# America's Falling Fast (Sad)



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

I just read this article, and it really upset me that not only do we already have a lot of desperate people, but that opportunities for employment are dieing out fast, and will only get worse with the new trade legislation, talked about later in the article. Its also sad to see people gaming the system, for drugs, and taking something that was meant to feed the poor children in tough times. It also makes me mad that our politicians are in the back pockets of big money, and do not serve the good of the people, or this nation any longer! What do you think it will take before the people unite and rise up. We need to clean house in D.C. and state houses across the country. The current private funded campaighn two party system no longer serves us!http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...lachia-look-like-they-have-been-through-a-war


----------



## MoonShadows (Jan 11, 2014)

It's sad, but our country is terminal.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

No need to rise up. It's fixing to fall down on us.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

If we didn't subsidize these sad lifestyles, people would be forced to do what they have done throughout the ages -- pack up and go off in search of work. And clean up their acts to the extent necessary to find and keep it. And, probably, refrain from having children out-of-wedlock. (The unmarried birth rate hovered at around 5 percent or less prior to the advent of welfare, which pays poor single women to have children.)

What's the old saying? "Idle hands do the devil's work"? Hard-working hands, not so much.

Unfortunately, it has become politically expedient to allow people to be dependent.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Poverty in Appalachia? When did that start? http://www.appalachiacommittee.org/poverty.html


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> If we didn't subsidize these sad lifestyles, people would be forced to do what they have done throughout the ages -- pack up and go off in search of work. And clean up their acts to the extent necessary to find and keep it. And, probably, refrain from having children out-of-wedlock. (The unmarried birth rate hovered at around 5 percent or less prior to the advent of welfare, which pays poor single women to have children.)
> 
> What's the old saying? "Idle hands do the devil's work"? Hard-working hands, not so much.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has become politically expedient to allow people to be dependent.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## tomtom (Oct 23, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> If we didn't subsidize these sad lifestyles, people would be forced to do what they have done throughout the ages -- pack up and go off in search of work. And clean up their acts to the extent necessary to find and keep it. And, probably, refrain from having children out-of-wedlock. (The unmarried birth rate hovered at around 5 percent or less prior to the advent of welfare, which pays poor single women to have children.)
> 
> What's the old saying? "Idle hands do the devil's work"? Hard-working hands, not so much.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has become politically expedient to allow people to be dependent.



Oh so true


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Poverty in Appalachia? When did that start? http://www.appalachiacommittee.org/poverty.html


***********************************
when LBJ, declared 'war' on it.

And the rest of the country has gone downhill since.:hair


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> ***********************************
> when LBJ, declared 'war' on it.
> 
> And the rest of the country has gone downhill since.:hair


So it didn't exist before LBJ. I guess back then they were just dirt poor. Hard to believe anyone ever lived there willingly before government support.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> So it didn't exist before LBJ. I guess back then they were just dirt poor. Hard to believe anyone ever lived there willingly before government support.


****************************
Of course it existed ......but it wasn't _*EXPLOITED*_
and made into a political scheme to enrich a certain
segment of society at the expense of everyone else; 
including especially, those it was designed to help.

You may find it hard to believe that anyone ever lived there 
willingly* BEFORE* gooberment support, but it happened nonetheless.

There's a fine line where intruding on a society that has it's own way 
of handling things and then forcing folk to do something "for their own good."

It's highly doubtful that the TVA ever came into being to benefit the "little guy" living up the hollar.
But of course, that's the 'reason' that was used to push it through.....FDR's "new deals" continued with LBJ.

And I believe that most of those folks were happier and better off without all that unwanted 'support'.....


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> ****************************
> Of course it existed ......but it wasn't _*EXPLOITED*_
> and made into a political scheme to enrich a certain
> segment of society at the expense of everyone else;
> ...


If only it were a private business exploiting things for the good of us all. http://www.plunderingappalachia.org/theissue.htm


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Did ya all hear that collection of Blacks talking about how the Dem party is their downfall?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

hehehe... "Crazy Checks".... I was just having a conversation about this the other day with my wife as we were listening to the scanner, and we got to thinking some of this stuff may be because it makes it easier to claim they are mentally disabled... Some of this stuff can't be real.. It's gotta be made up... 

Don't be fooled though.. There is more money and jobs in the Appalachians then they would like the rest of the country to know. Then again, Oil is the new big Coal here.. More jobs than people willing to work them. Just too many people are lazy and don't want to work. Most can't pass a drug test, and they test heavily here.

Lots of businesses here.. many are stuck in the middle of nowhere.. Companies like Fiesta Ware and Kingsford... The deal is, the government does all they can to try and keep the people down, and some enjoy that ride, but for those that want to work, there are a lot of good jobs if you want to go look for them, and they pay good money.

That article seems kind of one sided to me...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

cedarvalley said:


> I just read this article, and it really upset me that not only do we already have a lot of desperate people, but that opportunities for employment are dieing out fast, and will only get worse with the new trade legislation, talked about later in the article. Its also sad to see people gaming the system, for drugs, and taking something that was meant to feed the poor children in tough times. It also makes me mad that our politicians are in the back pockets of big money, and do not serve the good of the people, or this nation any longer! What do you think it will take before the people unite and rise up. We need to clean house in D.C. and state houses across the country. The current private funded campaighn two party system no longer serves us!http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...lachia-look-like-they-have-been-through-a-war


What did you think a recession would be like?


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> What did you think a recession would be like?


 I don't call it a recession anymore, I call it a developing trend, that is continuing downward.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

cedarvalley said:


> I don't call it a recession anymore, I call it a developing trend, that is continuing downward.


It's just a decade long recession playing out. I told you back in 2007 that it would last 10 years.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's just a decade long recession playing out. I told you back in 2007 that it would last 10 years.


 How are we gonna come out of it, if the good jobs continue to be shipped over sea's? I see a small lull in this recession, with a big spike downward toward the end of 2015. I think 2015 could be a interesting year!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

cedarvalley said:


> How are we gonna come out of it, if the good jobs continue to be shipped over sea's? I see a small lull in this recession, with a big spike downward toward the end of 2015. I think 2015 could be a interesting year!


OK, I'll explain it one more time. You are so far from the cause & cure of the recession that you need a nudge in the right direction.

We descended into recession because of the mortgage crisis. The primary problem was that banks got caught holding trillions in bad mortgage debt. Banks were saved by the Fed loaning an estimated $7 trillion to banks. That loaned money was never to be loaned by banks, it was only to be held to make the banks appear solvent.

So why didn't the Fed loan end the recession? Because 1) the money has to be paid back, and 2) the banks are still under water because of the toxic assets. In short, banks are only going to lend to the most qualified of borrowers right now. That means that money to buy homes, cars, and major appliances simply isn't available to most Americans right now. Consumer demand has come to a halt due to unavailable money, and the recession will persist until Americans can start consuming again.

So your question is: "How are we gonna come out of it?" The recession will end when the toxic real estate assets are no longer toxic. That will put banks back in a mood to lend.

How will real estate assets recover? They'll recover on their own, at their own speed. There isn't a lot anyone, or even the government, can do to make that happen any faster.

Residential real estate has been drifting up slowly for the past 4 years or so. When the mortgage crisis happened the house I own today lost 80% of it's 2006 value. Over the past 4 years it's gone from 20% of the 2006 value to about 40%. That's a lot of recovery, but it's still got a long way to go.

Relax, the recovery will happen. It's just going to take 4 or 5 more years. There will be good months and bad months along the way, but it will happen eventually. We're in a small real estate retraction right now but I don't think it's going to be serious. It's just a minor correction. The general trajectory is up.

But don't expect QE to end any time soon. The Fed will continue QE and keep interest rates low for the foreseeable future, certainly the next few years. It's doesn't matter what the Fed tells the press, they can't stop QE or the economy will come to a halt.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> OK, I'll explain it one more time. You are so far from the cause & cure of the recession that you need a nudge in the right direction.
> 
> We descended into recession because of the mortgage crisis. The primary problem was that banks got caught holding trillions in bad mortgage debt. Banks were saved by the Fed loaning an estimated $7 trillion to banks. That loaned money was never to be loaned by banks, it was only to be held to make the banks appear solvent.
> 
> ...


