More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Uncensored2008]

Edit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only reason wages haven't risen fast yet is because of the massive supply of 18 million unemployed created during the bush years. Obama has brought over half those jobs back so far & job openings hiring demand is much higher than it ever was under Bush admin. "June job openings climb to 13-year high. Unemployed workers still exceeded openings by almost a 2-to-1 margin in June, but that's much improved from the 3-to-1 ratio a year earlier. Job openings climbed for the fifth straight month in June, reaching their highest level since early 2001, the Labor Department said Tuesday."

The only reason wages haven't risen fast yet is because of the massive supply of 18 million unemployed created during the bush years.

Don't forget the millions of immigrants, legal and illegal.

"Illegal" immigrants aren't fighting for jobs Americans will do.

H-1Bs? Yep. Absolutely correct.

Baloney. Every fast food restaurant is loaded with illegals.
Construction, roofing, landscaping etc.

 

[Andylusion]

The only reason wages haven't risen fast yet is because of the massive supply of 18 million unemployed created during the bush years. Obama has brought over half those jobs back so far & job openings hiring demand is much higher than it ever was under Bush admin. "June job openings climb to 13-year high. Unemployed workers still exceeded openings by almost a 2-to-1 margin in June, but that's much improved from the 3-to-1 ratio a year earlier. Job openings climbed for the fifth straight month in June, reaching their highest level since early 2001, the Labor Department said Tuesday."

The only reason wages haven't risen fast yet is because of the massive supply of 18 million unemployed created during the bush years.

Don't forget the millions of immigrants, legal and illegal.

"Illegal" immigrants aren't fighting for jobs Americans will do.

H-1Bs? Yep. Absolutely correct.

Really? I can take you right now, to a auto repair shop, staffed entirely with illegals. You people make up crap all the time.

 

[Andylusion]

Which nicely put an end to your "argument".

I work in IT and in the financial industry.

I've also had my own business and kinda know how that works (although since my business failed? I have no claim to "expertise").

Here's the other shoe. My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

People who do industrial printing, these days, are few and far between. It is a highly specialized industry and, curiously enough, in high demand. They charge top dollar for their work.

Thus, if you work for a firm that services that industry and you are the only people to do it? You charge what you like.

And they pass that cost on to companies like the one my girlfriend works for..

If..as you claim..the boards were to "expensive" to make..what was the alternative?

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?

Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

Which means you are "incorrect" about the "monopoly".

And?

My girlfriend's company tries like mad to outsource the printing. She's been to Brazil and Korea this year..and is making a trip to Poland this month.

Inevitably? The printing still gets done here.

Your argument was "I don't believe you".

How did you, simply denying my real life example from my company, put an end to 'my argument'? You are the one who said "I don't believe you" as your one and only argument. That's doesn't put an end to anything I said. It puts an end to you discussing reality. That's your fail, not mine.

My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

Stop. You said this right here. Do you not see that you just validated my position?

Diageo has off-shored packaging and design to your GFs firm in New York. Without off-shoring..... she would not have a job.

Hello? You just made my point.

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?
Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

There are not industrial printers like you are thinking of. And that's my fault. I gave a basic outline of what we build, without details.

The closest competitor to us, would be Zebra Printers. The problem with Zebra is, it's a plastic based printer, with limited use, and zero custom ability. Our printers are 100% metal, and last 5 years to a decade, or more. We have printers coming into our service center, that were sold in the 1980s, and are still running.

As I said they are also 100% custom units. Some have crazy security features, like encrypted code. Others have specialized network features, like built in token ring. Some have have specialized printing fonts no one else uses, like Turkish, for Turkish Airlines.

Further, we build to specific size, weight, and deminsions.

Zebra, generally has a mass-produced off the shelf product. Here's their printer, take or leave it. If it lasts more than 2 years, the warrantee is up, and you buy another.

If we jack up our price too high, then companies will either A: switch to a non-custom, non specialized, non-long-term-industrial printer, and use an off the shelf-the-shelf disposable printer... Or they may just not use a printer at all. There are always alternatives to everything.

For example one of our big customers, uses our printer in their inventory system. There are other inventor systems that don't require a printer. Our own inventory system doesn't use a printer.

If we charged too much, they would use a different system, and not buy a printer at all.

There is no other company that I am aware of that does this type of complete custom built, made to spec, durable for decades, type of printer. There could be... but I don't know of them. Technically there is one, but we build their printers. So two separate companies, but it's all us doing the builds.

So to answer your question, none of the companies we have as customers would ever close for lack of a printer. None of them are doing business as a printing company.

The worst case scenario, one of our customers takes the product to another company, and asks them to make it for them.

This is something that even I didn't know about until 2008.

I was working at a different company, called Vanner Power Systems.
Inverter Charger, Power Inverter, Battery Equalizer, Battery Monitoring

Really neat company. They make power systems for commercial vehicles, primarily ones with dual batteries.

