How is austerity doing in Europe

[AmazonTania]

.
You are being dishonest again. You know what my sentence said. The auto business would indicate all, including OUR auto business.

Maybe you should have phrased it better. If you believed no one wanted GM, then you would have nothing to worry about. Other than that, there are plenty of small time Automakers which would have loved the opportunity to take their places. Callaway, Anteros, DeLorean, etc. Losing GM and Chrysler wouldn't have been the end of the Auto Industry. Smaller up and coming automakers would have taken their places.

Hardly dying. People seem to be buying automobiles. Did you think they had stopped?? The purpose is the same as any reason for keeping people employed.

They're buying automobiles with borrowed money. Majority of GM sales is through sub-prime lending. Americans can't afford these cars. When the bottom fails out the of the market again, the industry will fail again.

And I do not understand why you do not believe that I do not understand what you wrote. It was really quite simple. Hardly profound.

Then why would you write that I'm only concerned about stock prices. Nothing in my response was related to the face value GM's stock.
.

Wow, We are getting snarky. You used selected financial performance metrics, from selected time periods. Which are not draconian, but are fair. Which is why their stock prices have increased overall, and why they are expected to do quite well in the near future. So, you are suggesting based on those metrics that we should not have allowed made the decision to make the loan. Got it. And you are wrong by most people's opinion. And in the opinion of any financial annalist that I have seen.

I'm saying based on these metrics, GM is not any more profitable today than when it was going to the restructure process. Profits fell 16%, but it was still higher than street expectations. Then again, how high can expectations possibly be? And these profits were solely due to the cost cutting in the European division. And that fine financial analyst disagree with me. There is really no one rushing to invest back into the company. The company is cheap, which makes it attractive valuation wise, but it's not a good investment unless you're planning on going long.

Market cap? Not sure why you are so interested in market cap. But in cars sold and revenue and profit, they are second worldwide, and first in the US.
"In the first five months of 2013, General Motors Company (GM - Analyst Report) led with a 18.0% market share in the U.S., followed by Ford Motor Co. (F) with a 16.4% market share, Toyota Motors Corp. (TM - Analyst Report) with a 14.2% market share, Chrysler-Fiat with a 11.7% market share, and Honda Motor Co. (HMC - Analyst Report) and Nissan Motor Co. (NSANY) at the last spots with 9.5% and 8.1% market shares, respectively.

Toyota recaptured the sales crown from General Motors by selling 9.75 million vehicles globally in 2012, which exceeded GM’s sales of 9.29 million vehicles. Germany’s Volkswagen AG (VLKAY) came third with sales of 9.07 million vehicles for the year."
Auto Industry Stock Outlook - June 2013 - June 11, 2013 - Zacks.com

Market capitalisation is what investors use to determine a company's size, as oppose to revenue and total asset figures. Market share doesn't tell you how large a company is. It only tells you the distribution of sales in a particular area, among a particular demographic. And the reason why I care about market capitalisation is because companies with a low market cap are considered to be higher risked companies to invest in.

And GM is third when it comes to annual net income, not second.

It was completely political. Absolutely political. Either far right conservative sites, or politicians with foreign car companies in their states. Take those away, and almost no criticism about the bailout. Even the last repub president and his economic advisers supported the bailout.

So what if the last Republican President supported it. Look where it got you today... No one supported the bailout, left or right. It's bad from a business standpoint, as if gives businesses the idea that they are too big to fail. It's bad from a moral standpoint, as it teaches companies no matter what, businesses will never have to own up to their failures. It's bad from an economical standpoint, as badly misallocated resources are stuck in the same sector, when these resources could be used in more efficient ways. It was all around a bad idea.

The only types of people who support the bailouts are politicians and political hacks who care far too much about how this makes them look, rather than doing the right thing.

Normally, yes. That would be the capitalistic economy. Free market and all that. But in any economy, only fools let industries die it there is a fair chance that economy can go forward. Killing your economy for reasons of keeping your economic philosophy pure is, like allowing people to commit suicide, not a good idea.

Careless people fail to position their shorts to cover their long positions. Reckless people take a prominent, successful business and run it into the ground. The only real fools are those who give them money so they can do it all over again.. No one had any problem reaping the rewards when times were good. All of a sudden now times are bad, no one wants any part of the risk which are attached to the rewards. Capitalism is all about profits and loss. If you bailout the losers, there is no end to the cost.

The losers must be allowed to lose. This ensures companies are run efficiently. Otherwise, you have half baked, inefficient companies all across the economy. This does not benefit consumers, or producers.

Hardly. You do indeed like to misquote the cbo. But, ok. You do not believe the cbo. got it.

It's not about liking the CBO. It's about understanding that the organization is prone to mishaps, miscalculations and inaccuracies from time to time.

For example, the CBO is made up of intellectuals, which is an occupational category who's end product is ideas. And the only external mechaism for determining whether or not these ideas are good is whether or not other intellectuals like these ideas. This is distinguishable from other occupational professions such as engineering and scientist. These individuals actually engage in intellectual pursuits, but actually have real world mechanisms for determining whether or not they are good at their professions.

