008.
A shrinking deficit signals trade will contribute more to U.S. gross
domestic product as exports to emerging economies such as Brazil increase.
Meanwhile, U.S. demand for imported auto parts was held down in May by
production cutbacks and factory shutdowns by Detroit-based General Motors
Corp. and Chrysler LLC, based in Auburn Hills, Michigan, two of the nation's
three largest automakers.
"Trade looks like it's going to be a big plus for second quarter GDP," said
James O'Sullivan, a senior economist at UBS Securities LLC in Stamford,
Connecticut. "It looks like the plunge in exports is over, which is of
course consistent with the goal of the economy starting to stabilize after a
dramatic collapse."
[snip]
Exports rose 1.6 percent, the biggest increase since July 2008, to $123.3
billion, as sales of petroleum products, chemicals and industrial machinery
increased. Exports this year have gotten a boost from aircraft
manufacturers. Chicago-based Boeing Co., the world's second biggest
commercial-plane maker, said it got 20 orders in May, up from 17 in April.
[snip]
The trade gap with China increased to $17.5 billion from $16.8 billion in
the prior month. Deficits with Canada, Mexico and Japan shrank. The deficit
with the European Union fell 48 percent to $2.8 billion as demand for
European goods declined.
While symptomatic of global weakness, the narrowing of the trade gap
prevented the U.S. economy from contracting even more last year. Trade
contributed 1.4 percentage points to growth in 2008, the most since 1980.
The boost to U.S. growth from net exports continues this year. The economy
shrank at a 5.5 percent annual rate in the first quarter, even as net
exports made a positive contribution of 2.4 percentage points.
IMF Outlook
World trade this year may shrink 12 percent before growing 1 percent next
year, the International Monetary Fund said this week in its latest global
growth outlook. The world economy will shrink 1.4 percent this year and then
recover next year with a 2.5 percent expansion, according to the forecast.
China, the second-largest U.S. trading partner after Canada, will grow 7.5
percent this year and, together with Brazil and other emerging economies,
help bring an end to the global slump, the IMF said.
[snip]
TB
Bob Hatch
matt_colie <ma...@charter.net> typed:
That's funny. :-)
--
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism,
but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every
fragment of the socialist program until one day America
will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com
nothermark
so the auto industry slumped, we exported fewer parts to Canada and
imported back fewer cars. It's a game we cannot win unless we stop
building the cars outside the country.
"The trade gap with China increased to $17.5 billion from $16.8
billion"
The problem with spread sheet managment is most folks don't really
know what the numbers really translate out to. All they know is
changing column x is good or bad.
Carl A. in FL
news:9vcf55h1vhtj7k6rp...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:10:56 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
> <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> More news on the fictional decline in American manufacturing:
>>
>>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZ8aww_NkB7k#
>>
>>Trade Deficit in U.S. Narrowed in May as Exports Rose
>>
It is dishonest to use the smaller trade deficit in an attempt to
support the position that manufacturing jobs aren't leaving the
country in droves.
Because of the unemployment that the stimulus didn't turn around, fewer
people have the $ to buy imported goods. Ergo, fewer imports.
A careful reading of the business press (Forbes, Business Week, WSJ) shows
daily reports of plants closing and manufacturing jobs being moved abroad.
I will be meting with fellow directors of a manufacturing company next week
and one agenda item is moving about 100 production jobs to India. The
decision will be easy -- no EPA, no EEOC, no exorbitant health care costs,
no union, no government meddling.
--
Carl A. in FL
http://sky.prohosting.com/chainfl/
Technobarbarian
"Carl A. in FL" <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0090461c$0$15061$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> "nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
> news:9vcf55h1vhtj7k6rp...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:10:56 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
>> <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> More news on the fictional decline in American manufacturing:
>>>
>>>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZ8aww_NkB7k#
>>>
>>>Trade Deficit in U.S. Narrowed in May as Exports Rose
>>>
> --------------------- major snip -----------------
>
>
>
> It is dishonest to use the smaller trade deficit in an attempt to
> support the position that manufacturing jobs aren't leaving the
> country in droves.
It's dishonest to pretend that those are the only facts I provided in
this thread. This information merely supplemented what I had already posted.
>
> Because of the unemployment that the stimulus didn't turn around, fewer
> people have the $ to buy imported goods. Ergo, fewer imports.
>
> A careful reading of the business press (Forbes, Business Week, WSJ) shows
> daily reports of plants closing and manufacturing jobs being moved abroad.
The world is changing around us. In many ways. Despite these changes
2007 was a record year for American manufacturing.
>
> I will be meting with fellow directors of a manufacturing company next
> week and one agenda item is moving about 100 production jobs to India.
> The decision will be easy -- no EPA, no EEOC, no exorbitant health care
> costs, no union, no government meddling.
If you really think the decision is a no brainer they have the right
man for the job. I especially like the "no government meddling" part. You
really should look at the real India instead of the India of your fantasies.
The bureaucratic hoops new businesses have to jump through in India make us
look like a bunch of pure laissez faire capitalists.
TB
tb
Chuck Norris
<bobgid...@gmail.com> wrote:
Facts!
When 0bammy was nominated the Dow was about 12K. As it became obvious
he would win the presidency, the dow dropped steadily until mid Sept.
It then rose until about Jan 1 and then reversed again. It continued
down to a low of about 6547 in march. Up again to 8800 on June 12. As
0's plan to destroy this country became more evident, it has dropped
to it's current 8146 and still going down.
He has a track record to be proud of.
Chuck
--
Liberals. You can't talk to them and bullets are just so damned expensive!
Chuck Norris
Carl A. in FL
>
> "Carl A. in FL" <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0090461c$0$15061$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> "nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>> news:9vcf55h1vhtj7k6rp...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:10:56 -0700, "Technobarbarian"
>>> <Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> More news on the fictional decline in American manufacturing:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZ8aww_NkB7k#
>>>>
>>>>Trade Deficit in U.S. Narrowed in May as Exports Rose
>>>>
>> --------------------- major snip -----------------
>>
>>
>>
>> It is dishonest to use the smaller trade deficit in an attempt to
>> support the position that manufacturing jobs aren't leaving the
>> country in droves.
>
> It's dishonest to pretend that those are the only facts I provided in
> this thread. This information merely supplemented what I had already
> posted.
>>
>> Because of the unemployment that the stimulus didn't turn around, fewer
>> people have the $ to buy imported goods. Ergo, fewer imports.
>>
>> A careful reading of the business press (Forbes, Business Week, WSJ)
>> shows daily reports of plants closing and manufacturing jobs being moved
>> abroad.
>
> The world is changing around us. In many ways. Despite these changes
> 2007 was a record year for American manufacturing.
And then the Democrats came to power?
>> I will be meting with fellow directors of a manufacturing company next
>> week and one agenda item is moving about 100 production jobs to India.
>> The decision will be easy -- no EPA, no EEOC, no exorbitant health care
>> costs, no union, no government meddling.
>
> If you really think the decision is a no brainer they have the right
> man for the job. I especially like the "no government meddling" part. You
> really should look at the real India instead of the India of your
> fantasies. The bureaucratic hoops new businesses have to jump through in
> India make us look like a bunch of pure laissez faire capitalists.
>
You really don't know much about international business, do you? No
management with plants and operations in several countries would be foolish
enough to start from scratch in India. We have a buying office there and
simply increase our outsourcing and make a small investment in
product-specific equipment. I think it's also safe to assume that I've
spent considerably more time in India, dealing with Indian business
executives, than you ever have and ever will.
With business acumen of people like you, no wonder Oregon "enjoys" a 16%
unemployment rate.
Technobarbarian
>
> With business acumen of people like you, no wonder Oregon "enjoys" a 16%
> unemployment rate.
Yet more of your dishonesty. The current unemployment rate in OR is
12.4%. Not that I have anything to do with it. I haven't lived there in
about a decade. Other than my own employment and that of my wife I make no
claims for having any particular affect on the current 8.2% rate here in AZ.
http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm
As bad as it is now, it could be worse. The historical high here was
11.5% in Feb. 1983. OR is at there historical highest unemployment rate now
and had their lowest unemployment at 4.7% in April 1995, so maybe it would
be better for them if I still lived there. HawHawHaw
TB
nada
started about 30 years ago. The last Administration's mandate was
apparently to bring it to culmination.
I doubt this Administration will solve the problems as Lobbyists are
still steering the ship.
Get Lobbyists out of Government publicly finance campaigns and maybe
will survive. You have to start with basics.
nothermark
An assuming any lost US market will be made up by foreign consumption?
Carl A. in FL
Yes. China is an important and rapidly growing market for us.
In the States we would greatly benefit from infrastructure spending, but so
far we haven't seen a pick-up in demand.
Further -- it isn't volume that counts, it's profit margin. By shifting
production abroad our costs become much more variable and the margins go up.
It's better to sell one widget at a $1million profit than to sell a hundred
widgets and lose $1000 on each sale. Ask GM management...
Bruce S
Manufacturing and manufacturing jobs are not the same thing. The article TB
linked to was about manufacturing, not jobs. We have reached a point where
even if no jobs ever left the country, the number of manufacturing jobs
would still be going down - productivity has gone up.
Bruce
Carl A. in FL
news:009cf090$0$24760$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Manufacturing and manufacturing jobs are not the same thing. The article
> TB linked to was about manufacturing, not jobs. We have reached a point
> where even if no jobs ever left the country, the number of manufacturing
> jobs would still be going down - productivity has gone up.
>
> Bruce
Corporate top management gets paid to plan ahead, to anticipate the future,
and to plan how to cope if...
That's why Ford survived and GM/Chrysler didn't.
0bama socialism, Cap and Trade, and tax policies are the main concerns in
board rooms nowadays. There is no way that even optimistically forecasted
productivity increases will come close to overcoming what 0bama and the Dems
are doing to American industry.
Bruce S
I agree with you completely on this issue, I was just pointing out that TB
was talking about manufacturing and you responded by talking about
manufacturing jobs. They really are two different things. The amount of
manufacturing product can (and has) go up, while the number of people
performing manufacturing jobs goes down.
Bruce
bill horne
Since manufacturing has gone up, why do I have so much trouble finding
something that's not made in China or Central America?
I will, however, admit to finding the other day - in Walmart, of all
places - a water hose made in the USA.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Raymond J. Johnson Jr.
hundred job operation in India, is he? HawHawHaw!
What a load of bullshit! I guess Liver Can thinks folks will believe
his story, and think he's teaching the US a lesson with his "Indian
Widget Factory", because they elected the guy he didn't want? What a
turd! HawHawHaw!
Actually, all Carl's doing, is looking out the window of the "Geezer
Arms", wishing his health was better, and his savings hadn't gone in
the terlit!
At Carl's stage of life, most folks try to make nice with people,
so they'll be mourned when they're gone. Not Ol' Liver Can! He's proud
of his assholiness! HawHawHaw!
Jay Jr.
nothermark
<cha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
>news:0org55h5d3o1ts9jq...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:38:28 -0400, "Carl A. in FL"
>> <cha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>A careful reading of the business press (Forbes, Business Week, WSJ) shows
>>>daily reports of plants closing and manufacturing jobs being moved abroad.
>>>
>>>I will be meting with fellow directors of a manufacturing company next
>>>week
>>>and one agenda item is moving about 100 production jobs to India. The
>>>decision will be easy -- no EPA, no EEOC, no exorbitant health care costs,
>>>no union, no government meddling.
>>
>> An assuming any lost US market will be made up by foreign consumption?
>
>
>Yes. China is an important and rapidly growing market for us.
>
>In the States we would greatly benefit from infrastructure spending, but so
>far we haven't seen a pick-up in demand.
>
>Further -- it isn't volume that counts, it's profit margin. By shifting
>production abroad our costs become much more variable and the margins go up.
>It's better to sell one widget at a $1million profit than to sell a hundred
>widgets and lose $1000 on each sale. Ask GM management...
Thanks.
I'm not sure GM management can figure it out either way.
The reason I asked was for verification from somebody involved in what
I thought was going on. Most folks do not seem to understand that
kind of decision.
nothermark
wrote:
What I would really like to see is proof of your statement. I cannot
find it. I can find indirect indications that the books are being
cooked by counting foeign made good as US productivity increases.
Bruce S
We've discussed this before, and on those occasions I posted links to
productivity and manufacturing increases. You refuse to accept the
information because it does not support your biases, so I will not go thru
the effort of looking it up again. Your mind is made up, and another
recitation of the facts will not change that.
Bruce
Technobarbarian
"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
You don't seem to be able to find much of anything, including proof of
your own statements. Unless you are going to claim that there are no
un-cooked numbers it should be easy enough to provide numbers that support
your position, unless all you have is an opinion that isn't supported by any
facts.
This thing is an interesting snapshot of the world economy, but what
you want is on page 208, Table 4.3. If you're paying attention you will
notice that just like just about any other honest analysis they are looking
at the value added by manufacturing so that the value of raw materials and
foreign made goods are not counted.
TB
nothermark
wrote:
Reality is that my mind is not made up and that I would love to be
proven wrong. My problem is that I cannot get an answer to how
productivity is figured. The closest I ever get is Industrial
Input/Output but never get a definition of Input. OTOH I can get
stories about how the US government is avoiding the issue and
pointedly not getting statistics on foreign content.
Connecting it to my question for Carl it seems that if they company
he is talking about moves 100 jobs to China and still maintains the
headquarters here the stats will show a productivity increase. If you
assume that is showing the American worker is getting more productive
then say so.