Long story short, Vanner was at the start, a monopoly. There was no other source for the systems they built. Well unfortunately they hired a (bad) sales rep, who went to a customer who had a complaint, and told them that they had to just deal with it, because we were the only game in town.

The customer went to a different company, handed them our power unit, and said 'make that for us, and we'll buy it from you'.

There went their monopoly. One bad employee single-handedly created their competition. When the details came out, he was of course instantly fired, but the damage was done.

Again, this idea that if you have a monopoly, means you can charge whatever you want, is a joke. You charge too much, and piss off your customers, and you will be replaced. They'll find someone, or do without. I promise you, you have a monopoly on a product, and charge whatever you want, and suddenly you'll have other people taking your market, or you won't have a market.

So..in a nutshell..when I said that you had a competitor, that offshores?

And you said I was wrong?

You were wrong.

Right? Because you've just completely changed your story.

No, we don't. There is no other company that does what we do.

I've said the same thing, 3 times now.

 

[RKMBrown]

The one thing I do have a problem with, is this statement:

Thus the plan to save the rich owners of the failed banking cartels, and executives of the fortune 500s has worked out swimmingly for the top 1%.

The bailout didn't save the banking cartels. First, there is no such thing. But more importantly, go back and look how the bailout worked. It didn't save the wealthy bankers. There is not one banker I know of, whose bank crashed, that is still a banker. At least not a banker at that bank. Might have been hired by a different bank, but he's not CEO of Bear Stearns anymore, or Countrywide, or any failed bank.

The bailout didn't save the banks. It saved the bond holders. Who are the bond holders? Most were Unions, and pension funds, and the vast majority were international.

So why did the top 1% income recover so fast?

Because the compensation of the top 1% is not in money. A little is, but the vast majority is in stocks. Warren Buffet's pay is exactly $100,000. He doesn't earn just $100,000. He get's paid in stocks.

Well when the stock market went on a dive in 2008, the value of his stock compensation went down. When the market recovered, the value of his stocks went up.

His cash income, remained exactly the same from 2006 to 2013. His stock income, went way down, and went way back up during that same time. The number of stocks he is compensated with, is usually a set number. The value of those stocks on the market is what changes.

Had nothing to do with bailouts. Nothing to do with government programs. Nothing to do with any policy.

If you are CEO of some company, and you earn thousand shares in stock options every year, when the market goes down, you get paid less. When the market goes up, you get paid more. Just because the market went up, and your tax return shows a huge increase, doesn't mean you screwed someone over, or got a bailout.

The point I was making is that without taxpayer funds a great many banks that invested in people who invested in failed real-estate holdings. The threat was a run on the banks was about to ensue as the chain of loans unraveled. I like to call these big banks with access to the Federal funds the banking cartel. I'm not alone in calling them that.

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

With regard to the fortune 500 I was alluding to the QE money that has been used to bail out wallstreet by shoring up stock prices via zero rate of return money offered to preferred borrowers who are allowed the essentially free money via fed QE asset purchase program.

The part you seem to not understand is that if taxpayer funds were not used to save certain corporations, those saved corporations would have gone through forclosure. This is a matter of fact, not up for debate. Instead of going under many executives were invited to stay on and reap the whirlwind of being save by the tax payers. This in the form of massive bonuses and stock awards.

For example look at GM. Instead of the share holders getting their fair share of GM in bancruptcy, Obama bailed them out with tax dollars, while screwing over the stock and bond holders. The stock and bond holders assets where handed over to the UAW by our POTUS.

IOW this government is picking and choosing winners and loosers. The only consistent looser is the American taxpayer.

 

[Andylusion]

The one thing I do have a problem with, is this statement:

Thus the plan to save the rich owners of the failed banking cartels, and executives of the fortune 500s has worked out swimmingly for the top 1%.

The bailout didn't save the banking cartels. First, there is no such thing. But more importantly, go back and look how the bailout worked. It didn't save the wealthy bankers. There is not one banker I know of, whose bank crashed, that is still a banker. At least not a banker at that bank. Might have been hired by a different bank, but he's not CEO of Bear Stearns anymore, or Countrywide, or any failed bank.

The bailout didn't save the banks. It saved the bond holders. Who are the bond holders? Most were Unions, and pension funds, and the vast majority were international.

So why did the top 1% income recover so fast?

Because the compensation of the top 1% is not in money. A little is, but the vast majority is in stocks. Warren Buffet's pay is exactly $100,000. He doesn't earn just $100,000. He get's paid in stocks.

Well when the stock market went on a dive in 2008, the value of his stock compensation went down. When the market recovered, the value of his stocks went up.

His cash income, remained exactly the same from 2006 to 2013. His stock income, went way down, and went way back up during that same time. The number of stocks he is compensated with, is usually a set number. The value of those stocks on the market is what changes.

Had nothing to do with bailouts. Nothing to do with government programs. Nothing to do with any policy.