For example, if an engineer designs a bridge and the bridge falls, there's an external mechanism to judging whether or not the engineer is a good or bad at his profession, same as a doctor or a scientist. However, the end product of intellectuals are ideas, and these professions never have to experience the consequences of their ideas, such as an a politician or an economist, or a group of economist like the CBO.

The Stimulus Impact on unemployment was a good example of this. Everyone uses the CBO to some degree. I've never use it at all. All the CBO does is convey ideas and there is no external mechanism to determine whether or not their ideas are good or bad. People just use their analysis to prove a point. If they can be so wrong about other things, why couldn't they be wrong about many more? They're supposedly non-partisan, but so what? That's never kept anyone from being wrong before.

That is your analysis. I will go with those financial analysts that I have reasonable faith in. And none have your doom and gloom analysis. You do not know what is going on operationally with GM. Or Chrysler. Makes your analysis pretty empty.

GM and Chrysler releases monthly and quarterly shareholder reports and financial statements as well as proxy statements and shareholder meetings. Everyone and anyone can find out what is going on operationally with GM or Chiseler. I don't know what you think is happening, but nothing is behind closed doors. You are very ill-informed and very closed-minded.

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom..._Information/PDFs/2013_GM_Proxy_Statement.pdf

http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2013/q2/GM-2013-Q2-Financial-Highlights.pdf

http://www.gm.com/content/dam/gmcom...er_Information/PDFs/2012_GM_Annual_Report.pdf

But in the long run, time will tell. And over 1M people will remain employed. And profits from car sales stay in this country. And gov revenue is increased by the taxes they pay. And we did not go into a depression. Seems like a fair trade to me.[/COLOR]

Someone had to lose money in order for an autoworker to have a job. Even more people had to lose money just so these auto companies can continue to run poorly. And these sales/profits are made, not with any actual income Americans are making, but with in the sub-prime lending market, which means people with terrible credit histories and very low collateral is now borrowing someone else's money to purchased one of these overpriced cars.

That's a funny example of 'fair trade.'

 

[Rshermr]

^^^
If you want the govt. to take other people's monies and redistribute it to lower income classes; you're a Marxian. It's not difficult dude.

So, let me see if I understand the rules. It is fine if it is distributed more heavily to the wealthy, but marxist if the poor get a few dribbles? Got it.

What is the it, you ask?? That you are an idiot, obviously.

 

[RKMBrown]

Uh, let me unerstand you. You suggest that I pay in to ss all my life. Then I take out ss when I retire. And so I am a Marxist? Or am I a marxist because I approve of ss.

And since you are against redistribution of wealth, then I guess you are against the wealthy who have been becoming more and more wealthy while the middle class has no new gains. Or are you ok with the rich getting larger and larger portions of income and wealth causing redistribution of both to the wealthy? Because if you are, by your definition, you are a marxist.

Do you have a reading disability that we should know about or are you just mentally challenged?

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you always call people who do not agree with you marxists? Do you know how stupid that is? Do you recognize that sucking noise? That is what happens when you pull your head out of your ass. Marxists. What a dipshit you are.

Nope. Just the ones that advocate progressive taxation to fund monetary distributions based on need. It's pure marx. No denying it. You can dance all you like, but you can't get away from the facts. Distributing wealth from those that have the means to those that have the need, is marx.

Good. So now it is clear. You do hate the wealthy, and the politicians they own, and the con tools. Uh, carefull there, me boy. You will be hating yourself. And you are, again, all marxist because you
ARE for redistribution of wealth. Yup, and you can not dance around it. You are a marxist. Damned commie.

^ Empty headed Troll.

 

[AmazonTania]

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Current SS participation is functionally the same as buying a government bond.

Yep, which is exactly why it's a giant ponzi scheme.

LOL @ the US bond market.

Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.

 

[AmazonTania]

You do realize that by your definition all financial investments including bonds, CD's, and savings accounts are Ponzi schemes?

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Yep, Wall Street is so anxious to get all that Soc. Sec. money.

Why would we want YOUR Social Security money when the Government already gives us $45 Billion a month...

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Current SS participation is functionally the same as buying a government bond.

Yep, which is exactly why it's a giant ponzi scheme.

LOL @ the US bond market.

Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.

By his own logic, Bernie is good for the economy.

 

[Kimura]

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Current SS participation is functionally the same as buying a government bond.

Yep, which is exactly why it's a giant ponzi scheme.

LOL @ the US bond market.

Okie dokie...

Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.

Madoff is a piker compared to the real criminals at the big investment banks.

 

[Kimura]

CD's, Savings Accounts and Bonds are merely tools. The plan itself, social security, is the ponzi scheme. There is really nothing wrong with investing in a bond, and being paid with the reoccurring interest income. However, if I'm investing in a bond and my returns are merely earnings received from the money from other investments, why isn't that a ponzi scheme? It's not like the Government has an other legitimate forms of income.

The US Bond Market is just one giant ponzi scheme.

Yep, Wall Street is so anxious to get all that Soc. Sec. money.

Why would we want YOUR Social Security money when the Government already gives us $45 Billion a month...

