Honda Car Forum

On Mar 30, 8:23*pm, "SteveB" <oldf...@deepends.com> wrote:
> "z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ddb05f40-37bb-4e3e-baea-388269690774@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 28, 9:03 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 11:23 pm, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 8:36 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 2:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 16, 8:20 pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:38:06 GMT, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-)
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/20...re-they-on-whi...
>
> > > > > > >What planet are they on? White House says economy is "sound"
>
> > > > > well, it's "sound" in the sense of "mechanical vibrations at a
> > > > > frequency between 20 and 20,000 Hz transmitted by an elastic
> > > > > medium",
> > > > > i.e. a bunch of empty verbal activity.
>
> > > > > if they mean it's healthy, you could make an excellent case that the
> > > > > economy has not been healthy since the oil shock of the 70s.
>
> > > > Yes, you could say that, but it would be asinine. If the US economy
> > > > hasn't been healthy since the 70's, you might just as well say it's
> > > > never been healthy.
>
> > > > >300
> > > > > million people selling each other their houses at ever higher prices
> > > > > does not a healthy economy make no matter how much cheap chinese
> > > > > junk
> > > > > it allows them to buy.
>
> > > > As if that's all that's happened in the last 30 years. Talk about
> > > > looking at a cup as half empty....
>
> > > > > i really hate it when i say something that agrees with something hal
> > > > > turner said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > well, this all my own impression, and i'm no kind of expert, but i
> > > don't think too many folks will say that american fundamental
> > > industries like manufacturing have been healthy for a while.
>
> > It depends on how you define fundamental manufacturing. Companies
> > like Boeing, Intel, Caterpillar have been far more than just healthy
> > from the 80's until now. The economy isn't static, it evolves. What
> > would you rather have? An economy based on building hammers and cheap
> > appliances, or one that builds airplanes and microprocessors? This
> > transition is inevitable. Countries like China and India have evolved
> > and can now build many products. Before them, it was Japan, Taiwan,
> > then Korea that were on that path.
>
> > >our
> > > economy has moved on to more ephemeral things. since the 1970s it's
> > > been one bubble after another. southeast asia,
>
> > It wouldn't seem southeast Asia should be part of the measure of the
> > soundness of the US economy. Are computers ephemeral? Software?
> > The US invented those industries during your period of unsoundness and
> > is by far in control of them today. We are still the largest
> > manufacturing country in the world today.
>
> > > savings and loans,
> > > dotcoms, housing.
>
> > > the real beginning of the end of cheap energy was the oil shock(s;
> > > 1972 and 1979) of the 1970s;
>
> > All that did was bring oil more in line with reality. Oil by any
> > reasonable measure was still cheap in the 80's and 90's. But,
> > regardless of how cheap or expensive you think oil was, clearly the US
> > economy had enormous growth during the 80's and 90's, with low
> > inflation, and reached levels of low unemployment previously thought
> > impossible.
>
> > >the western governments bailed us out
> > > with a lot of borrowing and a lot of delicate management of the
> > > dollar/pound/mark/franc which prevented the kind of acute mess we >are
> > > in right now, but you can't scooch out a bulge in the wall to wall
> > > carpeting without making a lot of little bulges. so, high interest
> > > rates delivered us from stagflation,
>
> > The borrowing had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with
> > politicians wasteful spending. Look what's going on now. Does it
> > have anything to do with oil? No. Though Obama would like to have
> > you believe it does, so he can justify more govt spending in that
> > area.
>
> > As for delicate management of foreign exchange rates, that just isn't
> > so. The US govt hasn't intervened in currency markets in a long
> > time. Also, it's kind of crazy to think you could get Europe, Japan,
> > etc all to agree to adjust exchange rates to some agreed plan, as
> > they all have their own interests. Sure, occasionally one govt or
> > another will intervene for some reason, but it's the exception rather
> > than the rule.
>
> > >at the cost of a worldwide
> > > recession in the early 80s. smaller US industries like appliances and