If you are CEO of some company, and you earn thousand shares in stock options every year, when the market goes down, you get paid less. When the market goes up, you get paid more. Just because the market went up, and your tax return shows a huge increase, doesn't mean you screwed someone over, or got a bailout.

The point I was making is that without taxpayer funds a great many banks that invested in people who invested in failed real-estate holdings. The threat was a run on the banks was about to ensue as the chain of loans unraveled. I like to call these big banks with access to the Federal funds the banking cartel. I'm not alone in calling them that.

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

With regard to the fortune 500 I was alluding to the QE money that has been used to bail out wallstreet by shoring up stock prices via zero rate of return money offered to preferred borrowers who are allowed the essentially free money via fed QE asset purchase program.

The part you seem to not understand is that if taxpayer funds were not used to save certain corporations, those saved corporations would have gone through forclosure. This is a matter of fact, not up for debate. Instead of going under many executives were invited to stay on and reap the whirlwind of being save by the tax payers. This in the form of massive bonuses and stock awards.

No, I completely disagree with that entirely. Banks were FORCED into taking TARP money. What's really odd, this is well known. In fact, the Fed was open about this at the start.

Remember IndyMac, and the lines of people around the block, trying to get their money? The reason that happened, was that the Fed announced they were going to give TARP money to IndyMac. This alerted everyone that IndyMac was going to fail. As a result, people lined up around the block, to withdraw their money.

In order to avoid that, the Federal reserve intentionally forced hundreds on hundreds of banks, to take TARP money, so that no one would know which banks were about to fail.

Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP | HartfordBusiness.com

The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents have confirmed.

Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents revealed "talking points" used by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the October 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.

This is a well known, well documented, established fact.

JP Morgan Chase, was never at any point 'about to fail', or even close. They got bailout money because the Fed demanded they take it, so the market wouldn't know which banks would fail.

This is the primary reason the original TARP had no restrictions. If the money had Restrictions, then none of these perfectly fine banks would have taken the money. As proof of that, the moment that the Democrats added restrictions to the money, the banks paid back the TARP bill as early as possible.

Treasury Lets 10 Banks Repay $68 Billion in Bailout Cash - WSJ

At one point, the Fed was considering, not letting the banks pay back the loans. Because again, that would point out which banks were in trouble, because they would be the only banks to not pay back.

That article was from June. TARP had only been created in October. So in less than 8 months, banks that were so bad off, that they needed a bailout, not only were perfectly fine, but had the money to pay back the loans? No, they were never in trouble in the first place. The Fed pressured them to take the money. That's why it say "the Fed decided to ALLOW the banks to pay back the loans". Keep in mind, banks were failing all throughout 2009.

As for QE and stock options... I don't think so.

I'm sure QE has some effect, but ultimately the company has to perform in order for the stock to have value. Lowering interest rates, and all the QE in the world, can't make GMs stock worth something. And it didn't, because GM was bankrupt.

At some point, a company has to be profitable, in order for people to buy the stock, regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.

If those CEOs are not able to guide their company through an economic down turn, no amount of QE is going to save their stock options.

For example look at GM. Instead of the share holders getting their fair share of GM in bancruptcy, Obama bailed them out with tax dollars, while screwing over the stock and bond holders. The stock and bond holders assets where handed over to the UAW by our POTUS.

IOW this government is picking and choosing winners and loosers. The only consistent looser is the American taxpayer.

Agreed.

 

[RKMBrown]

The one thing I do have a problem with, is this statement:

Thus the plan to save the rich owners of the failed banking cartels, and executives of the fortune 500s has worked out swimmingly for the top 1%.

The bailout didn't save the banking cartels. First, there is no such thing. But more importantly, go back and look how the bailout worked. It didn't save the wealthy bankers. There is not one banker I know of, whose bank crashed, that is still a banker. At least not a banker at that bank. Might have been hired by a different bank, but he's not CEO of Bear Stearns anymore, or Countrywide, or any failed bank.

The bailout didn't save the banks. It saved the bond holders. Who are the bond holders? Most were Unions, and pension funds, and the vast majority were international.

So why did the top 1% income recover so fast?

Because the compensation of the top 1% is not in money. A little is, but the vast majority is in stocks. Warren Buffet's pay is exactly $100,000. He doesn't earn just $100,000. He get's paid in stocks.

Well when the stock market went on a dive in 2008, the value of his stock compensation went down. When the market recovered, the value of his stocks went up.

His cash income, remained exactly the same from 2006 to 2013. His stock income, went way down, and went way back up during that same time. The number of stocks he is compensated with, is usually a set number. The value of those stocks on the market is what changes.

Had nothing to do with bailouts. Nothing to do with government programs. Nothing to do with any policy.

If you are CEO of some company, and you earn thousand shares in stock options every year, when the market goes down, you get paid less. When the market goes up, you get paid more. Just because the market went up, and your tax return shows a huge increase, doesn't mean you screwed someone over, or got a bailout.