 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...eeping-considerable-time-low-rate-pledge.html
Fed met today, and announced end of QE bond purchasing.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

'06 is about when this started. You keep saying about 10 years and THAT 10 Years is NOW or in the next year. But NOW you say Another 5 Years you keep kicking this can down the road and people are saying it is NOT going top end as soon as you say and now even you are adding YEARS to it. Which is it 10 years 15 years OR 20 years?
The point being Obama is doing the same thing as what happened back in the great depression and THAT lasted WAY longer than it had to, History IS repeating itself and it is NOT GOOD. Obama is doing Opposite of what should be done. And History is proving that correct as now this recession should be coming to a close in the next year or so, and it doesn't even look like it has started to come around. Sears is even closing MORE stores now 110 and laying off 5500 MORE than just a few months ago. Sears and K-Maert are on a death roll. And no thanks to this long lasting what ever you want to call it recession depression or just plain Incompetence from this administration, and the later is more true and is playing it out as being true.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nevada, you sound very optimistic, I for one, hope your right. I just don't see the good jobs coming back. Without good jobs, whose gonna be able to afford to consume like we have in the past. Who are you gonna sell a new home or new vehicle's etc., in a nation where wages are still trending down, and cost are trending up.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> '06 is about when this started. You keep saying about 10 years and THAT 10 Years is NOW or in the next year. But NOW you say Another 5 Years you keep kicking this can down the road and people are saying it is NOT going top end as soon as you say and now even you are adding YEARS to it. Which is it 10 years 15 years OR 20 years?
> The point being Obama is doing the same thing as what happened back in the great depression and THAT lasted WAY longer than it had to, History IS repeating itself and it is NOT GOOD. Obama is doing Opposite of what should be done. And History is proving that correct as now this recession should be coming to a close in the next year or so, and it doesn't even look like it has started to come around. Sears is even closing MORE stores now 110 and laying off 5500 MORE than just a few months ago. Sears and K-Maert are on a death roll. And no thanks to this long lasting what ever you want to call it recession depression or just plain Incompetence from this administration, and the later is more true and is playing it out as being true.


 I tend to agree with you, except I would add that it started on this path long before the Obama administration.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And I just heard that the Newest polling for our governors race is Governor Walker is up by 7 points and that is before reports that are just now coming out today, that Mary Burke's family started Trek Bicycles company, Kicked her butt out of the company firing her for Incompetence~!
And SHE wants to be governor of the State of WI. I don't think so. 
But There you have your own democratic party running such a clown as this for governor? She even plagiarized her so called back to work plan. And that was a proven fact.
Wow Just Plain WOW.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's just a decade long recession playing out. I told you back in 2007 that it would last 10 years.


************************************
and most of them have turned out to be wrong. 

You should be very thankful that we live in the age of grace
and not when the law stated that if a prophet spoke anything
prefaced with: "Thus saith the Lord...." and it turned out to not
come to pass, then the people were to remove said false prophet 
from their midst, with a pelting of rocks......

When are you going to quit calling it a very *LONG* recession 
and speak the truth that it is a deep, and very dark *DEPRESSION*?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

cedarvalley said:


> I tend to agree with you, except I would add that it started on this path long before the Obama administration.


 Well sure it did the mortgage crisis start back in the 90's and it takes 4 to 5 years for those bad ones to service and that is when things started to go down hill. 
The balloon payments were written to come into play 3 to 5 years after closing. And it took exsatly That Long before they started showing up when bankruptcies started to go sky high because people that really should not have bought a house in the first place OR should as heck should not have gotten a McMansion, those high payments started to go bad, setting off a downward spiral.
But the truth of that some seem never to post.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Well sure it did the mortgage crisis start back in the 90's and it takes 4 to 5 years for those bad ones to service and that is when things started to go down hill.
> The balloon payments were written to come into play 3 to 5 years after closing. And it took exsatly That Long before they started showing up when bankruptcies started to go sky high because people that really should not have bought a house in the first place OR should as heck should not have gotten a McMansion, those high payments started to go bad, setting off a downward spiral.
> But the truth of that some seem never to post.


 You're right, and don't forget about the start of shipping our good jobs, and manufacturing out of country with NAFTA and other trade policies, that started with Clinton, and was excelerated under Bush.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

cedarvalley said:


> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...eeping-considerable-time-low-rate-pledge.html
> Fed met today, and announced end of QE bond purchasing.


Mark my words, *QE isn't going anywhere*. They'll change their tune fast.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Well sure it did the mortgage crisis start back in the 90's


OK I'll play along, but Bush had 8 years to fix it. Why didn't he?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Using Appalachia as an example for the country as a whole just isn't comparing apples to apples. It's always been a tough place to scratch out a living. It's a sub-culture all its own. Books been written about it, movies made. 

As far as blasting the mountain tops to get coal, if the people of those states, you know--the ones who have to live there--want to allow it, then it's none of our business. There are parks, wildlife refuges, national and state forests; parts of it have been preserved.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And without a drastic change in out tax structure companies will not be coming back as they have already tested the honey of low taxes in our places.
And the more and more automation comes into play less and less workers will be needed for the companies that are left here.
And I know that from personal experience too.
When I first started working making small computer parts that go inside hard drives, it took 16 of us in one unit to makes parts.
When I left because of health reason that number had already been cut to no more than 5 in each production unit.
Now TWO units are facing one another and get this 4 workers at most are watching these two production units~! And that is ALL because of more and more robotics and a bunch of cameras taking pictures of parts for defects. 

That company at one time had 4 factories in 3 states. Employing around 8600
Even when I was still there they closed one place laid of 1,000's
Now they are about to close and consolidate the remains 3 Into ONE Factory in MN.
They started up production and making these parts in Thailand. And as soon as that plant gets to 80% production even the place I worked at will Shut Its Doors.
The company at that time will be around 1500 workers IF THAT. A sad cry from the once 8500.
Even Fast Food places are going to be Forced to go with more and more Automation and non human contact in ordering their food. That is coming fast and will come faster if these idiots get a 15 buck an hour or more for minimum wage raise goes through. More and more will get the axe, and that will not help this country one bit.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

cedarvalley said:


> You're right, and don't forget about the start of shipping our good jobs, and manufacturing out of country with NAFTA and other trade policies, that started with Clinton, and was excelerated under Bush.


It goes back further than that. Our "trade deficit" with China was talked about back in Reagan's day.

There isn't any one thing that caused today's economic conditions, or any one thing that's gonna fix it. It's human to look for simple answers but there just aren't any.

The days when a person could graduate high school (or maybe not), and take their pick from jobs that all paid "living" wages, typically factory jobs, are gone. They ain't coming back. 

We will adapt, like always. And there is still opportunity if you look for it. More people will work for themselves, have a "microbusiness". 30 years ago, was there any such thing as a "dog walker", "doggie day care" or "pet sitter"? Now, people are making a living providing these services. More people are going to college than ever before (although not necessarily a good thing, can you say "student loan crisis"?). Some jobs even have labor shortages, people need to seek these out and get those skills. For example, OTR trucking is hard on a family, but there is good money to be made. Saw an ad recently where the company was offering a $4000 signing bonus for truck drivers!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

How about this there is a gas station socncience store that I buy my gas at. At Every pump their is they notice.
Help Wanted.
Starting with a 50 buck bonus.
after 3 months another 50 dollar bonus,
after 6 months another 50 dollar bonus.
and those signs are now going on 4 WEEKS now as nobody has taken them up on the offer.
And how about this I like Perkins, I have a E Mail notifications about specials etc.

Nope not this time:
Help Wanted. 
Two places for managers. 
So now places like these restaurants are even reaching out E Mailing to folks that are already on their E Mailing list For HELP, how SAD IS THAT?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> How about this there is a gas station socncience store that I buy my gas at. At Every pump their is they notice.
> Help Wanted.
> Starting with a 50 buck bonus.
> after 3 months another 50 dollar bonus,
> ...


Did you apply?


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> How about this there is a gas station socncience store that I buy my gas at. At Every pump their is they notice.
> Help Wanted.
> Starting with a 50 buck bonus.
> after 3 months another 50 dollar bonus,
> ...


 Beside the manager position's, these are most likely minimum wage jobs. Its easy to sit back and say why aren't people applying for these job's, when your not the one applying your self. Minimum wage now day's will not support a family. If companies have a hard time filling these positions, then wages will have to rise, that's not a bad thing.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> How about this there is a gas station socncience store that I buy my gas at. At Every pump their is they notice.
> Help Wanted.
> Starting with a 50 buck bonus.
> after 3 months another 50 dollar bonus,
> ...


It isn't sad, it's great! The gas station/convenience store probably pays crappy, offers no benefits, somebody has to work the graveyard shift, the clerk runs the risk of being robbed, they have to clean the public restrooms, etc. All that for $50 extra? No thank you. So they will have to pay more or offer a better bonus. Great for the person who eventually takes the job. Or, maybe the owner is a jerk who is hard to work for, and that reputation is known.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> If we didn't subsidize these sad lifestyles, people would be forced to do what they have done throughout the ages -- pack up and go off in search of work. And clean up their acts to the extent necessary to find and keep it. And, probably, refrain from having children out-of-wedlock. (The unmarried birth rate hovered at around 5 percent or less prior to the advent of welfare, which pays poor single women to have children.)
> 
> What's the old saying? "Idle hands do the devil's work"? Hard-working hands, not so much.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has become politically expedient to allow people to be dependent.