> > > consumer electronics having already left town, now the ones that
> > > couldn't move overseas like housing, steelmaking, automobile
> > > manufacturing collapsed. Chrysler got pulled out of a death spiral by
> > > Lee Iacocca, at the expense of GM losing a piece of the market equal
> > > to the size of Chrysler.
>
> > Most would say that the market share GM lost over decades was through
> > their own doing, and primarily to overseas competitors, not
> > Chrysler. How do you explaind the fact that MB, BMW, Honda can build
> > card here in the USA, have been gaining market share, and even in the
> > current environment, aren't almost bankrupt like GM?
>
> > The answer is better management and lower labor costs. GM is
> > burdened with a $75/hr labor cost. MB, Honda, BMW's labor costs in
> > the USA are half that.
>
> > The same thing happened to the US steel industry. With poor
> > management decisions and labor costs that were out of whack, they got
> > clobbered by the mini-mills right here in the US. Those mini-mills
> > developed and thrived in the last 2 decades.
>
> > > lowered interest rates and more deficit spending pulled the economy
> > > out of that hole, without restoring any of the american industries in
> > > the now "rust belt". banks couldn't make money on financing industrial
> > > production as they used to, and the ones who didn't fail started a lot
> > > of speculative investments in real estate, casinos, junk bonds,
> > > corporate raiders, junk bonds, derivatives and hedge funds. the less
> > > regulated savings and loans industry collapsed when these investments
> > > proved as risky as they really were, but the banks were insulated from
> > > catastrophe by regulation, so they kept pushing that limit until it
> > > got repealed recently, with well known results.
>
> > > the late 80s brought the black monday stock market collapse; another
> > > oil price shock from the gulf war led to stagflation again. the dotcom
> > > boom carried us through the 90s; the triple related bubble collapses
> > > of the asian economies and the dotcom and telecom bubbles brought that
> > > down to earth, only to lead into the real estate bubble. and that
> > > brings us to now.
>
> > > on the other hand, the oil shocks taught the arab nations how to bring
> > > the europeans to heel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Why does your analysis start with the 80's and only continue to
> > present time? If you go back through history, there have been
> > recessions, booms, busts, panics, inflations, deflations all through
> > not only US history, but world history as well. In the 1800's the US
> > had a crisis averaging every 7 years. This is nothing new. Which
> > is why I say if you want to say the US economy has not been sound
> > since the 70's then you can just as easily say that it has never been
> > sound, nor has any other economy. And if the US economy is so
> > unsound, why is it that people from all over the world continue to
> > pour money into it in the form of investment? Even now, in this world
> > financial panic, the US remains the safest, soundest economy.
>
> > Now, I certainly would agree that what is going on in Washington now
> > is truly reckless. The amount of wasteful spending and borrowing that
> > was already going on, resulting in a $11 tril national debt was
> > troubling, but relative to GDP it was still manageable. Obama's
> > proposal to double that debt in the next decade is truly alarming and
> > beyond anything I ever expected to see. So, we may yet get to your
> > unsound economy in the future. If anything close to this budget gets
> > passed, I would say we are headed that way.
>
> > I'd also say that part of the current problem is everyone today wants
> > instant fixes. We're running around acting like this current economy
> > is the worst since the Great Depression. IMO, as of right now, the
> > situation in 1980-82 was far worse. You had not only unemployment
> > that was higher than it is today, but high inflation, high interest
> > rates, and a total loss of confidence in the US and it's place in the
> > world. Yet, instead of taking a recession like we normally would,
> > people are demanding an instant fix, so everything can just go back to
> > like it was before. And that sentiment is being manipulated and used
> > to justify an unprecedented expansion of govt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> you make some good arguments. thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>
> reply:
>
> what?
>
> oh, i don't have anything to say, i just wanted to post 300 lines of pure
> ****ing bullshit and then add on an inane reply- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

you make no arguments at all. thanks for being a waste of quarks.

On Mar 31, 9:31*am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Mar 31, 9:00*am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:23:08 -0600, "SteveB" <oldf...@deepends.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >"z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
> > >news:ddb05f40-37bb-4e3e-baea-388269690774@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com....
> > >On Mar 28, 9:03 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > >> On Mar 27, 11:23 pm, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Mar 27, 8:36 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Mar 27, 2:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > On Mar 16, 8:20 pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:38:06 GMT, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-)
> > >> > > > > wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > >http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/20...re-they-on-whi...
>
> > >> > > > > >What planet are they on? White House says economy is "sound"
>
> > >> > > > well, it's "sound" in the sense of "mechanical vibrations at a
> > >> > > > frequency between 20 and 20,000 Hz transmitted by an elastic
> > >> > > > medium",
> > >> > > > i.e. a bunch of empty verbal activity.
>
> > >> > > > if they mean it's healthy, you could make an excellent case that the
> > >> > > > economy has not been healthy since the oil shock of the 70s.
>
> > >> > > Yes, you could say that, but it would be asinine. If the US economy
> > >> > > hasn't been healthy since the 70's, you might just as well say it's
> > >> > > never been healthy.
>
> > >> > > >300
> > >> > > > million people selling each other their houses at ever higher prices
> > >> > > > does not a healthy economy make no matter how much cheap chinese
> > >> > > > junk
> > >> > > > it allows them to buy.
>
> > >> > > As if that's all that's happened in the last 30 years. Talk about
> > >> > > looking at a cup as half empty....
>
> > >> > > > i really hate it when i say something that agrees with something hal
> > >> > > > turner said.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> > well, this all my own impression, and i'm no kind of expert, but i
> > >> > don't think too many folks will say that american fundamental
> > >> > industries like manufacturing have been healthy for a while.
>
> > >> It depends on how you define fundamental manufacturing. Companies
> > >> like Boeing, Intel, Caterpillar have been far more than just healthy
> > >> from the 80's until now. The economy isn't static, it evolves. What
> > >> would you rather have? An economy based on building hammers and cheap
> > >> appliances, or one that builds airplanes and microprocessors? This
> > >> transition is inevitable. Countries like China and India have evolved
> > >> and can now build many products. Before them, it was Japan, Taiwan,
> > >> then Korea that were on that path.
>
> > >> >our
> > >> > economy has moved on to more ephemeral things. since the 1970s it's
> > >> > been one bubble after another. southeast asia,
>
> > >> It wouldn't seem southeast Asia should be part of the measure of the
> > >> soundness of the US economy. Are computers ephemeral? Software?
> > >> The US invented those industries during your period of unsoundness and
> > >> is by far in control of them today. We are still the largest
> > >> manufacturing country in the world today.
>
> > >> > savings and loans,
> > >> > dotcoms, housing.
>
> > >> > the real beginning of the end of cheap energy was the oil shock(s;
> > >> > 1972 and 1979) of the 1970s;
>
> > >> All that did was bring oil more in line with reality. Oil by any
> > >> reasonable measure was still cheap in the 80's and 90's. But,
> > >> regardless of how cheap or expensive you think oil was, clearly the US
> > >> economy had enormous growth during the 80's and 90's, with low
> > >> inflation, and reached levels of low unemployment previously thought
> > >> impossible.
>
> > >> >the western governments bailed us out
> > >> > with a lot of borrowing and a lot of delicate management of the
> > >> > dollar/pound/mark/franc which prevented the kind of acute mess we >are
> > >> > in right now, but you can't scooch out a bulge in the wall to wall
> > >> > carpeting without making a lot of little bulges. so, high interest
> > >> > rates delivered us from stagflation,
>
> > >> The borrowing had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with
> > >> politicians wasteful spending. Look what's going on now. Does it
> > >> have anything to do with oil? No. Though Obama would like to have
> > >> you believe it does, so he can justify more govt spending in that
> > >> area.
>
> > >> As for delicate management of foreign exchange rates, that just isn't
> > >> so. The US govt hasn't intervened in currency markets in a long
> > >> time. Also, it's kind of crazy to think you could get Europe, Japan,
> > >> etc all to agree to adjust exchange rates to some agreed plan, as
> > >> they all have their own interests. Sure, occasionally one govt or
> > >> another will intervene for some reason, but it's the exception rather
> > >> than the rule.
>
> > >> >at the cost of a worldwide
> > >> > recession in the early 80s. smaller US industries like appliances and
> > >> > consumer electronics having already left town, now the ones that
> > >> > couldn't move overseas like housing, steelmaking, automobile
> > >> > manufacturing collapsed. Chrysler got pulled out of a death spiralby
> > >> > Lee Iacocca, at the expense of GM losing a piece of the market equal
> > >> > to the size of Chrysler.
>
> > >> Most would say that the market share GM lost over decades was through
> > >> their own doing, and primarily to overseas competitors, not
> > >> Chrysler. How do you explaind the fact that MB, BMW, Honda can build
> > >> card here in the USA, have been gaining market share, and even in the
> > >> current environment, aren't almost bankrupt like GM?
>
> > >> The answer is better management and lower labor costs. GM is
> > >> burdened with a $75/hr labor cost. MB, Honda, BMW's labor costs in
> > >> the USA are half that.
>
> > >> The same thing happened to the US steel industry. With poor
> > >> management decisions and labor costs that were out of whack, they got
> > >> clobbered by the mini-mills right here in the US. Those mini-mills
> > >> developed and thrived in the last 2 decades.
>
> > >> > lowered interest rates and more deficit spending pulled the economy
> > >> > out of that hole, without restoring any of the american industriesin
> > >> > the now "rust belt". banks couldn't make money on financing industrial
> > >> > production as they used to, and the ones who didn't fail started alot
> > >> > of speculative investments in real estate, casinos, junk bonds,
> > >> > corporate raiders, junk bonds, derivatives and hedge funds. the less
> > >> > regulated savings and loans industry collapsed when these investments
> > >> > proved as risky as they really were, but the banks were insulated from
> > >> > catastrophe by regulation, so they kept pushing that limit until it
> > >> > got repealed recently, with well known results.
>
> > >> > the late 80s brought the black monday stock market collapse; another
> > >> > oil price shock from the gulf war led to stagflation again. the dotcom
> > >> > boom carried us through the 90s; the triple related bubble collapses
> > >> > of the asian economies and the dotcom and telecom bubbles brought that
> > >> > down to earth, only to lead into the real estate bubble. and that
> > >> > brings us to now.
>
> > >> > on the other hand, the oil shocks taught the arab nations how to bring
> > >> > the europeans to heel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> Why does your analysis start with the 80's and only continue to
> > >> present time? If you go back through history, there have been
> > >> recessions, booms, busts, panics, inflations, deflations all through
> > >> not only US history, but world history as well. In the 1800's the US
> > >> had a crisis averaging every 7 years. This is nothing new. Which
> > >> is why I say if you want to say the US economy has not been sound
> > >> since the 70's then you can just as easily say that it has never been
> > >> sound, nor has any other economy. And if the US economy is so
> > >> unsound, why is it that people from all over the world continue to
> > >> pour money into it in the form of investment? Even now, in this world
> > >> financial panic, the US remains the safest, soundest economy.
>
> > >> Now, I certainly would agree that what is going on in Washington now
> > >> is truly reckless. The amount of wasteful spending and borrowing that
> > >> was already going on, resulting in a $11 tril national debt was
> > >> troubling, but relative to GDP it was still manageable. Obama's
> > >> proposal to double that debt in the next decade is truly alarming and
> > >> beyond anything I ever expected to see. So, we may yet get to your
> > >> unsound economy in the future. If anything close to this budget gets
> > >> passed, I would say we are headed that way.
>
> > >> I'd also say that part of the current problem is everyone today wants
> > >> instant fixes. We're running around acting like this current economy
> > >> is the worst since the Great Depression. IMO, as of right now, the
> > >> situation in 1980-82 was far worse. You had not only unemployment
> > >> that was higher than it is today, but high inflation, high interest
> > >> rates, and a total loss of confidence in the US and it's place in the
> > >> world. Yet, instead of taking a recession like we normally would,
> > >> people are demanding an instant fix, so everything can just go back to
> > >> like it was before. And that sentiment is being manipulated and used
> > >> to justify an unprecedented expansion of govt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >you make some good arguments. thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>
> > The difference this time is four little words: "too big to fail".
>
> Actually, in many cases that is just a convenient cover for
> politicians who have lots of interests besides what's good for the
> economy or the average citizen. * Like who's giving them cash. * * How
> do we know any company failing is going to cause such harm to the
> economy that it's worse than the govt bailouts? * Answer: *we
> don't.
>
> The big mistake Bush made and that Obama is now expanding on, is NOT
> letting them all fail. * The message should have been, "The US govt is
> here to meet you on the steps of bankruptcy court and to then help
> mitigate the aftermath." * *Had they done that, they could have then
> made loans to a new AIG emerging from bankruptcy and there would have
> been no employee bonuses that had to be paid, because the bankruptcy
> would have wiped them out.
>
> > Capitalism has now achieved a level where capitalist rules no longer
> > apply. If we can't let corporations fail because they are too
> > important and interlocked, then we need another way to deal with
> > failure on such a monster scale. The only entity big enough to deal
> > with such failure is the government. That's what Obama is trying to
> > do, but not enough for me. I want socialism.-
>
> Well, at least your honest about what you want. * BTW, how are the
> most socialized countries doing in all this? * What have there GDP
> growth rates, unemployment rates, etc been doing the last 25 years?
> Any of them invent the microprocessor? *personal computer? * create
> the internet? * And the politicians bought and paid for by big
> companies just gets worse with socialism, because now the govt is even
> more in control.
>
> The fundamental flaw you and so many libs make in all this is that
> whatever may ail free market capitalist economies, you immediately
> think the govt can fix and run better. * In the face of the
> intelligence and actions of the typical politicians and govt
> bureaucracies and the huge failures in so many govt programs, why
> anyone would believe this is beyond me.
>
> Here's a thought. * Before jumping to socialism or handing out more
> money, why don't we appoint a blue ribbon panel with subpoena power to
> investigate what caused the current mess? * A panel with guys like
> Andy Grove, Warren Buffet, Jack Welch, etc. * And let's put everyone
> under scrutiny, including Congress, FNMA, FMAC, SEC, Wall Street,
> etc. * I know the answer. *Because there are way too many political
> hacks that don't want the truth to ever emerge.

well, now i disagree; to you that's socialism, to me letting big
companies keep their profits and absorbing their losses is not
socialism, it's capitalism buying the government, just like in any
dingy third world country where the biggest bank is owned by the
president's brother in law. socialism would be if they gave the money
to all the folks losing their homes to keep them, in the hope that
maybe it would trickle up.

some comments from Desmond Lachman, former chief strategist for
emerging markets at Salomon Smith Barney and an IMF executive, kind of
the opposite of a socialist:

"In visits to Asian capitals during the region's financial crisis in
the late 1990s, I often heard Asian reformers such as Singapore's Lee
Kuan Yew or Japan's Eisuke Sakakibara complain about how the
incestuous relationship between governments and large Asian corporate
conglomerates stymied real economic change. How fortunate, I thought
then, that the United States was not similarly plagued by crony
capitalism! However, watching Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-
level U.S. Treasury jobs as well as the way that Republicans and
Democrats alike tiptoed around reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae --
among the largest campaign contributors to Congress -- made me wonder
if the differences between the United States and the Asian economies
were only a matter of degree."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032502226.html

Fun fact: Citibank and Bank of America are now using their bailout
funds not to bankroll more loans, as was the excuse for giving them
the cash, but instead to buy up bad loans on the cheap because they
now know that, under Geithner's plan the Government will buy those
losing assets from them at a tidy profit, from our tax money. I
wouldn't call that socialism.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:31:38 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

>On Mar 31, 9:00*am, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:23:08 -0600, "SteveB" <oldf...@deepends.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"z" <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ddb05f40-37bb-4e3e-baea-388269690774@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> >On Mar 28, 9:03 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>> >> On Mar 27, 11:23 pm, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 27, 8:36 am, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Mar 27, 2:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Mar 16, 8:20 pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:38:06 GMT, jazzerci...@hotmail.com (-)
>> >> > > > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > >http://halturnershow.blogspot.com/20...re-they-on-whi...
>>
>> >> > > > > >What planet are they on? White House says economy is "sound"
>>
>> >> > > > well, it's "sound" in the sense of "mechanical vibrations at a
>> >> > > > frequency between 20 and 20,000 Hz transmitted by an elastic
>> >> > > > medium",
>> >> > > > i.e. a bunch of empty verbal activity.
>>
>> >> > > > if they mean it's healthy, you could make an excellent case that the
>> >> > > > economy has not been healthy since the oil shock of the 70s.
>>
>> >> > > Yes, you could say that, but it would be asinine. If the US economy
>> >> > > hasn't been healthy since the 70's, you might just as well say it's
>> >> > > never been healthy.
>>
>> >> > > >300
>> >> > > > million people selling each other their houses at ever higher prices
>> >> > > > does not a healthy economy make no matter how much cheap chinese
>> >> > > > junk
>> >> > > > it allows them to buy.
>>
>> >> > > As if that's all that's happened in the last 30 years. Talk about
>> >> > > looking at a cup as half empty....
>>
>> >> > > > i really hate it when i say something that agrees with something hal
>> >> > > > turner said.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> > well, this all my own impression, and i'm no kind of expert, but i
>> >> > don't think too many folks will say that american fundamental
>> >> > industries like manufacturing have been healthy for a while.
>>
>> >> It depends on how you define fundamental manufacturing. Companies
>> >> like Boeing, Intel, Caterpillar have been far more than just healthy
>> >> from the 80's until now. The economy isn't static, it evolves. What
>> >> would you rather have? An economy based on building hammers and cheap
>> >> appliances, or one that builds airplanes and microprocessors? This
>> >> transition is inevitable. Countries like China and India have evolved
>> >> and can now build many products. Before them, it was Japan, Taiwan,
>> >> then Korea that were on that path.
>>
>> >> >our
>> >> > economy has moved on to more ephemeral things. since the 1970s it's
>> >> > been one bubble after another. southeast asia,
>>
>> >> It wouldn't seem southeast Asia should be part of the measure of the
>> >> soundness of the US economy. Are computers ephemeral? Software?
>> >> The US invented those industries during your period of unsoundness and
>> >> is by far in control of them today. We are still the largest
>> >> manufacturing country in the world today.
>>
>> >> > savings and loans,
>> >> > dotcoms, housing.
>>
>> >> > the real beginning of the end of cheap energy was the oil shock(s;
>> >> > 1972 and 1979) of the 1970s;
>>
>> >> All that did was bring oil more in line with reality. Oil by any
>> >> reasonable measure was still cheap in the 80's and 90's. But,
>> >> regardless of how cheap or expensive you think oil was, clearly the US
>> >> economy had enormous growth during the 80's and 90's, with low
>> >> inflation, and reached levels of low unemployment previously thought
>> >> impossible.
>>
>> >> >the western governments bailed us out
>> >> > with a lot of borrowing and a lot of delicate management of the
>> >> > dollar/pound/mark/franc which prevented the kind of acute mess we >are
>> >> > in right now, but you can't scooch out a bulge in the wall to wall
>> >> > carpeting without making a lot of little bulges. so, high interest
>> >> > rates delivered us from stagflation,
>>
>> >> The borrowing had nothing to do with oil and everything to do with
>> >> politicians wasteful spending. Look what's going on now. Does it
>> >> have anything to do with oil? No. Though Obama would like to have
>> >> you believe it does, so he can justify more govt spending in that
>> >> area.
>>
>> >> As for delicate management of foreign exchange rates, that just isn't
>> >> so. The US govt hasn't intervened in currency markets in a long
>> >> time. Also, it's kind of crazy to think you could get Europe, Japan,
>> >> etc all to agree to adjust exchange rates to some agreed plan, as
>> >> they all have their own interests. Sure, occasionally one govt or
>> >> another will intervene for some reason, but it's the exception rather
>> >> than the rule.
>>
>> >> >at the cost of a worldwide
>> >> > recession in the early 80s. smaller US industries like appliances and
>> >> > consumer electronics having already left town, now the ones that
>> >> > couldn't move overseas like housing, steelmaking, automobile
>> >> > manufacturing collapsed. Chrysler got pulled out of a death spiral by
>> >> > Lee Iacocca, at the expense of GM losing a piece of the market equal
>> >> > to the size of Chrysler.
>>
>> >> Most would say that the market share GM lost over decades was through
>> >> their own doing, and primarily to overseas competitors, not
>> >> Chrysler. How do you explaind the fact that MB, BMW, Honda can build
>> >> card here in the USA, have been gaining market share, and even in the
>> >> current environment, aren't almost bankrupt like GM?
>>
>> >> The answer is better management and lower labor costs. GM is
>> >> burdened with a $75/hr labor cost. MB, Honda, BMW's labor costs in
>> >> the USA are half that.
>>
>> >> The same thing happened to the US steel industry. With poor
>> >> management decisions and labor costs that were out of whack, they got
>> >> clobbered by the mini-mills right here in the US. Those mini-mills
>> >> developed and thrived in the last 2 decades.
>>
>> >> > lowered interest rates and more deficit spending pulled the economy
>> >> > out of that hole, without restoring any of the american industries in
>> >> > the now "rust belt". banks couldn't make money on financing industrial
>> >> > production as they used to, and the ones who didn't fail started a lot
>> >> > of speculative investments in real estate, casinos, junk bonds,
>> >> > corporate raiders, junk bonds, derivatives and hedge funds. the less
>> >> > regulated savings and loans industry collapsed when these investments
>> >> > proved as risky as they really were, but the banks were insulated from
>> >> > catastrophe by regulation, so they kept pushing that limit until it
>> >> > got repealed recently, with well known results.
>>
>> >> > the late 80s brought the black monday stock market collapse; another
>> >> > oil price shock from the gulf war led to stagflation again. the dotcom
>> >> > boom carried us through the 90s; the triple related bubble collapses
>> >> > of the asian economies and the dotcom and telecom bubbles brought that
>> >> > down to earth, only to lead into the real estate bubble. and that
>> >> > brings us to now.
>>
>> >> > on the other hand, the oil shocks taught the arab nations how to bring
>> >> > the europeans to heel.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >> Why does your analysis start with the 80's and only continue to
>> >> present time? If you go back through history, there have been
>> >> recessions, booms, busts, panics, inflations, deflations all through
>> >> not only US history, but world history as well. In the 1800's the US
>> >> had a crisis averaging every 7 years. This is nothing new. Which
>> >> is why I say if you want to say the US economy has not been sound
>> >> since the 70's then you can just as easily say that it has never been
>> >> sound, nor has any other economy. And if the US economy is so
>> >> unsound, why is it that people from all over the world continue to
>> >> pour money into it in the form of investment? Even now, in this world
>> >> financial panic, the US remains the safest, soundest economy.
>>
>> >> Now, I certainly would agree that what is going on in Washington now
>> >> is truly reckless. The amount of wasteful spending and borrowing that
>> >> was already going on, resulting in a $11 tril national debt was
>> >> troubling, but relative to GDP it was still manageable. Obama's
>> >> proposal to double that debt in the next decade is truly alarming and
>> >> beyond anything I ever expected to see. So, we may yet get to your
>> >> unsound economy in the future. If anything close to this budget gets
>> >> passed, I would say we are headed that way.
>>
>> >> I'd also say that part of the current problem is everyone today wants
>> >> instant fixes. We're running around acting like this current economy
>> >> is the worst since the Great Depression. IMO, as of right now, the
>> >> situation in 1980-82 was far worse. You had not only unemployment
>> >> that was higher than it is today, but high inflation, high interest
>> >> rates, and a total loss of confidence in the US and it's place in the
>> >> world. Yet, instead of taking a recession like we normally would,
>> >> people are demanding an instant fix, so everything can just go back to
>> >> like it was before. And that sentiment is being manipulated and used
>> >> to justify an unprecedented expansion of govt.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >you make some good arguments. thanks for the thoughtful reply.
>>
>> The difference this time is four little words: "too big to fail".
>
>Actually, in many cases that is just a convenient cover for
>politicians who have lots of interests besides what's good for the
>economy or the average citizen. Like who's giving them cash. How
>do we know any company failing is going to cause such harm to the
>economy that it's worse than the govt bailouts? Answer: we
>don't.
>
>The big mistake Bush made and that Obama is now expanding on, is NOT
>letting them all fail. The message should have been, "The US govt is
>here to meet you on the steps of bankruptcy court and to then help
>mitigate the aftermath." Had they done that, they could have then
>made loans to a new AIG emerging from bankruptcy and there would have
>been no employee bonuses that had to be paid, because the bankruptcy
>would have wiped them out.
>
>
>
>
>> Capitalism has now achieved a level where capitalist rules no longer
>> apply. If we can't let corporations fail because they are too
>> important and interlocked, then we need another way to deal with
>> failure on such a monster scale. The only entity big enough to deal
>> with such failure is the government. That's what Obama is trying to
>> do, but not enough for me. I want socialism.-
>
>Well, at least your honest about what you want. BTW, how are the
>most socialized countries doing in all this? What have there GDP
>growth rates, unemployment rates, etc been doing the last 25 years?
>Any of them invent the microprocessor? personal computer? create
>the internet? And the politicians bought and paid for by big
>companies just gets worse with socialism, because now the govt is even
>more in control.
>
>The fundamental flaw you and so many libs make in all this is that
>whatever may ail free market capitalist economies, you immediately
>think the govt can fix and run better. In the face of the
>intelligence and actions of the typical politicians and govt
>bureaucracies and the huge failures in so many govt programs, why
>anyone would believe this is beyond me.
>
>Here's a thought. Before jumping to socialism or handing out more
>money, why don't we appoint a blue ribbon panel with subpoena power to
>investigate what caused the current mess? A panel with guys like
>Andy Grove, Warren Buffet, Jack Welch, etc. And let's put everyone
>under scrutiny, including Congress, FNMA, FMAC, SEC, Wall Street,
>etc. I know the answer. Because there are way too many political
>hacks that don't want the truth to ever emerge.

Add Krugman and Ralph Schoenman to the panel.

What solution do you think such a panel will come up with besides
government bailouts (socializing the risks, privatizing the profits)?
What other answer can their be?

We should let them fail. That's what capitalism calls for. But we
can't because it will bring down the whole house of cards.

On Mar 31, 11:33*pm, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
> > Here's a thought. * Before jumping to socialism or handing out more
> > money, why don't we appoint a blue ribbon panel with subpoena power to
> > investigate what caused the current mess? * A panel with guys like
> > Andy Grove, Warren Buffet, Jack Welch, etc. * And let's put everyone
> > under scrutiny, including Congress, FNMA, FMAC, SEC, Wall Street,
> > etc. * I know the answer. *Because there are way too many political
> > hacks that don't want the truth to ever emerge.
>
> well, now i disagree; to you that's socialism,


What then is your definition of socialism?


> to me letting big
> companies keep their profits

Actually the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the
world. These large companies paid tax rates as high as 50% just a
couple years ago, so they aren't keeping anywhere near all their
profits. And companies are entities that don't keep profits anyway.
Ultimately those profits are used to expand, create jobs, or given
back to shareholders as dividends. Where, BTW, they get taxed again
as income.



>and absorbing their losses is not
> socialism, it's capitalism buying the government, just like in any
> dingy third world country where the biggest bank is owned by the
> president's brother in law. socialism would be if they gave the money
> to all the folks losing their homes to keep them, in the hope that
> maybe it would trickle up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating public or state ownership and administration
of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society
characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or
egalitarian method of compensation."

Also, in the current cases it's not the president's brother in law
that's owning the bank. The US govt is directly taking equity
positions in the bailed out companies. To be clear, I agree there are
certainly some elements of crony capitalism here. Anytime the govt
is handing out trillions of dollars, that's going to happen. Anytime
the govt puts more controls on private business you're going to have
that too. But you can't deny there are also very clear components of
socialism in these bailouts.



>
> some comments from Desmond Lachman, former chief strategist for
> emerging markets at Salomon Smith Barney and an IMF executive, kind of
> the opposite of a socialist:
>
> "In visits to Asian capitals during the region's financial crisis in
> the late 1990s, I often heard Asian reformers such as Singapore's Lee
> Kuan Yew or Japan's Eisuke Sakakibara complain about how the
> incestuous relationship between governments and large Asian corporate
> conglomerates stymied real economic change. How fortunate, I thought
> then, that the United States was not similarly plagued by crony
> capitalism! However, watching Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-
> level U.S. Treasury jobs as well as the way that Republicans and
> Democrats alike tiptoed around reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae --
> among the largest campaign contributors to Congress -- made me wonder
> if the differences between the United States and the Asian economies
> were only a matter of degree."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR200...

Which I agree with. But an "incestous relationship" is different than
the government OWNING or having direct controlling interests in
businesses. When the govt actually owns the businesses it is indeed
socialism. Those incestous relationships the govt has also go well
beyond big business. The same terms could describe the govt
relationship with lawyers through their lobbying groups, unions,
teachers, etc.


>
> Fun fact: Citibank and Bank of America are now using their bailout
> funds not to bankroll more loans, as was the excuse for giving them
> the cash, but instead to buy up bad loans on the cheap because they
> now know that, under Geithner's plan the Government will buy those
> losing assets from them at a tidy profit, from our tax money. I
> wouldn't call that socialism.


But that isn't all the treasurey did. They also took equity
positions in both those institutions so they now partially OWN them.
They did the same thing with other bailout companies. Which is a
major step toward socialism. Or even better, how about GM? Now Obama
is making demands on them as to what kind of vehicles they must
build. A few days ago, he forced the CEO to resign and said he's
going to send some of his people to GM to help run the company. They
have put limits on compensation at ALL those institutions, which
doesn't sound like being a buddy to capitalists to me. All of
those are key components of socialism.

Do you not agree that Obama is a socialist? He's controlling the
largest US automaker, has $700Bil in the current budget to start a
national healthcare system, even though regardless of what you think
about national healthcare, now would seem like the last time to be
considering new obligations without funding. He wants to raise taxes
on upper incomes and even eliminate the deductibility of CHARITABLE
contributions. That's right, he'd rather you send the money to him
in DC as taxes so he can decide who is worthy of receiving it. You
can imagine what that will do to private donations to charites like
soup kitchens. He told the truth when he said to Joe the plumber
that "I want to spread the wealth around." What more does he have to
do? Maybe make a public declaration like Fidel Castro, who everyone
already knew was a commie when he finally declared that he was and
always had been a communist?

In the end, whether it's crony capitalism or creeping socialism, I
think we do agree that it's bad for the country.