The point I was making is that without taxpayer funds a great many banks that invested in people who invested in failed real-estate holdings. The threat was a run on the banks was about to ensue as the chain of loans unraveled. I like to call these big banks with access to the Federal funds the banking cartel. I'm not alone in calling them that.

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

With regard to the fortune 500 I was alluding to the QE money that has been used to bail out wallstreet by shoring up stock prices via zero rate of return money offered to preferred borrowers who are allowed the essentially free money via fed QE asset purchase program.

The part you seem to not understand is that if taxpayer funds were not used to save certain corporations, those saved corporations would have gone through forclosure. This is a matter of fact, not up for debate. Instead of going under many executives were invited to stay on and reap the whirlwind of being save by the tax payers. This in the form of massive bonuses and stock awards.

No, I completely disagree with that entirely. Banks were FORCED into taking TARP money. What's really odd, this is well known. In fact, the Fed was open about this at the start.

Remember IndyMac, and the lines of people around the block, trying to get their money? The reason that happened, was that the Fed announced they were going to give TARP money to IndyMac. This alerted everyone that IndyMac was going to fail. As a result, people lined up around the block, to withdraw their money.

In order to avoid that, the Federal reserve intentionally forced hundreds on hundreds of banks, to take TARP money, so that no one would know which banks were about to fail.

Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP | HartfordBusiness.com

The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents have confirmed.

Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents revealed "talking points" used by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the October 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.

This is a well known, well documented, established fact.

JP Morgan Chase, was never at any point 'about to fail', or even close. They got bailout money because the Fed demanded they take it, so the market wouldn't know which banks would fail.

This is the primary reason the original TARP had no restrictions. If the money had Restrictions, then none of these perfectly fine banks would have taken the money. As proof of that, the moment that the Democrats added restrictions to the money, the banks paid back the TARP bill as early as possible.

Treasury Lets 10 Banks Repay $68 Billion in Bailout Cash - WSJ

At one point, the Fed was considering, not letting the banks pay back the loans. Because again, that would point out which banks were in trouble, because they would be the only banks to not pay back.

That article was from June. TARP had only been created in October. So in less than 8 months, banks that were so bad off, that they needed a bailout, not only were perfectly fine, but had the money to pay back the loans? No, they were never in trouble in the first place. The Fed pressured them to take the money. That's why it say "the Fed decided to ALLOW the banks to pay back the loans". Keep in mind, banks were failing all throughout 2009.

As for QE and stock options... I don't think so.

I'm sure QE has some effect, but ultimately the company has to perform in order for the stock to have value. Lowering interest rates, and all the QE in the world, can't make GMs stock worth something. And it didn't, because GM was bankrupt.

At some point, a company has to be profitable, in order for people to buy the stock, regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.

If those CEOs are not able to guide their company through an economic down turn, no amount of QE is going to save their stock options.

For example look at GM. Instead of the share holders getting their fair share of GM in bancruptcy, Obama bailed them out with tax dollars, while screwing over the stock and bond holders. The stock and bond holders assets where handed over to the UAW by our POTUS.

IOW this government is picking and choosing winners and loosers. The only consistent looser is the American taxpayer.

Agreed.

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. I said a great many, I did not say all banks. You come back with many were not gonna fail and were forced to hide the great many that I was talking about!!!

When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The point I was making is that without taxpayer funds a great many banks that invested in people who invested in failed real-estate holdings. The threat was a run on the banks was about to ensue as the chain of loans unraveled. I like to call these big banks with access to the Federal funds the banking cartel. I'm not alone in calling them that.

Treasury's bank bailout list - CNNMoney.com

With regard to the fortune 500 I was alluding to the QE money that has been used to bail out wallstreet by shoring up stock prices via zero rate of return money offered to preferred borrowers who are allowed the essentially free money via fed QE asset purchase program.

The part you seem to not understand is that if taxpayer funds were not used to save certain corporations, those saved corporations would have gone through forclosure. This is a matter of fact, not up for debate. Instead of going under many executives were invited to stay on and reap the whirlwind of being save by the tax payers. This in the form of massive bonuses and stock awards.

No, I completely disagree with that entirely. Banks were FORCED into taking TARP money. What's really odd, this is well known. In fact, the Fed was open about this at the start.

Remember IndyMac, and the lines of people around the block, trying to get their money? The reason that happened, was that the Fed announced they were going to give TARP money to IndyMac. This alerted everyone that IndyMac was going to fail. As a result, people lined up around the block, to withdraw their money.

In order to avoid that, the Federal reserve intentionally forced hundreds on hundreds of banks, to take TARP money, so that no one would know which banks were about to fail.

Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP | HartfordBusiness.com


This is a well known, well documented, established fact.

JP Morgan Chase, was never at any point 'about to fail', or even close. They got bailout money because the Fed demanded they take it, so the market wouldn't know which banks would fail.