Would someone who shamelessly manipulates a government program for financial gain fall into "part of the problem" or "part of the solution"? Seth


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The "fast fall of America" can just as easily be one of this nation's finest hours as it has been many times in the past. Unfortunately to reach a finest hour again we as a nation must undo over 50 years of below par social programming.

The "poverty line" while accepted by many sectors as hard reality is in reality more perception than reality and can be dispensed with as more of our nation embrace realistic expectations.

I know of a number of local small business operators who provide services at half the labor rate others in their sector charge. They charge less in labor because they realistically understand what their customer base can afford and they themselves have learned how to live comfortably, albeit less frills and luxuries.

A mechanic here has more business than he can complete in two weeks just because he dropped his labor charge by 30%. One of the local parts houses decreased their profit mark up to local buyers.

Both of these businesses did so because of the job recession in the area. Some other businesses are following suit also.

As more areas of the nation accept the reality and address it realistically more businesses will follow suit if they want to maintain their customer bases.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Seth said:


> Would someone who shamelessly manipulates a government program for financial gain fall into "part of the problem" or "part of the solution"? Seth


They're small time operators compared to defense contractors.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Shrek said:


> The "fast fall of America" can just as easily be one of this nation's finest hours as it has been many times in the past. Unfortunately to reach a finest hour again we as a nation must undo over 50 years of below par social programming.
> 
> The "poverty line" while accepted by many sectors as hard reality is in reality more perception than reality and can be dispensed with as more of our nation embrace realistic expectations.
> 
> ...


 Hope you don't see this as a good thing, that sounds like a race to the bottom, to me.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Seth said:


> Would someone who shamelessly manipulates a government program for financial gain fall into "part of the problem" or "part of the solution"? Seth


 Soooo, im guessing you would have to include a lot of corporations and financial institutions in this group too, am I right?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Shrek said:


> The "fast fall of America" can just as easily be one of this nation's finest hours as it has been many times in the past. Unfortunately to reach a finest hour again we as a nation must undo over 50 years of below par social programming.
> 
> The "poverty line" while accepted by many sectors as hard reality is in reality more perception than reality and can be dispensed with as more of our nation embrace realistic expectations.
> 
> ...


What you've just described is called "deflation", the precursor to "hyper-inflation". History is full of that very sequence.


----------



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> How about this there is a gas station socncience store that I buy my gas at. At Every pump their is they notice.
> Help Wanted.
> Starting with a 50 buck bonus.
> after 3 months another 50 dollar bonus,
> ...


Ohh, The place next to the big cheese?
I think the problem might be that they sell booze. The workers must be over 18 now, IIRC. And Pass a E~Z class to get a license. Even IF they have that, Its still up to the PD to O.K., said licence. Any minor alcohol offence can make you ineligible


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/29/new...erve-ends-qe-bond-buying/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

QE3 is dead. That prediction didn't take long to fail. Is it spring?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/29/new...erve-ends-qe-bond-buying/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> QE3 is dead. That prediction didn't take long to fail. Is it spring?


It won't last. QE was the only thing keeping the economy alive and breathing. Without it there will be real problems. That will become evident very quickly.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> It won't last. QE was the only thing keeping the economy alive and breathing. Without it there will be real problems. That will become evident very quickly.


There's the core of the leftist attitude right there. Without daddy big govt, nobody can do anything. Wrong!

The stock market is likely going to correct, there might be some hiccups here and there, but all those millions of mom and pops, along with the bigger companies, is what keeps the economy breathing. The ag sector is in a boom, guns and ammo, too, and any day now somebody will invent the next big thing and everybody will buy one.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I don't disagree with your assessment of the current situation nor your prediction that it will be quickly evident that they screwed up. I just found your emphatic prediction that they would not end it just an hour before they did funny. Nothing those idiots do surprises me anymore.

ETA- if this economy is ever to recover, it must be allowed to correct. They were wrong to not let it fully correct years ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I don't disagree with your assessment of the current situation nor your prediction that it will be quickly evident that they screwed up. I just found your emphatic prediction that they would not end it just an hour before they did funny.


Oh, I'm not surprised that the Fed is trying it. That was predicted by a lot of the insider talking heads. But the economy can't survive without life support right now. I'm as confident as I can be that we'll see QE4.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Oh, I'm not surprised that the Fed is trying it. That was predicted by a lot of the insider talking heads. But the economy can't survive without life support right now. I'm as confident as I can be that we'll see QE4.


So in other words, this administration is such an epic failure at economics, that their going to have to continue these programs to keep our economy from completely collapsing! Got it!

And you keep complaining about Bush!!! :huh::shrug:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So in other words, this administration is such an epic failure at economics, that their going to have to continue these programs to keep our economy from completely collapsing! Got it!


It's not about the administration, it's about the economic realities of today. We either keep the economy on life support or it dies. There isn't a lot of choice in the matter.

The question is how long the dollar will hold value as the Fed keeps printing money to keep the economy afloat. Up until now we've actually been in better shape than Europe so the dollar has done well. Sooner or later the international currency traders will have to make adjustments.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So in other words, this administration is such an epic failure at economics, that their going to have to continue these programs to keep our economy from completely collapsing! Got it!
> 
> And you keep complaining about Bush!!! :huh::shrug:


LOL, OH, let me guess, Bush had nothing to do with the economy collapsing.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Baloney.

Appalacia is stricken with severe poverty? What year is this?

https://www.google.com/search?q=app...achian poverty 1960&revid=1145017120&imgdii=_

Businesses have been outsourcing to other countries for 40 years - because they legally can. Trade agreement do little to influence that.

We were trading big time with Canada and Mexico, long before NAFTA.

People that live in Appalacia are not going to find jobs there - ever!

They need to find a way come to Indiana and N. Kentucky where there are _now hiring_ signs everywhere.

Or, they can just sit there and starve like they have for the last 100 years.


----------



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Oh, I'm not surprised that the Fed is trying it. That was predicted by a lot of the insider talking heads. But the economy can't survive without life support right now. I'm as confident as I can be that we'll see QE4.


The talk a few years ago was, If the powers that be, let the economy fail, it would be in the spring. (for various reasons)
If this would happen in spring of 15', and other events, this could con inside with the king staying in power.

I'm not uneducated on the subject, I just gave up following it a few years ago.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

cedarvalley said:


> LOL, OH, let me guess, Bush had nothing to do with the economy collapsing.


Did I say that? You know what assume means don't you? 

Lmao, Obama had 6 years to do what?......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Did I say that? You know what assume means don't you?
> 
> Lmao, Obama had 6 years to do what?......


As I said, we're in for a decade long recession. I don't see how the government can change that.


----------



## sunny225 (Dec 4, 2009)

&#8220;What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It&#8217;s not good at much else.&#8221; &#8212; Author Tom Clancy 

This is so true!

As far as QE - I figure they are going to keep doing it through a back door, not up front any more.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> As I said, we're in for a decade long recession. I don't see how the government can change that.


Plus 5 more years and counting according to you and others on here are saying the same thing but now why don;t you change that 10 year outlook and according to one of your posts you have already added 5 years onto the the end total lets get real, and lets get honest. It is now going on 10 years and now 5 more years make it 15 Years. Not a decade long at all, at least Two decades like others are saying because of THIS administration.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Seth said:


> Would someone who shamelessly manipulates a government program for financial gain fall into "part of the problem" or "part of the solution"? Seth


Whatever situation I happen to find myself in, I try to figure out a way to make it work to my advantage. I'll bet you do the same!

Where I draw the line, though, is that I won't vote for the people promulgating these policies, even if I'm able to benefit from them. My vote can't be purchased quite so easily.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

cedarvalley said:


> LOL, OH, let me guess, Bush had nothing to do with the economy collapsing.


Here are facts. The economy collapsed because the housing bubble burst. Bush warned (the videos are on YouTube) of the dangers to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to lax lending policies on risky loans. He was ignored and the liberals like Barney Frank made fun of him for saying it. All economic bubbles burst at some point and there is no getting around it. The current debt bubble will burst too and it will make the housing bubble collapse look like child's play.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

poppy said:


> Here are facts. The economy collapsed because the housing bubble burst. Bush warned (the videos are on YouTube) of the dangers to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to lax lending policies on risky loans. He was ignored and the liberals like Barney Frank made fun of him for saying it. All economic bubbles burst at some point and there is no getting around it. The current debt bubble will burst too and it will make the housing bubble collapse look like child's play.


 There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk. 

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bushâs own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone. 

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent â and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them â an old prep school buddy â pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

cedarvalley said:


> There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
> 
> But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bushâs own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
> 
> ...


Not sure if your conveniently forgetting that most of this housing mortgage issue started on Clintons watch, lawsuits brought by "community organizers" that were basically blackmail against banks and lenders forcing them to issue loans they knew were toxic. Better to loose billions than to be cast as racists!


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Not sure if your conveniently forgetting that most of this housing mortgage issue started on Clintons watch, lawsuits brought by "community organizers" that were basically blackmail against banks and lenders forcing them to issue loans they knew were toxic. Better to loose billions than to be cast as racists!