That's easy...It would yield upwards of an additional $300 billion in commissions for brokers every year.

 

[Kimura]

No. I prefer the current system of funding SS through a flat income tax percentage and with the outlays measured, in part, by the amount you put in. I don't want to turn SS, even further, into a progressively taxed welfare program. If that was your question.

The inequity in the system is bad enough right now. What you propose would only increase the inequity by orders magnitude.

Americans, whatever cards they’ve been dealt, make contributions to American society during their lifetime. We can’t measure contributions in a monetary sense all the time. Since they’re Americans, and have made contributions, they deserve a dignified retirement and old age by the country in the form of SS and Medicare.

The money required to fund these things doesn't come from taxes, but from government through constitutional authority. It’s not money taken from you or I or the guy down the block, nor is it redistributed, once you understand our monetary system. It’s not from a limited supply of gold in a vault or coming out of my pocket so to speak. This money obtains its value from real wealth produced by American society, which is the result of present and past production by everyone, and the sum total of the all capacity that we as Americans have produced and will create in the future.

We don't have to the right to share this wealth equally, and there’s no right for the disabled, sick, elderly or children to make younger people sacrifice opportunity or go without. Our society is wealthy enough that it can provide for the elderly a lifestyle that doesn’t consist of fear or need.

FDR completely understood this and it’s why he put it on his 2nd Bill of Rights. But FDR had enemies, such as the Hooverians. We call then neo-liberals or austerians nowadays. Whatever we call them, the message is the same: money is limited, that when we give it some, we must take it from others. It’s inherently preposterous.

Austerity is anti-American and not part of our outlook. We know money isn’t a limited resource and that our constitution allows us to create enough of it to create the economy we all want. Real resources are limited. We also know that real wealth – and the stock of real goods and services – is increasing all the time as a combination of capital, knowledge, and overall human effort which will change as society changes. Real wealth can be increased and mobilized through nominal wealth so to speak. This isn’t some zero sum game where you either have to win or lose.

At the end of the day, we don’t have to take anything away from the elderly, because of some phony fiscal crisis. We can easily keep SS and other entitlements; even increase their benefits at no cost to you or me. All we need to do is fix some laws to guarantee funding through the general funds, and eliminate any and all trust funds.

How old are you, btw? Just curious….

Just turned 50. I got the letter for the SS Administration congratulating me on being fully funded for the max payout for SS checks when I was 32. Whether you know it or not, admit it or not, your views that we should redistribute based on need and ability are Marxian.

Cool. I was just curious, not being nosy. I'm 36 and hopefully I'll call it quits in my field when I'm 40. I'm just trying to figure out what else I can do.

I'm not advocating redistribution. Like I've tried to explain many times our taxes, operationally, don't fund expenditures of the federal government. States taxes, yes, they are used to generate revenue, but federal taxes do no such thing. Either way, the federal government will cut SS checks, and they'll never bounce.

If you want to talk why we tax the very wealthy, it has more to do with them being an inflation risk relative to the general population. And it also deals with what type of society we want to live in.

 

[AmazonTania]

The repeal of Glass-Steagall immensely contributed to the crisis. The only people who say otherwise are Jamie Dimon and his sociopathic and parasitical peers in investment banking. It prevented commercial banks, which were insured by the government, from using bank deposits for speculation by investment firms.

There are a good portion of people who believe Glass-Steagall is really irrelevant. Probably not as many as the people who believe it was a contributing factor, but most people who believe it contributed do not understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation, and no regulation at all. Any form of de-regulation is bad, regardless of how harmful or meaningless the regulation is. And bad regulation isn't mis-regulation, we just didn't 'do enough.'

And also, Glass Steagall is still in the US Code under the Banking Act of 1933. Only the provision you are referring to is missing, but otherwise, still in tact.

12 USC § 227 - ?Banking Act of 1933? | Title 12 - Banks and Banking | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

But really, nothing prevented banks from speculating in MBS. Banks were always able to invest in securities, they were just never able to underwrite or deal in any securities themselves. These banks didn't speculate in MBS because they were reckless (well, actually they were reckless). They invested in these securities because they thought they were good investments and still had large parts of them in their portfolios.

For example, Glass-Steagall would have prevented JPMorgan from its adventures in the electricity business. It also wouldn’t have allowed banks to speculate with metal storage facilities, oil tankers, power plants, etc. This list goes on and on. Detroit and many other cities wouldn’t have been solicited swaps from bank-controlled LIBOR rates. We should restore it ASAP. We need a firewall between commercial banks and investment banks.

I don't really see why JPMorgans financial troubles had to do with speculating in these other sectors. Chase has always been investing in projects as far as I know. The problems weren't caused by JPMorgans pet projects, but it's involvement and leverage regarding MBS.

Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merill Lynch are all defuct. Most of all, these were all pure investment banks which never operated on commercial soil and never merged with any commercial banks. Goldman Sachs was the only luck one which made it, but still never merged or look any deposits. What about AIG? That's an insurance company. No Glass Steagall there. What about New Century Financial? That's a real estate investment trust. No Glass Steagall there. Wachovia and Washington mutual had many banking divisions. Although they were bank holding companies, they got into trouble the old fashion way: giving people loans who couldn't afford them. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, but not because it squired an investment bank but because both Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender.

Merging banks were the ones who got in as much trouble as the ones which stayed separate. I really don't see what good this firewall has done. This piece of regulation is a constant, not a variable. The US packaged these securities all of the world. It doesn't really explain why countries with the same exposure in the MBS without such regulations fared the crisis just fine.

Japan and Germany don't have a segment of their political class obsessed with the destruction of labor. We have a whole fascist segment with the American Right obsessed with wage suppression and the destruction of unions.

Work is increasingly individualised today. More and more, we discover we no longer need unions in the same way we did in the past. The decrease in union participation is a global phenomenon, except in Scandinavia. Do you really want to use Scandinavia as an excuse of why anything is good?

By the way, in Germany, they have institutions which guarantee excellent working conditions and high wages. Upper management and the unions have a symbiotic relationship.

In the US, on the other hand, we have an upper management which is hostile to labor almost to a pathological degree. German autoworkers are also paid twice as much as their American counterparts which includes salary and benefits. All of the German auto manufacturers are very profitable and competitive.

There are many things which can attribute to this. Germany for example has no minimum wage, except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Employees and employers negotiate the terms of their own employment and contract, which is what the labour force should be like.

In America, you have so much litigation involved with the workplace. The work environment today makes it very easy for your employee to sue you for any possible reason. Employers today try their best to make as much money as possible, with as little employees. There are so many regulations devoted to employee rights, which makes employee/employer relationships impossible. Thank you Lilly Ledbetter

The federal government doesn't face the same constraints as a corporation. I see no reason to economise when dealing with the social safety net, whether it's food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, jobs programs and training, etc. As a society, we get decide what public policies initiates we want the government to provide and execute.

Most of the incentive against economising is merely due to the fact that doing so is not politically popular. How would you go about making sure these programs are efficient?

I'll trust the defense of my country to guys that grew up in my neighborhood over Academi or any other military contractors. Would you really want to see defense privatized? Yeah, what could possible go wrong. Some of the US military's current problems are privatizing certain aspects of its operations with these outfits like KBR.

There are privatized militarizes, but I wouldn't know what would be the difference to be honest. The government is really only good at killing people and breaking things. Why not get some money from liberating, over throwing dicators and being the world's police?

Yes, I think there should be federal standards for the supplements I take and the medication some of my family members use. Left up to their own devices, pharma and supplement manufactures will cut corners given the chance. Sort of like those "natural" Viagra pills from a few years ago that turned out being spiked with Viagra down in Belize. Yeah, we really don't need that in the United States. I do have gripes with the FDA, but that has more to do with the revolving door between Pharma and regulatory agencies. We see the same thing with the FED, SEC, Treasury Dept, etc.

Long ago investing into a company which had a decent cure for Alzheimer's which really worked. The company conducted many trials with the FDA and paid tens of millions of dollars in fees to compute these trials. The drug passed two different trials and the drug didn't seem to produce any side-effects or harmful byproducts, but the FDA found these trials inconclusive. They just simply wanted more and more trials. After a while, the company went bankrupt and they couldn't provide any more trials to produce the drug.

My issue with the FDA, aside from the fact that it does a lousy job of what it was enacted to do, it merely works as a defacto protectionism to create economies of scale for big pharmaceutical companies to ward off smaller up-and-coming companies.

 

[AmazonTania]

Current SS participation is functionally the same as buying a government bond.

Yep, which is exactly why it's a giant ponzi scheme.

LOL @ the US bond market.

Okie dokie...

Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.

Madoff is a piker compared to the real criminals at the big investment banks.

That's interesting, because according to him the real criminals are at the US Treasury. Although, that is kind of conflicting, a criminal calling someone else a criminal.

Bernie Madoff may not have much credibility, but he does when it comes to ponzi schemes...

Madoff: 'Whole government is a Ponzi scheme' - Business - US business | NBC News

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tania says:

there are plenty of small time Automakers which would have loved the opportunity to take their places. Callaway, Anteros, DeLorean, etc. Losing GM and Chrysler wouldn't have been the end of the Auto Industry. Smaller up and coming automakers would have taken their places.

.

That's it. The auto industry puts a place marker where GM used to be. A new and upcoming car company then takes their place. Now, in the last 70 years, there has not been a single major new auto company. Couple of small ones who went out of business. But nothing like gm, or even chrysler. But, you say it will happen. Must be true, then.
And toyota, and vw, and honda, and nisan, and on and on. All of theose other companies, that take their profits back to their countries will not take over and fill the gap for gm, because of the place marker. Should we call it the Tanya place marker.

And certainly there is no need to believe the ceo of ford when he said they would also be out of business. So, there would be NO us auto industry. Good deal.

Then, Tania says:

They're buying automobiles with borrowed money. Majority of GM sales is through sub-prime lending. Americans can't afford these cars. When the bottom fails out the of the market again, the industry will fail again

Uh oh. Americans are buying automobiles with borrowed money. Now that is a change from???? Actually, it is not a change. Always have been doing so. It is often called auto financing. Part of the installment loan business.

Next, Tania says:

I'm saying based on these metrics, GM is not any more profitable today than when it was going to the restructure process. Profits fell 16%, but it was still higher than street expectations. Then again, how high can expectations possibly be? And these profits were solely due to the cost cutting in the European division. And that fine financial analyst disagree with me. There is really no one rushing to invest back into the company. The company is cheap, which makes it attractive valuation wise, but it's not a good investment unless you're planning on going long.

Got it. It is, in your opinion, a bad investment. So, we should have let it go bankrupt. Perfect. 1.5M out of work, a new depression. All to make tania happy about getting rid of her list of bad investments. Maybe we should just go ahead and shut down the entire list.

Then, she adds:

Market capitalisation is what investors use to determine a company's size, as oppose to revenue and total asset figures. Market share doesn't tell you how large a company is. It only tells you the distribution of sales in a particular area, among a particular demographic. And the reason why I care about market capitalisation is because companies with a low market cap are considered to be higher risked companies to invest in.

Ah. That is true. Not profound. But true. So analysts do not care about gross sales, profits, and internals, right?? Ok. Others seem to care. But if you say so.

Then, Tania, the political expert, says:

So what if the last Republican President supported it. Look where it got you today... No one supported the bailout, left or right. It's bad from a business standpoint, as if gives businesses the idea that they are too big to fail. It's bad from a moral standpoint, as it teaches companies no matter what, businesses will never have to own up to their failures. It's bad from an economical standpoint, as badly misallocated resources are stuck in the same sector, when these resources could be used in more efficient ways. It was all around a bad idea.

The only types of people who support the bailouts are politicians and political hacks who care far too much about how this makes them look, rather than doing the right thing

The auto bailout was part of TARP. Every politician able to vote against it did, but never with any possibility that it was going to fail. You see, politicians were scared shitless (a technical term) of what was going to happen next. Whatever it took to get TARP passed was what it was going to get. But if they did not have to vote for it, they did not. But a majority did indeed vote for it. And yes, we know. It would have been much better to have a new national economic depression than to have had temporary ownership of gm by the gov. We know you believe that. Got it.



Then she said:

Someone had to lose money in order for an autoworker to have a job

Not as much as they would have lost if gm had gone out of business.

Even more people had to lose money just so these auto companies can continue to run poorly

That is your opinion that they are running poorly. Perhaps you have a link??? Didn't think so.

And these sales/profits are made, not with any actual income Americans are making, but with in the sub-prime lending market, which means people with terrible credit histories and very low collateral is now borrowing someone else's money to purchased one of these overpriced cars

So, only the people with poor credit are buying the cars, and the smart people are not??? Sounds a little unlikely. Which is why you probably do not have any proof.

That's a funny example of 'fair trade.

Yup. Bastards should stop buying those gm cars.

 

[Rshermr]

Nope. Just the ones that advocate progressive taxation to fund monetary distributions based on need. It's pure marx. No denying it. You can dance all you like, but you can't get away from the facts. Distributing wealth from those that have the means to those that have the need, is marx.

Good. So now it is clear. You do hate the wealthy, and the politicians they own, and the con tools. Uh, carefull there, me boy. You will be hating yourself. And you are, again, all marxist because you
ARE for redistribution of wealth. Yup, and you can not dance around it. You are a marxist. Damned commie.

^ Empty headed Troll.

Now, don't be so hard on yourself. But then, you are indeed empty headed. And you seem to admit you are a troll. good. that is a start toward a cure.

 

[Kimura]

There are a good portion of people who believe Glass-Steagall is really irrelevant. Probably not as many as the people who believe it was a contributing factor, but most people who believe it contributed do not understand the difference between de-regulation, mis-regulation, and no regulation at all. Any form of de-regulation is bad, regardless of how harmful or meaningless the regulation is. And bad regulation isn't mis-regulation, we just didn't 'do enough.

You're right, there are people who believe what you said. Anyone marginally on the periphery of finance - or in finance - will tell you they're either delusional or lying twats.

And also, Glass Steagall is still in the US Code under the Banking Act of 1933. Only the provision you are referring to is missing, but otherwise, still in tact.

12 USC § 227 - ?Banking Act of 1933? | Title 12 - Banks and Banking | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

But really, nothing prevented banks from speculating in MBS. Banks were always able to invest in securities, they were just never able to underwrite or deal in any securities themselves. These banks didn't speculate in MBS because they were reckless (well, actually they were reckless). They invested in these securities because they thought they were good investments and still had large parts of them in their portfolios.

I don't really see why JPMorgans financial troubles had to do with speculating in these other sectors. Chase has always been investing in projects as far as I know. The problems weren't caused by JPMorgans pet projects, but it's involvement and leverage regarding MBS.

Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merill Lynch are all defuct. Most of all, these were all pure investment banks which never operated on commercial soil and never merged with any commercial banks. Goldman Sachs was the only luck one which made it, but still never merged or look any deposits. What about AIG? That's an insurance company. No Glass Steagall there. What about New Century Financial? That's a real estate investment trust. No Glass Steagall there. Wachovia and Washington mutual had many banking divisions. Although they were bank holding companies, they got into trouble the old fashion way: giving people loans who couldn't afford them. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, but not because it squired an investment bank but because both Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender.

Merging banks were the ones who got in as much trouble as the ones which stayed separate. I really don't see what good this firewall has done. This piece of regulation is a constant, not a variable. The US packaged these securities all of the world. It doesn't really explain why countries with the same exposure in the MBS without such regulations fared the crisis just fine.

I went over Glass-Stegall in a broad sense. The basic components of it in the least boring way possible.

In terms of the commercial banks, the idea was banks would restrict loans to have edposit guarantees. These loans would be made for less risky, such as small biz loans, mortgages, car loans and very cut and dry types of credit. We need these types of restrictions, because of banks customers know their dough is guaranteed. The governent must be able to act and discipline commercial bank behavior because the market is simply incapable of doing so when deposits are insured.

Investment banks were able to engage in any type of risky and shady behavior they felt like doing. Let me be clear, I sort of gave you an incorrect description of the Glass-Steagall Act. Investment banks raised money borrowing or issuing bonds. Theoretically, yeah, if they failed, it shouldn't have the a massive risk factor for affecting the overall economy.

When Glass-Seagall was completed repealed, and the commercial banks and investment banks had the firewall removed, it increased the possibility that banks would gamble with risky investments with deposits. In theory, if I remember correctly, banks were still supposed to firewall commercial and investment banking activity, but this boiled down to the regulatory institutions actually practicing enforcement.

One of the main problems with crisis in 2008 was that these banks were too interconnected and too big too fail. (not really, we could have done what the Swedes did in the 90s, but there was no political will to do so). These mergers made it even worse.

Btw, going forward:

GS=Glass Steagall
IV= Investment bank
CB = Commercial Bank

There are many things which can attribute to this. Germany for example has no minimum wage, except for construction workers, electrical workers, janitors, roofers, painters, and letter carriers. Employees and employers negotiate the terms of their own employment and contract, which is what the labour force should be like.

Yeah, I know, it has a minimum wage within various sectors. They're on the verge of passing a nationwide minimum wage. The debate is how much. It would actually help the German government. Having done an inordinate amount of work in labor theory, I'm generally not a fan the way Germany does this currently. It causes certain problems within the labor market.

In America, you have so much litigation involved with the workplace. The work environment today makes it very easy for your employee to sue you for any possible reason. Employers today try their best to make as much money as possible, with as little employees. There are so many regulations devoted to employee rights, which makes employee/employer relationships impossible. Thank you Lilly Ledbetter

It depends. I fully support being about to sue an employer or employee for valid reasons. But yeah, some laws are ridiculous.

Most of the incentive against economising is merely due to the fact that doing so is not politically popular. How would you go about making sure these programs are efficient?

I would define efficient as helping as many people in need as possible. That's my metric for executing policy for the public good.

There are privatized militarizes, but I wouldn't know what would be the difference to be honest. The government is really only good at killing people and breaking things. Why not get some money from liberating, over throwing dicators and being the world's police?

Um, they're called mercenaries. And they have no allegiance to a country. Personally, I'd like to see less of a military footprint overseas, but any decreases in spending will have result in increased spending elsewhere in government.

Long ago investing into a company which had a decent cure for Alzheimer's which really worked. The company conducted many trials with the FDA and paid tens of millions of dollars in fees to compute these trials. The drug passed two different trials and the drug didn't seem to produce any side-effects or harmful byproducts, but the FDA found these trials inconclusive. They just simply wanted more and more trials. After a while, the company went bankrupt and they couldn't provide any more trials to produce the drug.

My issue with the FDA, aside from the fact that it does a lousy job of what it was enacted to do, it merely works as a defacto protectionism to create economies of scale for big pharmaceutical companies to ward off smaller up-and-coming companies.

I actually don't disagree with you. One of my beefs is with the repetitive trials. But this gets in the pharma lobby and access.

 

[Kimura]

Yep, which is exactly why it's a giant ponzi scheme.

Okie dokie...

Instead of throwing Bernie Madoff in jail, you should have actually made him Secretary of the Treasury.

Madoff is a piker compared to the real criminals at the big investment banks.

That's interesting, because according to him the real criminals are at the US Treasury. Although, that is kind of conflicting, a criminal calling someone else a criminal.

Bernie Madoff may not have much credibility, but he does when it comes to ponzi schemes...

Madoff: 'Whole government is a Ponzi scheme' - Business - US business | NBC News

Madoff is such a **** of a human being.

First of all, the US government isn't a ponzi scheme. It's not Amway, nor is it run for profit and it doesn't require investments to obtain money. It's the currency issuer, the referee on the pitch.

The only reason guys like Jaimie Dimon aren't doing the perp walk is the Holder Justice Dept refuses to prosecute. It's a disgrace and insult to the rule of law and any type of justice.

 

[oldfart]

It's not about liking the CBO. It's about understanding that the organization is prone to mishaps, miscalculations and inaccuracies from time to time.

For example, the CBO is made up of intellectuals, which is an occupational category who's end product is ideas. And the only external mechaism for determining whether or not these ideas are good is whether or not other intellectuals like these ideas. This is distinguishable from other occupational professions such as engineering and scientist. These individuals actually engage in intellectual pursuits, but actually have real world mechanisms for determining whether or not they are good at their professions.

For example, if an engineer designs a bridge and the bridge falls, there's an external mechanism to judging whether or not the engineer is a good or bad at his profession, same as a doctor or a scientist. However, the end product of intellectuals are ideas, and these professions never have to experience the consequences of their ideas, such as an a politician or an economist, or a group of economist like the CBO.

The Stimulus Impact on unemployment was a good example of this. Everyone uses the CBO to some degree. I've never use it at all. All the CBO does is convey ideas and there is no external mechanism to determine whether or not their ideas are good or bad. People just use their analysis to prove a point. If they can be so wrong about other things, why couldn't they be wrong about many more? They're supposedly non-partisan, but so what? That's never kept anyone from being wrong before.

Somehow I'm not surprised you don't use CBO projections. What macro shop do you use?

 

[AmazonTania]

That's it. The auto industry puts a place marker where GM used to be. A new and upcoming car company then takes their place. Now, in the last 70 years, there has not been a single major new auto company. Couple of small ones who went out of business. But nothing like gm, or even chrysler.

Um, you do realise that the three major automakers merely aquire smaller automakers and adds their auto designs to their catalog, correct? Where exactly do you think all the names of these cars originate from. There is really no reason why these smaller companies can do the same thing as well, and thanks to the bailout, these companies will probably never get the opportunity.

The list of minor automobile companies have been around for decades. DeLorean Motor Company has been around since 1975. Panoz Auto Development has been around since 1989. Carroll Shelby International has been around since 1992. You've even had an automobile developed and named after an American economist: Warren Mosler. Any one of these companies were capable of filling the void.

But, you say it will happen. Must be true, then.

It's not because I said it will happen. This is basically the case when it comes to business. We literally have a century's worth of examples, and not just in the US, but global.

• F. W. Woolworth Company became the largest chain store in the world by 1979. F. W. Woolworth Company files for bankruptcy in the 1990's. It's assets were sold to competitor, Wal-Mart. F. W. Woolworth Company emerges as a sport footwear chain known today as 'Footlocker.'
  
• Atari Inc. was American video game and home computer company and the producer of the popular video game console Atari 2600, Atari 5200 with and the popular pong console. The video game crash of 1983 virtually led to the downfall of video game developers, including the most popular Atari Inc. It's assets were sold to competitor Commodore International and Namco.
  
• Rolls-Royce Limited was a well known automobile manufacturer which also specialised in engine manufacturing. Financial problems ultimately led to the nationalisation of the company and assets were sold to competitors.

And toyota, and vw, and honda, and nisan, and on and on. All of theose other companies, that take their profits back to their countries will not take over and fill the gap for gm, because of the place marker. Should we call it the Tanya place marker.

Foreign competitors already have a place in American markets, as globalisation allows foreign producers to sell anywhere in the world without physically being there. If they wanted to purchase freed up resources, they could, but they're not doing this for any other defuct automakers.

And certainly there is no need to believe the ceo of ford when he said they would also be out of business. So, there would be NO us auto industry. Good deal.

Ford was actually the only Automaker which didn't receive bailout money. It's possible systemic risk would have occurred if GM and Chrysler would were not rescued due to the lack of parts being produced, taking Ford down with it. Then again, you have many automobile manufactures which could have offset the losses these part manufacturers have sustained. We will never know.

Uh oh. Americans are buying automobiles with borrowed money. Now that is a change from???? Actually, it is not a change. Always have been doing so. It is often called auto financing. Part of the installment loan business.

Not just any borrowed money, high-risk sub prime lending. Most of the increases in GM sales consist of these financing metric, which means in terms of realised profits, GM is probably less profitable on paper.

Got it. It is, in your opinion, a bad investment. So, we should have let it go bankrupt. Perfect. 1.5M out of work, a new depression. All to make tania happy about getting rid of her list of bad investments. Maybe we should just go ahead and shut down the entire list.

There is no such thing as a bad investment. There is a such thing as a bad company, and GM was a poorly run company which needed to fail. It wouldn't have made me happy to see it defunct, but that doesn't change the fact that it's what needed to happen.

Ah. That is true. Not profound. But true. So analysts do not care about gross sales, profits, and internals, right?? Ok. Others seem to care. But if you say so.

No one is making that claim up you. There are a few ways investors can determine the size of a company. Sales are one of them. Profits are not.

The auto bailout was part of TARP. Every politician able to vote against it did, but never with any possibility that it was going to fail. You see, politicians were scared shitless (a technical term) of what was going to happen next. Whatever it took to get TARP passed was what it was going to get. But if they did not have to vote for it, they did not. But a majority did indeed vote for it. And yes, we know. It would have been much better to have a new national economic depression than to have had temporary ownership of gm by the gov. We know you believe that. Got it.

The economy is already in a state of a depression. It ultimately would have been better to take a painful recession and have a much stronger recovery. What is happening now cannot be synonymous with a recovery. All indicators points to an economy which is contracting, which is being masked by a cheap stimulus high.

And contrary to popular belief, recessions are normal. They're also a natural part of the business cycle, along with business failures. A recession is the economy's way of ridding all the malinvestment and allocating the resources efficiently. It's no different from checking into rehab for a drug problem and you start detoxing. The detox isn't not suppose to feel good, but it's necessary for a strong recovery. Of course we can become like you and give our patients bailout stimulus drugs. You'll probably run the most popular rehab clinic, but your patients aren't going to get much better...

Not as much as they would have lost if gm had gone out of business.

They would have lost nothing. It's GM that would have lost. Now taxpayers are still waiting to be made whole, while they are still contractually obligated to prop up a lousy company.

That is your opinion that they are running poorly. Perhaps you have a link??? Didn't think so.

I don't need a link and I don't need anyone to tell me the company's condition. I'm experienced enough to know whether or not a company's fundamentals are sound enough to invest or when it's fundamentals are deteriorating. It's all in the financials. Again, just because you cannot understand the data doesn't mean the data is wrong.

GM General Motors Co XNYS:GM Stock Quote Price News

So, only the people with poor credit are buying the cars, and the smart people are not??? Sounds a little unlikely. Which is why you probably do not have any proof.

Sooner or later, you'll learn not to underestimate my researching skills.

View Filing Data

If it doesn't open to the proper page, simply click on Note to Financial Statements and Finance Receivables, Net. There you will find all the information you need. And just so you won't accuse anyone of lying, I took the liberty of producing a screenshot.

Auto Financed cars are purchased using sub prime lending, which are used by individuals for a number of reasons, but all of which has to do with bad or weak credit. 70% of the increase in GM sales were attributed to individuals with a FICO score of less than 600, which last time I checked was considered satisfactory.

Yup. Bastards should stop buying those gm cars.

I don't care of the market buys GM cars are not. I'm just pointing out that GM sales are merely a function of cheap liquidity. Once this stops, they will fail once more. Which begs the question: Will you bail these companies out again?

 

[AmazonTania]

It's not about liking the CBO. It's about understanding that the organization is prone to mishaps, miscalculations and inaccuracies from time to time.

For example, the CBO is made up of intellectuals, which is an occupational category who's end product is ideas. And the only external mechaism for determining whether or not these ideas are good is whether or not other intellectuals like these ideas. This is distinguishable from other occupational professions such as engineering and scientist. These individuals actually engage in intellectual pursuits, but actually have real world mechanisms for determining whether or not they are good at their professions.

For example, if an engineer designs a bridge and the bridge falls, there's an external mechanism to judging whether or not the engineer is a good or bad at his profession, same as a doctor or a scientist. However, the end product of intellectuals are ideas, and these professions never have to experience the consequences of their ideas, such as an a politician or an economist, or a group of economist like the CBO.

The Stimulus Impact on unemployment was a good example of this. Everyone uses the CBO to some degree. I've never use it at all. All the CBO does is convey ideas and there is no external mechanism to determine whether or not their ideas are good or bad. People just use their analysis to prove a point. If they can be so wrong about other things, why couldn't they be wrong about many more? They're supposedly non-partisan, but so what? That's never kept anyone from being wrong before.

Somehow I'm not surprised you don't use CBO projections. What macro shop do you use?

I really don't use any studies. I read the studies to look at data new data I find interesting, but I've never actually used a study to present an argument.

Most of the studies I do use have zero relation to macroeconomics, because they're not for economics, but other topics.

 

[AmazonTania]

Okie dokie...



Madoff is a piker compared to the real criminals at the big investment banks.

That's interesting, because according to him the real criminals are at the US Treasury. Although, that is kind of conflicting, a criminal calling someone else a criminal.

Bernie Madoff may not have much credibility, but he does when it comes to ponzi schemes...

Madoff: 'Whole government is a Ponzi scheme' - Business - US business | NBC News

Madoff is such a **** of a human being.

This may be true, but my dislike a fallacies prevent me from disagreeing with Bernie Madoff simply because he is a '****' of a human being.

First of all, the US government isn't a ponzi scheme. It's not Amway, nor is it run for profit and it doesn't require investments to obtain money.

Ha! I knew Amway was a Ponzi Scheme. Which was probably easy to see. Those MLM reps don't look like they make money.

It's the currency issuer, the referee on the pitch.

Sooo, it's the referee and the pitcher?

Look, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but everyone has been openly candid about the plan to stimulate the economy. From the 'we never had to pay the money back' crowd to 'if we don't borrow more money, we're not going to pay our creditors back' morons.

At least Bernie Madoff learned that the first rule of a Ponzi Scheme is that you don't let anyone in on the fact that you're running one.

The only reason guys like Jaimie Dimon aren't doing the perp walk is the Holder Justice Dept refuses to prosecute. It's a disgrace and insult to the rule of law and any type of justice.

He's too busy going after S&P for having the nerve to downgrade US sover, er, for failing to downgrade Mortgage Backed Securities.

They gotta pay.