This is the primary reason the original TARP had no restrictions. If the money had Restrictions, then none of these perfectly fine banks would have taken the money. As proof of that, the moment that the Democrats added restrictions to the money, the banks paid back the TARP bill as early as possible.

Treasury Lets 10 Banks Repay $68 Billion in Bailout Cash - WSJ

At one point, the Fed was considering, not letting the banks pay back the loans. Because again, that would point out which banks were in trouble, because they would be the only banks to not pay back.

That article was from June. TARP had only been created in October. So in less than 8 months, banks that were so bad off, that they needed a bailout, not only were perfectly fine, but had the money to pay back the loans? No, they were never in trouble in the first place. The Fed pressured them to take the money. That's why it say "the Fed decided to ALLOW the banks to pay back the loans". Keep in mind, banks were failing all throughout 2009.

As for QE and stock options... I don't think so.

I'm sure QE has some effect, but ultimately the company has to perform in order for the stock to have value. Lowering interest rates, and all the QE in the world, can't make GMs stock worth something. And it didn't, because GM was bankrupt.

At some point, a company has to be profitable, in order for people to buy the stock, regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.

If those CEOs are not able to guide their company through an economic down turn, no amount of QE is going to save their stock options.

For example look at GM. Instead of the share holders getting their fair share of GM in bancruptcy, Obama bailed them out with tax dollars, while screwing over the stock and bond holders. The stock and bond holders assets where handed over to the UAW by our POTUS.

IOW this government is picking and choosing winners and loosers. The only consistent looser is the American taxpayer.

Agreed.

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back,

The bank portion of TARP resulted in a profit to the US Treasury of over $20 billion.
Including the few that went bust before repayment.

 

[Sallow]

Edit.

 

[Sallow]

The only reason wages haven't risen fast yet is because of the massive supply of 18 million unemployed created during the bush years.

Don't forget the millions of immigrants, legal and illegal.

"Illegal" immigrants aren't fighting for jobs Americans will do.

H-1Bs? Yep. Absolutely correct.

Baloney. Every fast food restaurant is loaded with illegals.
Construction, roofing, landscaping etc.

What "baloney".

I owned a bar and my brother owned a bar restaurant.

Neither of us could get white folks to do dishes or cleaning.

We could get them to waitress and bartend..but dishes? Garbage?

No fucking way.

 

[Sallow]

Your argument was "I don't believe you".

How did you, simply denying my real life example from my company, put an end to 'my argument'? You are the one who said "I don't believe you" as your one and only argument. That's doesn't put an end to anything I said. It puts an end to you discussing reality. That's your fail, not mine.

My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

Stop. You said this right here. Do you not see that you just validated my position?

Diageo has off-shored packaging and design to your GFs firm in New York. Without off-shoring..... she would not have a job.

Hello? You just made my point.

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?
Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

There are not industrial printers like you are thinking of. And that's my fault. I gave a basic outline of what we build, without details.

The closest competitor to us, would be Zebra Printers. The problem with Zebra is, it's a plastic based printer, with limited use, and zero custom ability. Our printers are 100% metal, and last 5 years to a decade, or more. We have printers coming into our service center, that were sold in the 1980s, and are still running.

As I said they are also 100% custom units. Some have crazy security features, like encrypted code. Others have specialized network features, like built in token ring. Some have have specialized printing fonts no one else uses, like Turkish, for Turkish Airlines.

Further, we build to specific size, weight, and deminsions.

Zebra, generally has a mass-produced off the shelf product. Here's their printer, take or leave it. If it lasts more than 2 years, the warrantee is up, and you buy another.

If we jack up our price too high, then companies will either A: switch to a non-custom, non specialized, non-long-term-industrial printer, and use an off the shelf-the-shelf disposable printer... Or they may just not use a printer at all. There are always alternatives to everything.

For example one of our big customers, uses our printer in their inventory system. There are other inventor systems that don't require a printer. Our own inventory system doesn't use a printer.

If we charged too much, they would use a different system, and not buy a printer at all.

There is no other company that I am aware of that does this type of complete custom built, made to spec, durable for decades, type of printer. There could be... but I don't know of them. Technically there is one, but we build their printers. So two separate companies, but it's all us doing the builds.

So to answer your question, none of the companies we have as customers would ever close for lack of a printer. None of them are doing business as a printing company.

The worst case scenario, one of our customers takes the product to another company, and asks them to make it for them.

This is something that even I didn't know about until 2008.

I was working at a different company, called Vanner Power Systems.
Inverter Charger, Power Inverter, Battery Equalizer, Battery Monitoring

Really neat company. They make power systems for commercial vehicles, primarily ones with dual batteries.

Long story short, Vanner was at the start, a monopoly. There was no other source for the systems they built. Well unfortunately they hired a (bad) sales rep, who went to a customer who had a complaint, and told them that they had to just deal with it, because we were the only game in town.

The customer went to a different company, handed them our power unit, and said 'make that for us, and we'll buy it from you'.