 Don't think im trying to deny that the democrats had a hand in it also. Im not defending any party, because frankly, none of them represent my views, and there both to blame equally for the shape this country is in.


----------



## SouthBrookFarm (Jan 29, 2003)

cedarvalley, I agree that neither party is solely to blame. The quality of life has been going downhill since around 1960, according to articles and sociology textbooks. The situation can't get better for millions of workers, unless prices stop increasing faster than their hourly wages do.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> Here are facts. The economy collapsed because the housing bubble burst. Bush warned (the videos are on YouTube) of the dangers to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to lax lending policies on risky loans. He was ignored and the liberals like Barney Frank made fun of him for saying it. All economic bubbles burst at some point and there is no getting around it. The current debt bubble will burst too and it will make the housing bubble collapse look like child's play.


The housing bubble was not caused by Freddie & Fannie policy.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

SouthBrookFarm said:


> cedarvalley, I agree that neither party is solely to blame. The quality of life has been going downhill since around 1960, according to articles and sociology textbooks. The situation can't get better for millions of workers, unless prices stop increasing faster than their hourly wages do.


 Unfortunately that's our reality, unless some major changes take place.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> The housing bubble was not caused by Freddie & Fannie policy.


 Correct me if im wrong Nevada, but I believe private institutions held about 84% of the toxic debt. I think F&F had reduced their bad debt load quite a bit, in the couple or so years, before the bubble burst.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

poppy said:


> Here are facts. The economy collapsed because the housing bubble burst. Bush warned (the videos are on YouTube) of the dangers to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to lax lending policies on risky loans. He was ignored and the liberals like Barney Frank made fun of him for saying it. All economic bubbles burst at some point and there is no getting around it. The current debt bubble will burst too and it will make the housing bubble collapse look like child's play.





> As a result, by the time the housing crisis began to unfold, Fannie and Freddie had become the dominating force in the secondary mortgage market, providing 75 percent of financing for new mortgages through securitization at the end of 2007.* At the end of 2010, they still held about 50 percent of securitized, first-lien home loans.*
> 
> The GSE's government guarantee became explicit when the federal government took over Fannie and Freddie in 2008 in response to the financial crisis. By November 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cost the taxpayers close to $150 billion;* final estimates from that time have the total cost anywhere from $400 billion to $1 trillion. * Meanwhile, debates continue to rage as to whether the *government should have ever been involved in the home-mortgage market in the first place.*


http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/business-and-economics/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-history-and-housing-bubble


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Not sure if your conveniently forgetting that most of this housing mortgage issue started on Clintons watch, lawsuits brought by "community organizers" that were basically blackmail against banks and lenders forcing them to issue loans they knew were toxic. Better to loose billions than to be cast as racists!


Really. They were "forced" to make bad loans? Or maybe they gamed the system to their own benefit. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89N17120121024?irpc=932


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SouthBrookFarm said:


> cedarvalley, I agree that neither party is solely to blame. The quality of life has been going downhill since around 1960, according to articles and sociology textbooks. The situation can't get better for millions of workers, unless prices stop increasing faster than their hourly wages do.


The problem is not inflation. The problem is production (not to be confused with productivity). The fact is that a lot of our production has been outsourced to other countries.

Real wealth comes from increasing our productive capacity, while our productive capacity has been decreasing. I don't know how to turn that around.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

cedarvalley said:


> Correct me if im wrong Nevada, but I believe private institutions held about 84% of the toxic debt. I think F&F had reduced their bad debt load quite a bit, in the couple or so years, before the bubble burst.


I'm not sure what the exact debt load was, but only about 6% of the failed subprime loans were backed by Freddie or Fannie. It's pretty obvious that policy changes at Freddie & Fannie wouldn't have avoided the mortgage crash.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Here is a chart that shows part of the problem today, which is income inequality. You'll notice that American worker productivity has gone up while wages have stayed flat, or gone down, except for the top 1%.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

What is interesting in the chart above is the years in which the top 1% started taking off, which was in the Reagan era, which was the start of the concept of trickle down economics.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

cedarvalley said:


> Here is a chart that shows part of the problem today, which is income inequality. You'll notice that American worker productivity has gone up while wages have stayed flat, or gone down, except for the top 1%.


The y-axis is labelled as '%'. What is it a percentage of?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> The y-axis is labelled as '%'. What is it a percentage of?


Not sure...

But too much productivity can be a problem. The little productive capacity we have left is done by too few people as the result of increased productivity. That puts people out of work.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Here is another chart.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

cedarvalley said:


> Here is another chart.


Yeah so? According to this chart we should have been experiencing some steady deflation of goods since 1975. Instead we have seen inflationary periods throughout that time frame. Why would that be?


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

cedarvalley said:


> Beside the manager position's, these are most likely minimum wage jobs. Its easy to sit back and say why aren't people applying for these job's, when your not the one applying your self. _*Minimum wage now day's will not support a family. If companies have a hard time filling these positions, then wages will have to rise, that's not a bad thing*_.


And there's the rub...

Min wage won't support a family, so the "apparent" solution is to raise min wage, but when you raise min wage, prices rise with it, so the buying power of your paycheck stays the same as before.

Extend those price increases to the next income tier above min wage (who generally didn't get any sort of raise due to an increase in min wage), and now THEIR buying power is reduced, lowering THEIR standard of living, and then THEY want a raise...

It's a viscous cycle to which "I" see no end.

Now, consider this...

With a lot of companies moving production/manufacturing overseas to take advantage of "low wages" and lower taxes (I've heard that argument, but am not quite clear on how that actually works), one would THINK prices of consumer goods would decrease (because, you know, when business/corporate saves money, they ALWAYS pass those savings down to you), yet prices continue to rise.

You know, I'm not against "corporate" or policies that build business, but when those that are supposed to be doing the building abuse those policies, THEN I have a problem.

Gonna stop now...finding myself falling off the edge into the abyss of ranting!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> With a lot of companies moving production/manufacturing overseas to take advantage of "low wages" and lower taxes (I've heard that argument, but am not quite clear on how that actually works), one would THINK prices of consumer goods would decrease (because, you know, when business/corporate saves money, they ALWAYS pass those savings down to you), yet prices continue to rise.


They do it to make more money, not so we can buy their stuff cheaper.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

There we go again this minimum wage carp. It was and still is and always will be a Starting Wage, a hearing Wage, and will never be and should never be a what some ant it to be and that is a living wage.
BTW what IS a living wage?
And in what area or areas are we talking tiling about in the US?
many boon-dock towns can not and will not be able to do this Living wage or whatever the left wants to call it and have it set at.
Cost of living is high in some places where the Wages ARE already set up to be over minimum, those areas that are low cost of living and cost of goods are at what those people can afford. Raise these wages in those places and a Price Hike in goods and services will sure have to match, resulting in Lay offs and in some cases Closing up those small Mom and Pop places. How FAIR IS THAT in this country of the free?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

hippygirl said:


> And there's the rub...
> 
> Min wage won't support a family, so the "apparent" solution is to raise min wage, but when you raise min wage, prices rise with it, so the buying power of your paycheck stays the same as before.
> 
> ...


 Yes the have to move to areas of the world that they can COMPETE on the world market.
And just look how prices have come down, especially computers. ~!
And that is the reason they have come down as everything is now across the ocean where eh labor and tax structure is business friendly unlike the USA.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nate_in_IN said:


> The y-axis is labelled as '%'. What is it a percentage of?


The percent it changed since 1979.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I wonder how many factories that switched over for the war effort back in the 60's and 70's never went back to manufacturing consumer goods? And I wonder how many are still making things for the Army etc instead of consumer goods because the cost of retooling is just too great?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Yeah so? According to this chart we should have been experiencing some steady deflation of goods since 1975. Instead we have seen inflationary periods throughout that time frame. Why would that be?


We have had "steady deflation" of prices in electronics. Our first PC, which was not nearly as powerful as the average smart phone of today, cost $2k. Flat screen plasma tv's were $6k when they first came out. The early "bag" cell phones were ridiculously expensive, etc.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Yeah so? According to this chart we should have been experiencing some steady deflation of goods since 1975. Instead we have seen inflationary periods throughout that time frame. Why would that be?


Consumer prices are not necessarily tied to either productivity or wages.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Consumer prices are not necessarily tied to either productivity or wages.


The chart I commented on suggests they were; prior to 1970. Then they weren't. I thought the poster of the chart was indicating this to point to a reason that current standards of living for many are on the decline. Was I incorrect in this?

Again, I'll ask. What was the change (s) which occurred around 1970 which resulted in the chart's indicated decoupling of wages from the productivity of goods? Answering this question will provide a very crucial step toward getting our nation turned around.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> We have had "steady deflation" of prices in electronics. Our first PC, which was not nearly as powerful as the average smart phone of today, cost $2k. Flat screen plasma tv's were $6k when they first came out. The early "bag" cell phones were ridiculously expensive, etc.


The electronics sector pricing had been dominated by the cost of failed manufacturing, not the cost of wages. This has been undone. Manufacturing technology has increased and a very large reduction in cost of manufacture was seen in electronics.

This is only 1 sector though. I was commenting on the market and economy, at least in manufactured goods, as a whole.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Again, I'll ask. What was the change (s) which occurred around 1970 which resulted in the chart's indicated decoupling of wages from the productivity of goods? Answering this question will provide a very crucial step toward getting our nation turned around.


Industrial automation came of age right about then. I suspect that had a lot to do with it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nate_in_IN said:


> The chart I commented on suggests they were; prior to 1970. Then they weren't. I thought the poster of the chart was indicating this to point to a reason that current standards of living for many are on the decline. Was I incorrect in this?
> 
> Again, I'll ask. What was the change (s) which occurred around 1970 which resulted in the chart's indicated decoupling of wages from the productivity of goods? Answering this question will provide a very crucial step toward getting our nation turned around.



Oooh! Oooh! I know! Pick me! (hand waving in air)


















We left the gold standard.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> We left the gold standard.


Why would leaving the gold standard uncouple productivity and wages?

But currency didn't change that much under Nixon. What Nixon did was to end gold redemption. The gold was still there.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

This is an interesting chart on income inequality that I want to put up. You notice that income inequality was more equal after the great depression, mostly because of regulation policies and the advent of labor unions. You'll also notice the uncoupling of income inequality again in the early 80's due to the start of deregulation, and the beginning of the weakening of labor unions, and trickle down economics which favors the rich. To me this chart is an important history lesson on what works and doesn't work.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> We left the gold standard.


I believe so.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Why would leaving the gold standard uncouple productivity and wages?
> 
> But currency didn't change that much under Nixon. What Nixon did was to end gold redemption. The gold was still there.


It's not just productivity and wages. It's productivity, wages and *price*.

If wages and labor was the same we assume, wrongly, that there is the same amount of money in the market for purchase of goods. Since there are more goods with productivity going up the price of goods should go down. This would improve the buying power of the wage earner even though they are making the same wage.

By leaving the gold standard we have allowed our government to _increase the amount of money in the market_. This breaks the above chain, allowing prices to elevate even though the cost of production has decreased.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> OK, I'll explain it one more time. You are so far from the cause & cure of the recession that you need a nudge in the right direction.
> 
> We descended into recession because of the mortgage crisis. The primary problem was that banks got caught holding trillions in bad mortgage debt. Banks were saved by the Fed loaning an estimated $7 trillion to banks. That loaned money was never to be loaned by banks, it was only to be held to make the banks appear solvent.
> 
> ...


If you knew half as much as you think you do, you would be a genius.


Most of the banks have paid it back. Many banks were forced to take it. The goverment has made a profit of $46.3B from the bailout.


http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

*The State of the Bailout*


*OUTFLOWS: $613 billion *This includes money that has actually been spent, invested, or loaned.


*INFLOWS: $659 billion* Money returned and paid to Treasury as interest, dividends, fees or to repurchase their stock warrants.​


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Plus,
The few companies that have not paid it back are perfect examples of crony capitalism, e.g. GM

One is not even a US company any more. Chrysler.

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Who ever said jobs were the issue, and good paying jobs is dead right.

That and government providing so much to so many. Nuzzle up to the trough little piggy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Most of the banks have paid it back. Many banks were forced to take it. The goverment has made a $46.3B from the bailout.


I'm not talking about the bailout. I'm talking about the Fed loans.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I'm not talking about the bailout. I'm talking about the Fed loans.


Define "Fed loans".

WASHINGTONâThree U.S. agencies signed off on relaxed mortgage-lending rules Wednesday, helping complete a long-stalled provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law.

The Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the new rules for the mortgage-backed securities market, a day after three other agencies approved the standards.

The regulatorsâ actions came over the objections of two SEC commissioners, who warned the rules would do little to prevent a return to the kind of lax mortgage underwriting that fueled the financial crisis.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/divided-sec-signs-off-on-relaxed-mortgage-lending-rules-1414009530


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Define "Fed loans".http://online.wsj.com/articles/divided-sec-signs-off-on-relaxed-mortgage-lending-rules-1414009530


The bailout was designed to enable banks to meet their immediate obligations, since many banks had operational shortfalls. They didn't want any more banks to fail like Lehman Brothers and WAMU did. The bailout met that need.

But there was a bigger problem. Bank balance sheets were terribly in the red because they were holding so many toxic real estate assets. The Fed had a choice; they either had to relax banking regulations about banks being solvent, or loan them enough money to make their books balance again. The Fed chose the latter.

While there is no audit to prove anything, the Fed is believed to have loaned banks on the order of $7 trillion to make them solvent. The money was loaned on the condition that it was never to go into circulation, and that they would give it back as real estate prices recovered.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The bailout was designed to enable banks to meet their immediate obligations, since many banks had operational shortfalls. They didn't want any more banks to fail like Lehman Brothers and WAMU did. The bailout met that need.
> 
> But there was a bigger problem. Bank balance sheets were terribly in the red because they were holding so many toxic real estate assets. The Fed had a choice; they either had to relax banking regulations about banks being solvent, or loan them enough money to make their books balance again. The Fed chose the latter.
> 
> While there is no audit to prove anything, the Fed is believed to have loaned banks on the order of $7 trillion to make them solvent. The money was loaned on the condition that it was never to go into circulation, and that they would give it back as real estate prices recovered.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> While there is no audit to prove anything, the Fed is believed to have loaned banks on the order of $7 trillion to make them solvent. The money was loaned on the condition that it was never to go into circulation, and that they would give it back as real estate prices recovered.


So the balance sheets of all the banks loan this money collectively rose $7 trillion? I thought the FED ended up purchasing, or as they said "accepting as payment" the toxic loans. This sounded to me like the FED was accepting mortgage backed securities which is exactly what you say led to the housing market collapse to begin with.

So here's what I consider an interesting point. Democrats are also spouting about the income inequality, or the inequality of wealth. It seems to me those actions truly benefited the 1%. I think it may have been a better long term solution for the common American wage earner just to let the banks go under.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


>


It's not totally tin foil hat. There are some down to earth indicators that I've seen analyzed.

If course estimating the magnitude of real estate value/debt is not difficult, so we know the approximate extent of how far banks should be underwater. Be every banks' books in the country balance. It's obvious that something is going on.

But tell me, if you learned from a reliable source that $7 trillion was loaned to banks under the table, how would you feel?


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

Nate_in_IN said:


> So the balance sheets of all the banks loan this money collectively rose $7 trillion? I thought the FED ended up purchasing, or as they said "accepting as payment" the toxic loans. This sounded to me like the FED was accepting mortgage backed securities which is exactly what you say led to the housing market collapse to begin with.
> 
> So here's what I consider an interesting point. Democrats are also spouting about the income inequality, or the inequality of wealth. It seems to me those actions truly benefited the 1%.


 ^BINGO! We have a winner folks! This was most definitely the result. Combine that with the individual 401k losses of the middle class when the market crashed, who's pocket did it all go in? That's right, the 1%.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> I thought the FED ended up purchasing, or as they said "accepting as payment" the toxic loans.


Just so you know, the banks ended up with all the property. While it's true that borrowers didn't have money to pay their mortgages, it's also true that banks lent money that they didn't have (it was borrowed form commercial banks). Still, banks ended up with the property. Go figure...

What you're remembering is the Freddie/Fannie takeover.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The problem is not inflation. The problem is production (not to be confused with productivity). The fact is that a lot of our production has been outsourced to other countries.
> 
> Real wealth comes from increasing our productive capacity, while our productive capacity has been decreasing.*
> I don't know how to turn that around.*


*******************************
Of course that didn't stop you and countless others from singing his praises
when he bailed out GM, Goldman Sachs and that Cash-For-Clunkers fiasco.

Apparently doing "something" - which translates to *ANYTHING *
(even when everyone knows it won't work) is a cause for 
celebration from those on the left......:facepalm: 

Who's going to pick up the tab for _*THIS*_ rave disco party?!!!:drum:


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> I wonder how many factories that switched over for the war
> effort back in the 60's and 70's never went back to manufacturing consumer goods?
> And I wonder how many are still making things for the Army etc instead of consumer
> goods because the cost of retooling is just too great?


********************************
started off where the original owner of a factory that made hot water heaters.

The 'problem' was, that they made them too well. They lasted forever, as
one of their secrets was to produce a glass-lined tank. But I digress.....

One of the items that the company came up with during the Second World War was a bomb rack 
for the air force which had been used since then in most of the other wars that this country has 
had in which bombs are deployed. Occasionally, because the boss's son had inherited the company 
and was constantly trying to cut corners in order to save a penny, a *LOT* of parts were hurried thru 
without the necessary quality control being performed on random samples. Of course that is _*NOT*_ good 
when someone tries to release a bomb and it gets hung up on the rack and has to come back to the airfield! 
My dad was hired as a means of 'appeasement' to the gooberment goons 
who came by the plant to find out why this problem was continuing.

He got the blame for anything, even though he had no control over that aspect of 'quality control'. 
He did however,manage to redesign the release mechanism and then maintained a presence on the 
factory floor to assure that 'quality control' was done.....although his boss tried to wiggle his way 
around that point, in order to shave costs. Eventually, it came down to a time when the boss told 
him to sign off on an order *BEFORE* all the quality control had taken place......both his professional 
reputation and integrity were on the line, as was his job. He refused. And thus his "services" were no longer needed..... 
the company has since gone into just a shell of it's former self from when the original owner who started it. 
That was the one part of the job, that my dad had some regrets on.....building a better bomb release that 
was used to ultimately kill people. But being let go from that job was not a problem.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

copperkid3 said:


> *******************************
> Of course that didn't stop you and countless others from singing his praises
> when he bailed out GM, Goldman Sachs and that Cash-For-Clunkers fiasco.


I don't mind the government keeping the economy moving during difficult times. My problem with the bailouts you mentioned is that some businesses are saved while they let other die. I suspect that has to do more with whether it's a fair-haired business than fundamental business indicators. So the only way to be fair is to either save them all or don't save any of them.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

HDRider said:


>


**************************************
But I bet it scares cattle out west......or at least some 'sheep'.


----------



## cedarvalley (Feb 28, 2012)

copperkid3 said:


> *******************************
> Of course that didn't stop you and countless others from singing his praises
> when he bailed out GM, Goldman Sachs and that Cash-For-Clunkers fiasco.
> 
> ...


 For the record, the bank bailouts was George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson (former CEO of Goldman Sachs) that cooked up that idea, hastily sped the plan through Congress (most of which are bought off by Wall Street anyway), and signed into law. Yes, TARP, the Troubled Assest Relief Program, was signed into law on October 3, 2008, a full month before candidate Obama was even elected!


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

poppy said:


> Here are facts. The economy collapsed because the housing bubble burst. Bush warned (the videos are on YouTube) of the dangers to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae due to lax lending policies on risky loans. He was ignored and the liberals like Barney Frank made fun of him for saying it. All economic bubbles burst at some point and there is no getting around it. The current debt bubble will burst too and it will make the housing bubble collapse look like child's play.


 ..............Ok , did not the Treasury under Bush have the authority to put a stop to all the Robo signing scheme's that were being conducted at that time ! The Feds also had the authority to raise the loan standards and require a larger down payment on each property purchase ! 
..............Credit Default swaps were supposed to cover the 'Normal' , expected percentage of loan defaults on each package of loans sold to investors by the Major Investment houses like Goldman-Sachs , and the others including AIG ins . So , when the level of mortgage defaults exceeded the amount of insurance coverage provided by the issuers then they should have started covering the excess from their own capital on hand . It was at this point that the FED converted the major investment houses into banks so they could cover the excess , otherwise the credit markets would have just locked up . , fordy


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

I could see the next bubble being the credit card - student loan bubble. :facepalm: The everyone gets a trophy crowd are going into major debt thinking education is the same as experience.I heard some kid on dave ramsey that had a masters in theory of doing something(enter major) saying he was overqualified for a job he never done.Until we have the semiskilled jobs back the rust belt and everywhere else lost lost we are screwed.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Nevada said:


> ]_The bailout was designed to enable banks to meet their immediate obligations, since many banks had operational shortfalls. They didn't want any more banks to fail like Lehman Brothers and WAMU did. The bailout met that need.
> 
> But there was a bigger problem. Bank balance sheets were terribly in the red because they were holding so many toxic real estate assets. The Fed had a choice; they either had to relax banking regulations about banks being solvent, *or loan them enough money to* *make their books balance *again. The Fed chose the latter_[/I].QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > ]_The bailout was designed to enable banks to meet their immediate obligations, since many banks had operational shortfalls. They didn't want any more banks to fail like Lehman Brothers and WAMU did. The bailout met that need.
> ...


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I didn't point it out, but "balancing" a bank's books is a matter of accounting. I took his statement to mean the banks were once again solvent after borrowing large sums from the Fed. That's impossible. If the Fed bought the bank's bad loans at face value the bank would be solvent again, but that's not what happened.

I explained the "reserve" requirements being temporarily being met, so as to keep the bank from being in violation of Federal law, forcing closure. Being in compliance, even with borrowed money only solves that particular problem, not the solvency of the institution itself.

Basic accounting rules are being bent or ignored in order to keep closures to a minimum. Mortgages that have gone without payment for years still aren't shown on bank's books as bad. They only close them when other property on their foreclosure lists sells, making room for another loss. I personally know a couple who quit paying their $750k mortgage 2 years ago, the bank still hasn't filed foreclosure papers. If they did, they'd have a credit/debit swap of $1.5 million on that one property alone.

The idea the Fed has saved the economy by printing money is fantasy. All they've done is prolong the inevitable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I took his statement to mean the banks were once again solvent after borrowing large sums from the Fed. That's impossible.


My point was that although banks appear to be solvent, they really aren't. They aren't going to be in a mood to lend freely until the toxic assets recover.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

copperkid3 said:


> *******************************
> Of course that didn't stop you and countless others from singing his praises
> when he bailed out GM, Goldman Sachs and that Cash-For-Clunkers fiasco.
> 
> ...


What "didn't work" about it?

GM is stable. The banks are stable and Americans bought 15.5 million new cars last year.

What would _you_ have done different, to save the banking system and get people to buy cars?

Just curious.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya you bet that C for C was such a failure and a huge disappointment all the way along the line.


> When car sales dropped precipitously after the financial crisis struck in 2008, the Obama administration came up with a broad variety of &#8220;stimulus&#8221; programs. These recovery plans would keep the unemployment rate from going over 8 percent and would bring it down to 5 percent by July 2013, more than a year ago.
> 
> That is not what happened. Why not? The administration has long held that the real state of the economy when President Barack Obama assumed office in early 2009 was worse than it thought at the time. Many of the president&#8217;s critics, on the other hand, argue that many of the administration&#8217;s policies were misguided, making a bad situation even worse.


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/14/obamas-cash-for-clunkers-stimulus-bailout-failed-car-companies

And this comes from The WashingtonPost for Pete's sake even they can't find anythiung good to say about CFC. LOL


> *So were the naysayers right? It seems so. A newly updated analysis from economists at Resources for the Future finds that the actual benefits of the program were pretty meager. *The paper examined U.S. car sales using trends in Canada as a control group, and estimated that about 45 percent of cash-for-clunker vouchers went to consumers who would have bought new cars anyway. In the end, the program boosted U.S. vehicle sales by just 360,000 in July and August of 2009 and provided no stimulus thereafter. What&#8217;s more, the program increased average fuel economy in the United States* by just 0.65 miles per gallon.*


 And it was getting better fuel efficient cars on the road. Well it didn't But THAT what was the true reason behind CFC not selling more cars, NOPE, getting the MPG up and even THAT didn't work. LOL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/was-cash-for-clunkers-a-clunker/2011/11/04/gIQA42EhpM_blog.html


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Ya you bet that C for C was such a failure and a huge disappointment all the way along the line.
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...lunkers-stimulus-bailout-failed-car-companies
> 
> ...


Cash-for-clunkers, was a huge _publicity stunt_ and a _gimmick_ to get people, to buy, or at least _think_ about buying a new fuel efficient car, which was what our country needed to start crawling out of the quicksand.

Everybody was talking about it. 600,000 vehicles were purchased under it. overall autos sales jumped 30%.

Those that think it was some _real economic plan_, that failed miserably, just never understood it, from the get-go, IMO.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Cash-for-clunkers, was a huge _publicity stunt_ and a _gimmick_ to get people, to buy, or at least _think_ about buying a new fuel efficient car, which was what our country needed to start crawling out of the quicksand.
> 
> Everybody was talking about it. 600,000 vehicles were purchased under it. overall autos sales jumped 30%.
> 
> Those that think it was some _real economic plan_, that failed miserably, just never understood it, from the get-go, IMO.


 The government lost over 11 billion on GM. That's taxpayer money! I think that fact makes it an epic failure! Also, pretty sure everyone of those cars has been recalled for safety reasons or infotainment failures! Just saying! !


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And never will be paid back the way things went down. It is just a lost for Americans, plain and simple. never to recoup any more monies from GM now, it is just a done deal and a loss.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And never will be paid back the way things went down. It is just a lost for Americans, plain and simple. never to recoup any more monies from GM now, it is just a done deal and a loss.


$11 billion to keep GM open bothers you, but you're ok with $1 trillion for Iraq?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> $11 billion to keep GM open bothers you, but you're ok with $1 trillion for Iraq?


I'm ok with it! Just seemed like liberals hate the 1%, yet your standing up for those you despise! :shrug:

Obama's ok with Iraq, you should be too! By the way, that money for Iraq, does the exact same thing that the GM bailout did..put folks to work and kept most of it here and in circulation. 

But, if you don't like what the Obama administration is doing. ..do something about it instead of complaining about it on a homesteading forum!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> The government lost over 11 billion on GM. That's taxpayer money! I think that fact makes it an epic failure! Also, pretty sure everyone of those cars has been recalled for safety reasons or infotainment failures! Just saying! !


LOL

Maybe the reason GM seems like an "epic failure", is because many do not understand U.S. business economics, especially since GM sold nearly 3 million vehicles (most made here), in the U.S. in 2013.

It wasn't just about GM.

It was also about hundreds of part suppliers, their employees and the people they spend their paychecks on.

It's was also about was left of the dealer networks, salesman, mechanics and the people they spend their paychecks on.

It was about 77,000 jobs and their paychecks being spent elsewhere.

No one in their right mind, would even buy a car from a bankrupt company and our Government knew it, which is why we propped GM and Chrysler up.

Chrysler sold 1.3 million units in 2013.

Was that "$11 billion" really "lost"? How much spending did employed consumers put back into the economy, in the last six years?

IMO, I would have to wonder how much taxpayers would really have ended up losing, if GM was allowed to simply fold, which it would have done without the bailout.

It would have been a lot more.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Maybe the reason GM seems like an "epic failure", is because many do not understand U.S. business economics, especially since GM sold nearly 3 million vehicles (most made here), in the U.S. in 2013.
> 
> ...


Obama and his friends know where the 11 billion is! GM is in bed with this administration. ..we all know it. They should have been left to fend for themselves. Their assets would have been bought and some employees would have new jobs. Those that have a clue about economics know that folks would have purchased cars from the manufacturers that are left. Almost zero loss. Not worth the billions lost. Don't forget about all the billions that went to Obama's buddies in the green energy sector!!!

Nice try!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Obama and his friends know where the 11 billion is! GM is in bed with this administration. ..we all know it. They should have been left to fend for themselves. Their assets would have been bought and some employees would have new jobs. Those that have a clue about economics know that folks would have purchased cars from the manufacturers that are left. Almost zero loss. Not worth the billions lost. Don't forget about all the billions that went to Obama's buddies in the green energy sector!!!
> 
> Nice try!


LOL

So GM is a "liberal" organization?

Sorry, not buying it.

If McCain was elected, I don't believe he would have turned his back on GM, either.

"stimilus" means just that. 

Of course most of the projects went to political buddies. Is this a new phenomena?  The solar and battery companies - put together in a month, can't turn a profit? How could they? They were make-work project to give people jobs, from the get-go. Of course some cashed in bigger on the spending. Nothing new either.

Here we are, 6 year later. The economy is much better, even if not great.

To say that the stimilus was a waste, seem to be a moot point now.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm ok with it! Just seemed like liberals hate the 1%, yet your standing up for those you despise! :shrug:


The GM bailout was never about propping up the 1%. It was about auto worker jobs.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Here we are, 6 year later. The economy is much better, even if not great


 Best Joke of the day award.










:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Best Joke of the day award.


You can argue that the economy isn't what we would like it to be, but you can't deny that we've made progress under Obama. To deny that is denying reality. For example, my house has doubled in price over the past 5 years. That's real and undeniable progress.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> You can argue that the economy isn't what we would like it to be, but you can't deny that we've made progress under Obama. To deny that is denying reality. For example, my house has doubled in price over the past 5 years. That's real and undeniable progress.


And Republicans don't want Hispanics in the Repulican party, right? :sing:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The GM bailout was never about propping up the 1%. It was about auto worker jobs.


Obama doesn't care about the workers...He cares about Imelt, and his continued support!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> And Republicans don't want Hispanics in the Repulican party, right? :sing:


No, they want them, they just can't figure out how not to keep alienating them.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> So GM is a "liberal" organization?
> 
> ...


Yes, GM is liberal....Imelt is Obama's best buddy, where have you been? You need to do some research. Some of those "green energy" companies were around for quite awhile before they cut and run with billions of taxpayer dollars. They weren't start ups! Where are those thousands of jobs that were promised. ....vapor!!!

Keep up the liberal spin...it really is amusing to see you struggle with the facts to support your hero!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No, they want them, they just can't figure out how not to keep alienating them.


They need to learn to lie like liberals do!!!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Best Joke of the day award.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The same economy that republicans claim isn't better nationwide is being touted as being much better by our incumbent governor in his current reelection campaign. The same job growth numbers that are pointed to as a failure are said to be great progress. The same unemployment statistics said to be false and doctored are shown as signs of immense improvement. Who to believe, who to believe.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> No, they want them, they just can't figure out how not to keep alienating them.


Well golly gee, better tell those misguided republicans in my family, they are being alienated.:yuck:


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

AK, you are so right. Things really did not start getting better til after WWII. I was a child but remember all of the rationing. If we had not had chickens, sold eggs and raised our own vegetables,we would not been able to make it on our own.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, GM is liberal....Imelt is Obama's best buddy, where have you been? You need to do some research. Some of those "green energy" companies were around for quite awhile before they cut and run with billions of taxpayer dollars. They weren't start ups! Where are those thousands of jobs that were promised. ....vapor!!!
> 
> Keep up the liberal spin...it really is amusing to see you struggle with the facts to support your hero!


Jeffery Imelt is CEO of _General Electric_, not _General Motors_.

GE, not GM. 

You still don't understand how stimulus works. It was to get the economy going not to create careers.

The economy is going.

Glad your are amused.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Best Joke of the day award.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seriously don't believe, that the economy is better now than in 2008?

Your neighbor seems to be doing all right., even with a severe driver shortage.



> Marten Transport provided evidence this week that tightening truck capacity is leading to higher contract truck rates.
> 
> 
> The Mondovi, Wisconsin-based carrier increased its weekly average revenue per tractor 4.1 percent from a year ago in the second quarter and raised revenue per loaded mile by 2.6 percent â Martenâs best growth rate in that measure since early 2012.
> ...


http://www.joc.com/trucking-logisti...-reflect-rising-truckload-rates_20140716.html


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> Well golly gee, better tell those misguided republicans in my family, they are being alienated.:yuck:


Don't know your family. Never said there weren't hispanic republicans. Just said the repubs don't do a very good job of attracting more. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155453/Half-Hispanics-Identify-Political-Independents.aspx


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> Don't know your family. Never said there weren't hispanic republicans. Just said the repubs don't do a very good job of attracting more.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/155453/Half-Hispanics-Identify-Political-Independents.aspx


Neither party are particularly good at addressing problems. But a couple in my immediate family are very active in educating both the republican leadership and the Hispanic community.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

no really said:


> Neither party are particularly good at addressing problems. But a couple in my immediate family are very active in educating both the republican leadership and the Hispanic community.


Good for them. I'll never criticize anyone for working to make things better. I reserve the right to criticize what they're working for.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Jeffery Imelt is CEO of _General Electric_, not _General Motors_.
> 
> GE, not GM.
> 
> ...


Names don't really matter..Imelt is worse! Still, taxpayers are out billions, glad you like you money being squandered like that. I fully understand what "stimilus" is...it didn't work! The free economy did. 

Yes, I'm very amused at the defenders of Obama's failed policies, and those that defend them! :thumb:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I fully understand what "stimilus" is...it didn't work!


Stimulus can't be expected to cure a deep recession. The purpose of stimulus is to keep the economy moving enough that things don't come to a complete halt. That keeps businesses alive and some people at work. While recovery is important, so is feeding people.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Stimulus can't be expected to cure a deep recession. The purpose of stimulus is to keep the economy moving enough that things don't come to a complete halt. That keeps businesses alive and some people at work. While recovery is important, so is feeding people.


It would have happened much sooner if this administration just let the markets correct...themselves!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> It would have happened much sooner if this administration just let the markets correct...themselves!!!


Can you provide an example of that working in the past during a similar depression or recession??


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> It would have happened much sooner if this administration just let the markets correct...themselves!!!


I hear this endlessly, from the Right, but no one has ever been able to explain exactly how this works. Perhaps you can.

Banks were failing. Auto sales down 47%. Unemployment doubled. Record home foreclosures. Record bankruptcies. Consumer confidence near zero. The stock market drops 60%. Construction stops. Factory orders dropping 4% per month.

How does all this "correct" itself, to something better than complete anarchy?

Just curious.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> I hear this endlessly, from the Right, but no one has ever been able to explain exactly how this works. Perhaps you can.
> 
> Banks were failing. Auto sales down 47%. Unemployment doubled. Record home foreclosures. Record bankruptcies. Consumer confidence near zero. The stock market drops 60%. Construction stops. Factory orders dropping 4% per month.
> 
> ...


...............GM files for BK , without gov't intervention , private capital will purchase the parts and pieces they want , ! When private capital negotiates with unions , prior to purchase.........wage scales , retirement , medical are ALL diminished so that the new mfging entity will be profitable in short order . After Balance sheets and P&l statements are all positive , the 
new company holds a Stock offering and they make a killing just like Facebook did . , fordy


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Can you provide an example of that working in the past during a similar depression or recession??


Sure!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

fordy said:


> ...............GM files for BK , without gov't intervention , private capital will purchase the parts and pieces they want , ! When private capital negotiates with unions , prior to purchase.........wage scales , retirement , medical are ALL diminished so that the new mfging entity will be profitable in short order . After Balance sheets and P&l statements are all positive , the
> new company holds a Stock offering and they make a killing just like the way Facebook did . , fordy


Critics of this recovery, including many here, complain that the majority of the jobs created have been low wage and lack benefits. Exactly the kind of jobs that would have resulted from your plan. So replacing even more stable, good wage, benefit providing jobs with even more lower wage less benefits jobs would have been the answer? Of course, that predisposes that there was someone out there to buy the assets in the first place who was more interested in going back into a failed business rather than selling pieces and parts for scrap value. It seems just as likely that any buyer might have been another auto manufacturer ready and willing to sound the death knell of its competition, leaving itself even greater market share.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

GM going bankrupt without gov't intervention is what's called "creative destruction". It happens continually in the business world, seen any typewriter stores lately? 

The auto workers the liberals are so concerned about are the people/unions who put GM in the dumper to begin with. Management was just as much to blame, but for the Federal Gov't to over-invest taxpayer money in an already floundering company for the sole purpose of appeasing their union supporters is malfeasance of the highest order.

If nobody bought the parts and pieces, which is highly unlikely, people would have bought their cars from companies with sound management and profitable business models. In essence, bailing out GM was "affirmative action" for unions. It'll fail again under the weight of its own poor management and slanted labor relations.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

mmoetc said:


> Critics of this recovery, including many here, complain that the majority of the jobs created have been low wage and lack benefits. Exactly the kind of jobs that would have resulted from your plan. So replacing even more stable, good wage, benefit providing jobs with even more lower wage less benefits jobs would have been the answer? Of course, that predisposes that there was someone out there to buy the assets in the first place who was more interested in going back into a failed business rather than selling pieces and parts for scrap value. It seems just as likely that any buyer might have been another auto manufacturer ready and willing to sound the death knell of its competition, leaving itself even greater market share.


 ................My sequence of events assumes no political interference , but , with a sitting Dem in the White House it was a forgone conclusion that pure capitalism would never have been allowed to function ! Too , many labor jobs at stake , to much labor union arm twisting and the Gnashing of Lobbyist teeth for the injection of Treasury funds . , fordy


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

fordy said:


> ................My sequence of events assumes no political interference , but , with a sitting Dem in the White House it was a forgone conclusion that pure capitalism would never have been allowed to function ! Too , many labor jobs at stake , to much labor union arm twisting and the Gnashing of Lobbyist teeth for the injection of Treasury funds . , fordy


What does political intervention have to do with the likely outcome of your plan being more unemployment and any resulting jobs being lower paying and lacking benefits? It seems that only political intervention kept us from racing to the bottom more quickly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Ozarks Tom said:


> GM going bankrupt without gov't intervention is what's called "creative destruction". It happens continually in the business world, seen any typewriter stores lately?
> 
> The auto workers the liberals are so concerned about are the people/unions who put GM in the dumper to begin with. Management was just as much to blame, but for the Federal Gov't to over-invest taxpayer money in an already floundering company for the sole purpose of appeasing their union supporters is malfeasance of the highest order.
> 
> If nobody bought the parts and pieces, which is highly unlikely, people would have bought their cars from companies with sound management and profitable business models. In essence, bailing out GM was "affirmative action" for unions. It'll fail again under the weight of its own poor management and slanted labor relations.


I can order any of a number if models of brand new typewriters from Staples right now. The difference between typewriters and cars is that typewriters have largely been replaced by new technology while cars are essentially still cars and still in demand. Creative destruction is quite different than obsolescence. Creative destruction can have a tremendous financial upside for those engaging in it but it usually comes at a financial cost for those lower down the ladder. Creative destruction has, in part, led us to where we are today.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Ozarks Tom said:


> GM going bankrupt without gov't intervention is what's called "creative destruction". It happens continually in the business world, seen any typewriter stores lately?
> 
> The auto workers the liberals are so concerned about are the people/unions who put GM in the dumper to begin with. Management was just as much to blame, but for the Federal Gov't to over-invest taxpayer money in an already floundering company for the sole purpose of appeasing their union supporters is malfeasance of the highest order.
> 
> If nobody bought the parts and pieces, which is highly unlikely, people would have bought their cars from companies with sound management and profitable business models. In essence, bailing out GM was "affirmative action" for unions. It'll fail again under the weight of its own poor management and slanted labor relations.


I disagree it was "affirmative action" for unions. All the current auto workers gave serious concessions. What it did do, was save the retirees, a lot of whom would have become impoverished if their benefits were slashed. And saved a lot of related jobs that are non union, if that makes you feel any better. For every auto worker on the line, there are several more that make components and parts, ship them, etc.

I was against the auto bailouts at first. I bought into the hype of the CEOs flying in private jets to grovel for taxpayer money, how dare they. But seeing how far they have come, I now think it was the right thing to do. Preserved more jobs and productivity, which equals wealth creation, than bailing out the banks. We got a lot more bang for our buck out of the car companies than AIG and Wall Street.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

fordy said:


> ...............GM files for BK , without gov't intervention , private capital will purchase the parts and pieces they want , ! When private capital negotiates with unions , prior to purchase.........wage scales , retirement , medical are ALL diminished so that the new mfging entity will be profitable in short order . After Balance sheets and P&l statements are all positive , the
> new company holds a Stock offering and they make a killing just like Facebook did . , fordy


Ok, so they bring in corporate raiders, who cut off assets and sell ,cut wages, cut retirement and cut medical, certainly happy "employees" building a wonderful car, everyonee will line up to buy. 

This will effect not only the 80,000 Gm employees (white collar too), but employees at hundreds of parts suppliers, and those who provide other services.

Maybe they will start importing more parts from China. they want to turn a profit, right.

No retirement means more people on SSDI and welfare, VA, food stamps etc.

No medical means more people not paying medical bills, waiting until they are really sick to show up at the emergency room.

Taxpayers save the $11 billion, but seriously, what is the upside for the American economy, in all this?

FWIW Facebook is probably the exact opposite of GM and has never filed for bankruptcy.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Ok, so they bring in corporate raiders, who cut off assets and sell ,cut wages, cut retirement and cut medical, certainly happy "employees" building a wonderful car, everyonee will line up to buy.
> 
> This will effect not only the 80,000 Gm employees (white collar too), but employees at hundreds of parts suppliers, and those who provide other services.
> 
> ...


 
............I'm not advocating the method I posted , I'm simply saying.......this seems like a logical framework for the 'Way' the events would have happened ! You asked the question and I gave a an answer . 
............Capitalism , when it is working properly has NO Morals , no after thoughts about the number of worker(s) loosing their jobs , their homes , their marriages , etc . This where the morality and politics enters the equation to dissuade Amoral Capitalists from consumating such deals because it is bad for the economy as whole . 
.............Had my scenario manifested itself , the company would have been a 'new' company and as such it's stock price would have established an independent market value based upon several years of activity , separate and apart from the old GM . , fordy


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

fordy said:


> ............I'm not advocating the method I posted , I'm simply saying.......this seems like a logical framework for the 'Way' the events would have happened ! You asked the question and I gave a an answer .
> ............Capitalism , when it is working properly has NO Morals , no after thoughts about the number of worker(s) loosing their jobs , their homes , their marriages , etc . This where the morality and politics enters the equation to dissuade Amoral Capitalists from consumating such deals because it is bad for the economy as whole .
> .............Had my scenario manifested itself , the company would have been a 'new' company and as such it's stock price would have established an independent market value based upon several years of activity , separate and apart from the old GM . , fordy


,
The "capitalism" you speak of has not existed for 100 years.

If it did, those of us still alive would be mining coal for $1.68 per day. 

Exactly who would buy a Bankrupt behemoth like GM? The Chinese?

Uncle Sam had to practically pay Fiat, to take Chrysler off our hands.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Ozarks Tom said:


> If anything it would make a bank on the verge of insolvency fall over the edge due to the imputed interest due. Having a million dollars in cash reserves from the loan might meet the requirements of the law for percentage of reserves (last I heard it was 10%), but when you look at an honest balance sheet they're still bankrupt.


Kinda sounds like the situation our entire Fed system is in, doesn't it?

$17.904 Trillion in debt and borrowing more every second, as if that is the answer!


----------