There went their monopoly. One bad employee single-handedly created their competition. When the details came out, he was of course instantly fired, but the damage was done.

Again, this idea that if you have a monopoly, means you can charge whatever you want, is a joke. You charge too much, and piss off your customers, and you will be replaced. They'll find someone, or do without. I promise you, you have a monopoly on a product, and charge whatever you want, and suddenly you'll have other people taking your market, or you won't have a market.

So..in a nutshell..when I said that you had a competitor, that offshores?

And you said I was wrong?

You were wrong.

Right? Because you've just completely changed your story.

No, we don't. There is no other company that does what we do.

I've said the same thing, 3 times now.

Dude:

If we jack up our price too high, then companies will either A: switch to a non-custom, non specialized, non-long-term-industrial printer, and use an off the shelf-the-shelf disposable printer... Or they may just not use a printer at all. There are always alternatives to everything.

I speak English.

Not sure what language you speak.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, I completely disagree with that entirely. Banks were FORCED into taking TARP money. What's really odd, this is well known. In fact, the Fed was open about this at the start.

Remember IndyMac, and the lines of people around the block, trying to get their money? The reason that happened, was that the Fed announced they were going to give TARP money to IndyMac. This alerted everyone that IndyMac was going to fail. As a result, people lined up around the block, to withdraw their money.

In order to avoid that, the Federal reserve intentionally forced hundreds on hundreds of banks, to take TARP money, so that no one would know which banks were about to fail.

Documents: Paulson forced 9 banks to take TARP | HartfordBusiness.com


This is a well known, well documented, established fact.

JP Morgan Chase, was never at any point 'about to fail', or even close. They got bailout money because the Fed demanded they take it, so the market wouldn't know which banks would fail.

This is the primary reason the original TARP had no restrictions. If the money had Restrictions, then none of these perfectly fine banks would have taken the money. As proof of that, the moment that the Democrats added restrictions to the money, the banks paid back the TARP bill as early as possible.

Treasury Lets 10 Banks Repay $68 Billion in Bailout Cash - WSJ

At one point, the Fed was considering, not letting the banks pay back the loans. Because again, that would point out which banks were in trouble, because they would be the only banks to not pay back.

That article was from June. TARP had only been created in October. So in less than 8 months, banks that were so bad off, that they needed a bailout, not only were perfectly fine, but had the money to pay back the loans? No, they were never in trouble in the first place. The Fed pressured them to take the money. That's why it say "the Fed decided to ALLOW the banks to pay back the loans". Keep in mind, banks were failing all throughout 2009.

As for QE and stock options... I don't think so.

I'm sure QE has some effect, but ultimately the company has to perform in order for the stock to have value. Lowering interest rates, and all the QE in the world, can't make GMs stock worth something. And it didn't, because GM was bankrupt.

At some point, a company has to be profitable, in order for people to buy the stock, regardless of how cheap it is to borrow.

If those CEOs are not able to guide their company through an economic down turn, no amount of QE is going to save their stock options.



Agreed.

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back,

The bank portion of TARP resulted in a profit to the US Treasury of over $20 billion.
Including the few that went bust before repayment.

ROFL... yeah then TARP 2 came down the pipe.

 

[zeke]

That's fine. Everyone has the right to remain ignorant and wrong. You are more than welcome to remain so.

Which nicely put an end to your "argument".

I work in IT and in the financial industry.

I've also had my own business and kinda know how that works (although since my business failed? I have no claim to "expertise").

Here's the other shoe. My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

People who do industrial printing, these days, are few and far between. It is a highly specialized industry and, curiously enough, in high demand. They charge top dollar for their work.

Thus, if you work for a firm that services that industry and you are the only people to do it? You charge what you like.

And they pass that cost on to companies like the one my girlfriend works for..

If..as you claim..the boards were to "expensive" to make..what was the alternative?

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?

Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

Which means you are "incorrect" about the "monopoly".

And?

My girlfriend's company tries like mad to outsource the printing. She's been to Brazil and Korea this year..and is making a trip to Poland this month.

Inevitably? The printing still gets done here.

Your argument was "I don't believe you".

How did you, simply denying my real life example from my company, put an end to 'my argument'? You are the one who said "I don't believe you" as your one and only argument. That's doesn't put an end to anything I said. It puts an end to you discussing reality. That's your fail, not mine.

My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

Stop. You said this right here. Do you not see that you just validated my position?

Diageo has off-shored packaging and design to your GFs firm in New York. Without off-shoring..... she would not have a job.

Hello? You just made my point.

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?
Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

There are not industrial printers like you are thinking of. And that's my fault. I gave a basic outline of what we build, without details.

The closest competitor to us, would be Zebra Printers. The problem with Zebra is, it's a plastic based printer, with limited use, and zero custom ability. Our printers are 100% metal, and last 5 years to a decade, or more. We have printers coming into our service center, that were sold in the 1980s, and are still running.

As I said they are also 100% custom units. Some have crazy security features, like encrypted code. Others have specialized network features, like built in token ring. Some have have specialized printing fonts no one else uses, like Turkish, for Turkish Airlines.

Further, we build to specific size, weight, and deminsions.

Zebra, generally has a mass-produced off the shelf product. Here's their printer, take or leave it. If it lasts more than 2 years, the warrantee is up, and you buy another.

If we jack up our price too high, then companies will either A: switch to a non-custom, non specialized, non-long-term-industrial printer, and use an off the shelf-the-shelf disposable printer... Or they may just not use a printer at all. There are always alternatives to everything.

For example one of our big customers, uses our printer in their inventory system. There are other inventor systems that don't require a printer. Our own inventory system doesn't use a printer.

If we charged too much, they would use a different system, and not buy a printer at all.

There is no other company that I am aware of that does this type of complete custom built, made to spec, durable for decades, type of printer. There could be... but I don't know of them. Technically there is one, but we build their printers. So two separate companies, but it's all us doing the builds.

So to answer your question, none of the companies we have as customers would ever close for lack of a printer. None of them are doing business as a printing company.

The worst case scenario, one of our customers takes the product to another company, and asks them to make it for them.

This is something that even I didn't know about until 2008.

I was working at a different company, called Vanner Power Systems.
Inverter Charger, Power Inverter, Battery Equalizer, Battery Monitoring

Really neat company. They make power systems for commercial vehicles, primarily ones with dual batteries.

Long story short, Vanner was at the start, a monopoly. There was no other source for the systems they built. Well unfortunately they hired a (bad) sales rep, who went to a customer who had a complaint, and told them that they had to just deal with it, because we were the only game in town.

The customer went to a different company, handed them our power unit, and said 'make that for us, and we'll buy it from you'.

There went their monopoly. One bad employee single-handedly created their competition. When the details came out, he was of course instantly fired, but the damage was done.

Again, this idea that if you have a monopoly, means you can charge whatever you want, is a joke. You charge too much, and piss off your customers, and you will be replaced. They'll find someone, or do without. I promise you, you have a monopoly on a product, and charge whatever you want, and suddenly you'll have other people taking your market, or you won't have a market.

That's interesting. You worked for a company with a unique product and the company didn't have the good sense to patent it? So they lost their asses on their development?

Or did the other company get sued for patent infringement?

Or are you just making shit up?

One or the other has occurred. Which one is the question.

 

[Sallow]

Which nicely put an end to your "argument".

I work in IT and in the financial industry.

I've also had my own business and kinda know how that works (although since my business failed? I have no claim to "expertise").

Here's the other shoe. My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

People who do industrial printing, these days, are few and far between. It is a highly specialized industry and, curiously enough, in high demand. They charge top dollar for their work.

Thus, if you work for a firm that services that industry and you are the only people to do it? You charge what you like.

And they pass that cost on to companies like the one my girlfriend works for..

If..as you claim..the boards were to "expensive" to make..what was the alternative?

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?

Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

Which means you are "incorrect" about the "monopoly".

And?

My girlfriend's company tries like mad to outsource the printing. She's been to Brazil and Korea this year..and is making a trip to Poland this month.

Inevitably? The printing still gets done here.

Your argument was "I don't believe you".

How did you, simply denying my real life example from my company, put an end to 'my argument'? You are the one who said "I don't believe you" as your one and only argument. That's doesn't put an end to anything I said. It puts an end to you discussing reality. That's your fail, not mine.

My girlfriend works for a large packaging design firm. Her biggest client is Diageo.

Stop. You said this right here. Do you not see that you just validated my position?

Diageo has off-shored packaging and design to your GFs firm in New York. Without off-shoring..... she would not have a job.

Hello? You just made my point.

The industrial printing companies were just going to go poof?
Or? They would buy the printers from other vendors.

There are not industrial printers like you are thinking of. And that's my fault. I gave a basic outline of what we build, without details.

The closest competitor to us, would be Zebra Printers. The problem with Zebra is, it's a plastic based printer, with limited use, and zero custom ability. Our printers are 100% metal, and last 5 years to a decade, or more. We have printers coming into our service center, that were sold in the 1980s, and are still running.

As I said they are also 100% custom units. Some have crazy security features, like encrypted code. Others have specialized network features, like built in token ring. Some have have specialized printing fonts no one else uses, like Turkish, for Turkish Airlines.

Further, we build to specific size, weight, and deminsions.

Zebra, generally has a mass-produced off the shelf product. Here's their printer, take or leave it. If it lasts more than 2 years, the warrantee is up, and you buy another.

If we jack up our price too high, then companies will either A: switch to a non-custom, non specialized, non-long-term-industrial printer, and use an off the shelf-the-shelf disposable printer... Or they may just not use a printer at all. There are always alternatives to everything.

For example one of our big customers, uses our printer in their inventory system. There are other inventor systems that don't require a printer. Our own inventory system doesn't use a printer.

If we charged too much, they would use a different system, and not buy a printer at all.

There is no other company that I am aware of that does this type of complete custom built, made to spec, durable for decades, type of printer. There could be... but I don't know of them. Technically there is one, but we build their printers. So two separate companies, but it's all us doing the builds.

So to answer your question, none of the companies we have as customers would ever close for lack of a printer. None of them are doing business as a printing company.

The worst case scenario, one of our customers takes the product to another company, and asks them to make it for them.

This is something that even I didn't know about until 2008.

I was working at a different company, called Vanner Power Systems.
Inverter Charger, Power Inverter, Battery Equalizer, Battery Monitoring

Really neat company. They make power systems for commercial vehicles, primarily ones with dual batteries.

Long story short, Vanner was at the start, a monopoly. There was no other source for the systems they built. Well unfortunately they hired a (bad) sales rep, who went to a customer who had a complaint, and told them that they had to just deal with it, because we were the only game in town.

The customer went to a different company, handed them our power unit, and said 'make that for us, and we'll buy it from you'.

There went their monopoly. One bad employee single-handedly created their competition. When the details came out, he was of course instantly fired, but the damage was done.

Again, this idea that if you have a monopoly, means you can charge whatever you want, is a joke. You charge too much, and piss off your customers, and you will be replaced. They'll find someone, or do without. I promise you, you have a monopoly on a product, and charge whatever you want, and suddenly you'll have other people taking your market, or you won't have a market.

That's interesting. You worked for a company with a unique product and the company didn't have the good sense to patent it? So they lost their asses on their development?

Or did the other company get sued for patent infringement?

Or are you just making shit up?

One or the other has occurred. Which one is the question.

There so many holes in this guy's story that had it been cheese? It would be "swiss"..

 

[1776]

Recent jobless claims report this week shows an increase.....so much for the bullshit from liberals about economic gains.

 

[Sallow]

Recent jobless claims report this week shows an increase.....so much for the bullshit from liberals about economic gains.

You do have a point.

The crappy policies of conservatives states like Georgia, really hasn't kept up with the good news of the rest of the nation.

Georgia?s unemployment rate jumps to 7.8 percent in July | www.ajc.com

There were 4,098,400 jobs in Georgia in July. That was 12,800 fewer than in June, with the bulk of the loss in local government educational services, the labor department said.

And it seems..they like to keep them stupid there..

Y'all.

 

[1776]

The US jobless rate goes up and liberal cocksuckers blame it on 1 southern state.....fucking insane.

What about Obama's other "56 states?"

 

[pinqy]

The US jobless rate goes up and liberal cocksuckers blame it on 1 southern state.....fucking insane.

What about Obama's other "56 states?"

An increase in initial UI claims is not the same as the jobless rate going up. Last week, 268,387 people filed inititial claims. Seasonally adjusted, that's 311,000. But that tells us nothing about the total number receiving UI, and the total number is still only about 1 third of all unemployed. Which doesn't even get into the gross changes or the changes in employment.

In short, the number of initial claims going up tells us absolutely nothing about the jobless rate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let's see.. so to prove me wrong in my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back, my point that many banks were gonna fail,.... you point out that not all banks were gonna fail. ROFL dude if you want to say I'm wrong, if you want to disagree with me stop providing my evidence for me. When a whole bunch of corporations start going bankrupt it does tend to chain to unexpected places. I'm a proponent of letting the cards fall as they may and letting people learn their lesson.

As per the effect of QE you need to understand that the price of stocks is set by the active buyers and sellers not the people sitting on the sidelines. The large active buyers have lines of credit. Lines of credit that are at a much lower rate due to QE. Additionally, you'll note I did not say this stock or that stock I said the stock market. IOW I was talking about the whole damn thing not one particular stock. Thus my issue with the 1% benefiting from free taxpayer backed loans, was with the people who DID BENEFIT. FYI stock options is only one means for people to get bonuses they also come in the form of cash, and sometimes stock awards, not options.

But I am glad we agreed the cronyism exhibited by this administration in this recession was a poor example of how to lead a nation. Not to give any credit to Bush and his administration, cause frankly none is deserved there either.

my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back,

The bank portion of TARP resulted in a profit to the US Treasury of over $20 billion.
Including the few that went bust before repayment.

ROFL... yeah then TARP 2 came down the pipe.

There was only the one bank TARP.

Of course the mortgage modification part was a waste.
And the automaker portion was a give away to the UAW.
But the bank portion stopped the panic and made money for the Treasury.

 

[RKMBrown]

my point that we used taxpayer funds to bail out banks, half of which was not paid back,

The bank portion of TARP resulted in a profit to the US Treasury of over $20 billion.
Including the few that went bust before repayment.

ROFL... yeah then TARP 2 came down the pipe.

There was only the one bank TARP.

Of course the mortgage modification part was a waste.
And the automaker portion was a give away to the UAW.
But the bank portion stopped the panic and made money for the Treasury.

Cool site:
Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica