PDA

View Full Version : What's your favorite pork?



f_inscreenname
02-08-2009, 11:13 AM
Mine
$4.5 million for butterfly gardens

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 06:57 AM
50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts. The unemployed can fill their days attending abstract-film festivals and sitar concerts.

$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship is another favorite.

BTW, IMHO, this bill sucks.

BUIZILLA
02-10-2009, 07:07 AM
I can honestly state that i've NEVER been more worried in my life... after last nights rambling speach about nothing, with pre-arranged questions/answers, it has spelled doom in 18 months... a totally arranged and fake overview for a speech.... the guy has ZERO clue on economics...

you cannot possibly put 4 million people back to work in one year, when 3 million of those don't want to work anyways...

this bill, like the last one, is a huge mistake, and a colossal road map to failure

did you hear him repeatedly make fun of Biden?? he has very little confidence in him, obviously..

pathetic

my God, do we need Romney and Huckabee in the worst way, they are the only two with common business sense

chappy
02-10-2009, 07:22 AM
"I don't remember exactly what Joe was referring to, not surprisingly"

Someone please help me understand this statement, why would he take a shot at Biden like that so soon into the term?

DonziJon
02-10-2009, 08:23 AM
4.8 Million to the polar bear exhibit in the Rhode Island zoo :) :)

After we get the new Polar Bear exibit set up, we need to go and grab some Polar Bears. Our Polar Bears were removed from the zoo years ago. Can't remember the reason. I'm all for going on Safari up to the Arctic and Saving a couple of Bears to bring back to Display at the zoo where I'm sure they will be MUCH Happier. TOTALLY. John

PS: I try to keep smiling. What else can we do? :frown: Like HE said: "I WON".

gcarter
02-10-2009, 08:32 AM
After we get the new Polar Bear exibit set up, we need to go and get some Polar Bears. Our Polar Bears were removed from the zoo years ago. Can't remember the reason. I'm all for going on Safari up to the Arctic and Saving a couple of Bears to bring back to Display at the zoo where I'm sure they will be MUCH Happier. TOTALLY. John

PS: I try to keep smiling. What else can we do? :frown: Like HE said: "I WON".
Shouldn't be hard to get some....
In spite of the "sky is falling" crowd, I understand the polar bear population is doing quite well...

gcarter
02-10-2009, 08:35 AM
Was watching FNC this morning and it was reported that both bills have very large amounts for universal medical care....
The House bill has $200M for "Preparing the US population for universal health care"

Guys, we're goin' in the toilet!:nilly::nilly:
Ya wanna go to the doctor?
Good luck!

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 08:55 AM
After we get the new Polar Bear exibit set up, we need to go and get some Polar Bears.

We can use the new $87,000,000.00 ice breaker to get them.:bonk:

Lenny
02-10-2009, 09:55 AM
We can use the new $87,000,000.00 ice breaker to get them.:bonk:

I think there is another purpose for ease of passage to the poles...and this ship. Considering there is a bickering/terrotorial "war" about to unfold with regards to land claims in oil rich previously uninhabited environments. :yes:

Canada thinks they own it. The Swedes, the USA, the Russians etc etc etc.

Ghost
02-10-2009, 11:24 AM
I can honestly state that i've NEVER been more worried in my life
Yep.


BTW, IMHO, this bill sucks.
Yep.


I think there is another purpose for ease of passage to the poles...and this ship. Considering there is a bickering/terrotorial "war" about to unfold with regards to land claims in oil rich previously uninhabited environments. :yes:

Canada thinks they own it. The Swedes, the USA, the Russians etc etc etc.
Agreed--I don't think the general public is onto this yet, but I am 100% with you on the impending scrap for the North, whether this ship is part of it or not. (I think it is, but the bigger picture seems certain either way.)

<rant>
Some things are very complex and take a lot of explaining to make sense of. Some things do not. For the most part, what's wrong with the Economic Ruin-us Plan is in the second category.

It ain't rocket science that you can't borrow your way out of debt. It's also only common sense (not even Econ 101) that you can't pay people to dig holes and refill them (or pay them to do anything that returns no value) and do anything but squander resources and LOWER the overall standard of living. Most of what they propose spending on is clearly just a waste of money we will all want back to buy food later on.

They don't care. This crap will do just fine for THEIR standard of living, and their cronies. Sadly, the Republicans, having little real power, have finally started saying some of the things they should have been DOING when they did. I bet the Replublicans who are worth their salt in Congress would be fewer than 30. Dems, fewer than that.

I say vote almost everyone out of the House in 2010, and put Libertarians/Constitutionals in. Those people will actually vote what they say. You want change for the better? I guarantee it with those folks in power, though they would force us to take our medicine, it would get better.
</rant>

BERTRAM BOY
02-10-2009, 12:09 PM
my God, do we need Romney and Huckabee in the worst way, they are the only two with common business sense

Yeah, except they can't stand each other!!!!!

mattyboy
02-10-2009, 12:26 PM
well a nice ham samich with swiss on rye or this recipe works for me

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/emeril-lagasse/barbecued-pulled-pork-sandwiches-with-homemade-bbq-sauce-and-pickles-recipe/index.html

a nice fresh basil formaggio italian sausage also works for me




sorry no PORK it is PORKED cause all this crap just has the tax payer bent over and the gov't is gonna pork us alright

smbarcelow
02-10-2009, 12:35 PM
$87,000,000.00

I appreciate your use of all those decimal places, DW. It definitely has a greater impact. Remember that this bill is currently up to roughly $800,000,000,000.00.

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 01:20 PM
I want to get an opinion. It seems to me that a lot of rhetoric involved with this bill seems to focus on the blue collar worker. Much a do about rebuilding our infrastructure, including roads, bridges and power (hmmm....sounds like the projects during the great depression which did not work, it was WWII that turned around the economy).

I want to see what others think. Pesonally, it seems that this bill in not that focused on the middle or upper middle class. These brackets are hurting as bad if not worse than the blue collar worker. Also, it is these brackets which by stocks and most "consumable luxury items" like tv's, new cars, boats, real estate etc.......

For example. You get the middle and upper middle class to start buying cars, and the benefit is the blue collar worker goes back to work building them.

Once again, I think this bill sucks so bad, that I am wondering if Owen (Formula Jr.) wasn't on to something moving to another country. I have never been this disallusioned with our government in my life.

BUIZILLA
02-10-2009, 01:25 PM
define *blue collar*

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Define blue collar? Hmmm......I would say semi-skilled manual labor. And no Jim, I do not consider you to fall in that catagory. I also don't consider myself although I worked on busses for the better part of 8 years.

DonziJon
02-10-2009, 02:08 PM
Blue collar (Union) at GM need not worry ...yet. White collar at GM....the people who design the cars are about to get whacked. About 10,000 of them. It's all part of the government oversight rules built into the GM Bailout. ie, Gentlemen, you have your instructions. :bonk: John

chappy
02-10-2009, 02:34 PM
Wall St. has cold feet.

gcarter
02-10-2009, 02:36 PM
How about this?

http://www.donzi.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43103&d=1234298172

smbarcelow
02-10-2009, 02:37 PM
No more pork for me...I'm switching to RINO. :yes:

Ghost
02-10-2009, 02:41 PM
I want to get an opinion. It seems to me that a lot of rhetoric involved with this bill seems to focus on the blue collar worker. Much a do about rebuilding our infrastructure, including roads, bridges and power (hmmm....sounds like the projects during the great depression which did not work, it was WWII that turned around the economy).

I think it is clearly focused on benefitting the Dems in power. Even the friendly press has described what was pitched as an infrastructure bill as being only about 10-20 percent of that. What is the rest? What I have seen is a massive laundry list of money for liberal causes and friends, magnified orders of magnitude beyond the classic, old "tax-and-spend" gripe. A swig for the patient, the rest of the bottle for the doctor. And all of it is just being marketed to convince the people it will be some help, despite what it is.

justleft
02-10-2009, 02:46 PM
My local butcher has these babybacks imported from Denmark :yes:

Ymmm, lots of meat and little fat !!!

(Nothing like the bailout bill) :bonk:

BUIZILLA
02-10-2009, 03:17 PM
there is a LOT of blue collar people earning wayyyyyy more than a lot of white collar people...

which begs the question >> define middle class?

middle as compared to what?

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 03:26 PM
I will agree that in many ways the "class" system needs to be re-defined. I have bus drivers clearing almost $100,000.00 a year and I know computer programers making half that.

I guess I will say then that the stimulus bill seems to favor semi-skilled manual labor, not blue or white collar since they really don't exsist in the classic definition of them anymore.

I need to stay out of politics with people like Jim watching me......:bonk:

chappy
02-10-2009, 03:28 PM
*Note to self-get CDLP and move to JH.*

Lenny
02-10-2009, 03:48 PM
Our middle class has been eroded for years, as it made up the majority of the tax base. Not any more. :(

I would say middle class here is any personal wage/salary over 50K and under a hundred K.

Here, both people work in most all jurisdictions in order to make ends meet. Yes, you need two wages to get by.

This to me is "blue collar" http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/infrastructure.jobs/index.html

f_inscreenname
02-10-2009, 04:27 PM
I think the real problem has been so overlooked it’s sick.
We are trying to stimulate everything (hell I even have a woody) and yet the root of the problem is left in the dust.
HOUSES
Remember them?
The reason no one is spending money and they have it, sitting on the sidelines (all time record amounts of cash were put into savings accounts this last quarter) is because their house is loosing money. It’s the same reason people have been spending up until now. You will take the money out of a savings account to improve your house if you think you can get it back.
They need to get the interest rate down to 4% and watch the market take off. Re-fi’s, investment properties, home improvements, people will be jumping on it with both feet. Hell I’m even going to refinance and help someone make a few bucks if it dose and I don’t need to. When that market moves the rest will follow. Trucks, tools, appliances, drywall, shippers, contractors and even taxes will all make more and then they can spend more. It’s the old Home Depot/ Lowes (take your pick) factor. These stores do good we are all in good shape.
But I’ve only herd this mentioned a few times by Republicans with not much response.
I haven’t read the whole bail out thing from beginning to end but I haven’t read anything that pertains to my situation and help me go out and spend more but I have herd a lot that goes against me. Like sticking me and my kids with the tab or propping up a Governor who has totally screwed my state up. We had a budget surplus when he took office. He burned through that the first year. Then made the largest state tax increase in history last year and still came up short big time. This year we would be bankrupt if he doesn’t get a handout from Washington.
For those of you don’t know Maryland let’s just put it to you this way.
From Wiki >> The Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.donzi.net/wiki/Bureau_of_Economic_Analysis) estimates that Maryland's gross state product in 2006 was US$257 billion. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.donzi.net/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau), Maryland households are currently the wealthiest in the country, with a median household income of $68,080 which puts it ahead of New Jersey (http://www.donzi.net/wiki/New_Jersey) and Connecticut (http://www.donzi.net/wiki/Connecticut), which are second and third respectively. Two of Maryland's counties, Howard and Montgomery, are the third and seventh wealthiest counties in the nation respectively. Also, the state's poverty rate of 7.8% is the lowest in the country. Per capita personal income in 2006 was US$43,500, 5th in the nation.
He got this when he took office and now were broke. But no one will remember how we got here more like, “it happened to everyone”. You know, it’s the guy who goes out and buys the monster boat, maxes out his credit cards, buys a house so big that he cant even afford to heat in good times, gets laid off and then wants a hand out.

So there's another, help for states that shouldn't need it.

PS There is a little shack on the side of RT210 in southern Maryland (just below DC) that has the best ribs on the planet . Maybe congress should meet there for some real pork and leave the BS pork out of the bill. Where the hell is J Mac the no pork candidate now? He should be screaming from the roof tops. He got nothing to loose now.

CJmike
02-10-2009, 04:36 PM
From this time forth please Do not post anything of a religious or political nature in this section. The amount of feedback on this has been overwhelming. Thanks for your help on this. This is not up for discussion.
This a boating site. Thanks folks.


Thought I read that somewhere.:bonk:

BUIZILLA
02-10-2009, 04:38 PM
The Dow realy really likes our boy blunder...

Dropped almost 400 points..

Thanks bo..

Asshat... today's doings were 100% Geithner and his uncapable reasoning.... nobody bought the BS... plain and simple..... we're tired of BS..... we got it last night too.... the DOW reflects BS

f_inscreenname
02-10-2009, 04:45 PM
From this time forth please Do not post anything of a religious or political nature in this section. The amount of feedback on this has been overwhelming. Thanks for your help on this. This is not up for discussion.
This a boating site. Thanks folks.


Thought I read that somewhere.:bonk:

Hummmmmmm ...........
This is going to be a long (4 year) season of things like this that will affect us all (and your boating). I call for Scott to open back up the political section.:yes:

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 04:53 PM
CJmike, I was against a politics section on here after the election. I have changed my mind. I have never seen anything like this economy or political situation in my lifetime. It is effecting all of us. It is also effecting boating and boat manufactures.

I like everyone here and like hearing opinions on the current situation. You have people from all walks of life and different opinions. It is refreshing to get some others views on all this.

I could never join a political chat board, I think I would get violent.........:bonk: Might look at one one day and see which way the wind is blowing.....

Now, time to cook me some ribs, ham, bacon, loin......since the stimulas bill has so pork, might as well get my share......... :wink:

Just Say N20
02-10-2009, 05:02 PM
.... nobody bought the BS... plain and simple..... we're tired of BS..... we got it last night too.... the DOW reflects BS


Hi. My name is Bill Streb (Just Say N2O), which unfortunately makes my initials BS. :garfield: :kingme:

DonziJon
02-10-2009, 06:39 PM
I can see some percolating going on here. I think this time it is inevitable. We can ....WANT... to ignore all this crap. As much as we Want...THIS is not going away. I have been reluctant to suggest... that many here are ready to "Explode"... but don't want to turn this site into....A place to dump frustrations. I don't think the Liberals on the board will be looking for a fight this time. People come here to Relax and think of good times....pleasant things.

THEY said this election was HISTORICAL....Sadly..That is a GROSS Understatement. I'm thinking Germany 1933. I'm not joking this time. No smiley faces. John

DonziJon
02-10-2009, 06:51 PM
With some thought, I was tempted to Delete my last post....I'll let it ride . John

fogducker III
02-10-2009, 06:54 PM
THEY said this election was HISTORICAL....Sadly..That is a GROSS Understatement. I'm thinking Germany 1933. I'm not joking this time. No smiley faces. John[/quote]


That is the biggest OVER statement I have heard in a while....:garfield:

What WE have to understand is this is a WORLD economic problem and not just a "US" problem.

This is just my opinion and I realize by putting it out there I opening myself up for rebutal...........the US has to realize they are not the "babysitters" of the world, they are part of it, a strong part, but just a part.

None of us can change the big picture individually but we can make a difference with the immediate, direct happenings around us. If we concentrate on what is happening right in our own back yards and try not to worry about what is happening in the neighbours yard it might go a long way to getting things in general back to a reasonable level.

We are ALL struggling right now, doesn't matter what colour collar you have, just think about what you have to do as an individual to make ends meet for yourself, family and close community, the rest will fall into place when the powers that be see what the masses are doing.............:popcorn:

DonziJon
02-10-2009, 07:01 PM
Sad to say, like it or not, I think the rest of the world Rotates Around the US. John

EDIT: I'll be the first to admit maybe I have too much time on my hands.

fogducker III
02-10-2009, 07:13 PM
Sad to say, like it or not, I think the rest of the world Rotates Around the US. John

That is it in a nut shell, that attitude is what makes the rest of the countries' in the world hair stand up on the back of the neck...........:garfield:

Being the strongest military force in the world is not a ticket to fame...........re: see germany comment above...........

My point is, borders are getting smaller and the population is getting larger, things are changing and a large number of people in the world don't want that to happen because they are comfortable right where they are.......

Just like the climate, things flow in patterns, so does the economy, yes this is the worst for a while but just think, it can only get better right............:wink:

Donziweasel
02-10-2009, 07:16 PM
You're both right.

fogducker III
02-10-2009, 07:20 PM
You're both right.


You saw this going nuclear...........:pizza:

DonziJon
02-10-2009, 08:04 PM
"Sad to say, like it or not, I think the rest of the world Rotates Around the US. John"

I meant this comment as a Lement..not a Boast. On to other things. John

Tony
02-10-2009, 09:01 PM
How about something to look forward to...amidst all this overwhelming gloom and doom.



http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dow-drop-since-election-meant-rally-in-e2809933.png


:beer:

Tony
02-10-2009, 09:37 PM
The Dow realy really likes our boy blunder...
Dropped almost 400 points..
Thanks bo..
Asshat...

Today's 382 point drop represents about 6% of the approximately 6,400 points that the DOW has lost in the last year and a half. Seems like a lot of blame being placed on President Obama, with his 21 days in office.

I remember a thread shortly after the inauguration, where many here bit their tongue and claimed they would (albeit begrudgingly) respect and support their new president. Reading this thread, and most others with a political tone, I wonder where those guys have gone?

:beer:

Tony
02-10-2009, 09:49 PM
I like everyone here (so do I) and like hearing opinions on the current situation. (yes, we get plenty of those here!) You have people from all walks of life (somewhat true) and different opinions. (no...not really!) It is refreshing to get some others views on all this. (are we getting any other views here, or are we "preaching to the choir"?)
:wink:


:beer:

Ghost
02-10-2009, 10:30 PM
I think one of the biggest (and most insidious) dynamics is that I swear that we have a seamless 2-party problem. Neither one has struck me as doing much good when they had the power to do so, in fact, quite the reverse. But they seem to have most of the populace polarized to where people feel like they need one to protect them from the other.

I call it the "divorce lawyer" effect. I think we need to challenge a lot of ingrained beliefs to judge properly who the real enemy is...

Lenny
02-10-2009, 11:49 PM
Was this better ??? sorry for the intro.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2009/02/10/moos.dog.show.hot.dog.cnn

mattyboy
02-11-2009, 06:48 AM
here is the mattyboy stimulus plan that not only gets the economy going but takes care of foreign policy too.

first recall all of our troops from every position over seas. In afganinstan and iraq leave all of our equipment let the world know we are leaving tell iran and every other middle eastern country to tune their tv's in for the occasion .
then on el jasira as the animals are dancing and screaming like chickens in victory on our vacated equipment there is a sudden white flash caused by a gajillion mega TON explosion and iraq and afganistan are no longer. then send a thank you note to the world and say if we are attacked again and we find out where they came from that country is next SO CLEAN YOUR $#!T UP OR ELSE.


now we have the brave men and women coming home how do we repay them
take the money for the stimulus and give them gov't jobs of the newly formed
Gov't employed task force on unemployment and illegal transients and aliens or for short GET THE %#CK OUT. there job would be to return home to their loved ones across the nation and then work with local LEO to identify and deport illegal aliens and possible terrorists.
By now you say how will that help the economy well with all of the jobs vacated by the deported illegal aliens how do we do business. first the companies that have hired them need to go to the local unemployment office and hire US citizens to do those jobs viola unemployment crisis solved.

welfare, well these people have had it tough if they would like to get in on the unemployment plan and start to work BRAVO welcome a board. if they would not like to work, we should respect that and send them on vacation so they can clear their minds . seems to me you are already transporting people to mexico and other stops on the globe give them a choice and a one way ticket or for short GET THE #$CK OUT.

now how do we get the economy going. we give businesses a break for reinvesting in their business but they have to meet certain requirements to do so. if they are going to buy assets like copiers and PC and componets they get a big tax break if they buy stuff that is MADE IN THE USA and pay big penalties for out sourcing any aspect of their business. if they need a cust svc rep sorry raj but india won't do they have to go down to the unemployment office and get a US citizen. or they can move their company to india or for short GET THE #$CK OUT

so as you can see the plan is easy





seriously how long to we wait for change

Donziweasel
02-11-2009, 06:54 AM
Obama's approval rating has gone from 83% on innuagauration night to 63% today by Gallup. He has lost 20% in 21 days. Now that is a fast slide.

Rootsy
02-11-2009, 08:26 AM
If Congress would just stick to spending money where it is needed instead of ramming 500 billion dollars worth of bull**** into the package that will have no effect other than to please those who vaulted them into office we MAY get somewhere...

But then again if no one can borrow money to buy large ticket items then all of those "middle class" workers are going to eventually be out of a job... no sales = bankrupt. All of the consumer items we purchase are manufactured, for the most part, offshore... With the staggering amount of debt the average American holds, they don't need to be borrowing any more money.... Double edged sword....

So here we go... how do you fix it? Do we make a bunch of temporary jobs to employ all of the displaced workers that have lost their job due to unfair trade agreements and gross negligence on the part of the US Government, Banking and lending industries, Corporate greed and personal responsibility? Those jobs are going to evaporate eventually. We'll be back to square -1

Our economy is in harms way because of greed and irresponsibility, pure and simple. Government deregulation to appease special interests which allowed unqualified people to borrow what they shouldn't have and allowing corporations taking advantage of the new rules to line the coffers and become fat and happy...

FDR's "New Deal" accomplished jack and s h i t... WWII is what brought this country out of the Great Depression.

We cannot just borrow to spend... The Government is acting like a drunken teenager that just hit the lottery... Someone needs to punch the little cocksucker right in the nose...

Lenny
02-11-2009, 08:41 AM
Do we make a bunch of temporary jobs to employ all of the displaced workers that have lost their job due to unfair trade agreements and gross negligence on the part of the US Government, Banking and lending industries, Corporate greed and personal responsibility? Those jobs are going to evaporate eventually.

$800,000,000,000B / 4,000,000 proposed "jobs" or non loss of jobs = $200,000 cost per job. So thats' about $50,000 a year for a middle class worker for 4 years that you all paid for. When the Terms up, then what ?

Just asking ?

Our Company has moved almost ALL job functions that do not require your physical presence to India, Manila, Phillipines in general over the last 5 years. About the ONLY people left are Technicians and Management. All construction work was contracted out to third parties. (no benefits, Pensions, Medical etc to worry about)

:(

Ghost
02-11-2009, 09:21 AM
Ditto Rootsy's thoughts.

Math on this is pretty easy. Sad, but easy. It's clear that we could create as many jobs as we have freshly borrowed/created dollars divided by some annual cost per job. Pay them all to stick one thumb in their mouth and another elsewhere and switch every minute, and you've got a hell of a stimilus in spending, free market trickle-down as well as the initial spend. But it will be a short relief followed by a BIGGER problem. The jobs can't just be jobs to justify ANY borrowing--there has to be a RETURN, meaning the jobs have to themselves contribute to the long term rise in living standards, and they must contribute as much as they cost. Because that model is really no different than simply having everyone take out a big new credit card and just spend. The jobs aren't really "jobs" as history understands the term.

Easy to see the crap in the bill CANNOT create real jobs that contribute their cost back to living standards, not even close.

And the points Rootsy and Lenny made about where the dollars go are dead on. I'm not normally protectionist, but when government policy destroys our businesses such that we bleed trillions of wealth a year overseas, it seems to make more sense.

Put another way, I heard a discussion recently where someone said we cannot afford to risk protectionist backlash from other countries. Well, I suspect with the largest trade deficit in the history of the known universe, (literally) in the overall picture, the U.S. CAN'T LOSE in a war of protectionism.

Rootsy
02-11-2009, 09:21 AM
$800,000,000,000B / 4,000,000 proposed "jobs" or non loss of jobs = $200,000 cost per job. So thats' about $50,000 a year for a middle class worker for 4 years that you all paid for. When the Terms up, then what ?

Just asking ?

Our Company has moved almost ALL job functions that do not require your physical presence to India, Manila, Phillipines in general over the last 5 years. About the ONLY people left are Technicians and Management. All construction work was contracted out to third parties. (no benefits, Pensions, Medical etc to worry about)

:(

That is the million dollar errr 850 billion dollar question....

Population grows... jobs evaporate to offshore locations... create artificial jobs with a finite life... the whole cycle begins again...

Ghost, it isn't about protectionism. I don't advocate playing that game. What I do advocate is trade agreements that are on a level playing field. It is no secret that China, India and other large benefactors in our trade agreements subsidize their industries and devalue their currency in order to make the move offshore too good to be true for corporate america....

We may have "cheaper" goods at places such as Walmart but at what cost. Without jobs you cannot purchase anything. Not to mention that the amount you save truly isn't that much compared to what you'd pay for domestically mass manufactured goods. The real issue again is greed. The huge difference in manufacturing costs (even with import costs added) is being pocketed by manufacturers and retailers.

Lenny
02-11-2009, 10:09 AM
Rootsy/Ghost. Answer me this... (in laymans terms)

How can "we" ( us included) re-create textile/manufacturing Industry in the homelands when we have not had any in recent years. We have no factories, and when we did (prior to the offshore moves) we engaged in "Sweatshops" whereas the Employer wanted to create a similar/like product at the lowest possible cost. Hence illegal aliens and all that.

Then Japan/India/Vietnam/Phillipines/China comes along and relieves us of our factories and takes over at costs a fraction of sweat shops.

IF (IF) you were to bring manufacturing sector/factory/industry jobs BACK to the USA/Canada, you would NOT have a world market to sell the product to due to cost. What US/Can citizen can afford a $100 pair of Levis' when we are all accustomed to getting them for $19 at Costco?

Can any Country afford to pay Health Care costs, employee benefits etc, and (for arguments sake) $20/hour (blue collar eg: ) to an employee making "widgets" once again when the consumption of the product is worldwide and marketed to the same ones currently making this stuff for us? Can someone in India buy this from us at $40 when it has previously been sold for $10?

Our "stimulus" plan here, currently at 40 billion, also has "Protectionist" language that has since been smoothed over, (basically that the money be used to pay for Canadian made products to thus help everyone here in some way) as did yours in regards to steel manufacturing.

A lot of folks are quick to bash NAFTA but in reality, how much stuff do we unilaterally consume that has origins in Mexico/Canada and the US? How much of it comes from overseas?

I do not see anything working on this current stage. :( short of pulling everything back together and living in a protectionist environment.

DonziJon
02-11-2009, 10:17 AM
Lets say you have a nice older 22 Classic that's honestly Worth $18,000. Along comes a guy fresh from the boat show who just saw a New 22C for $70,000. He is so impressed and enthused about a Donzi, and yours looks so good, he offers you $30,000 for the boat because he really has no idea what it's worth. All you said was "make me an offer".

You take the $30,000 right? OR you think this guy is a Live One and you tell him ..Nah, I need to get $38,000. Is that GREED on your part? OR do you tell him the boat is only worth $18,000 and thats all you will take. :bonk: John

Ghost
02-11-2009, 10:33 AM
DOH! I just lost what I was typing. And it was nice and succinct too, for a change. Have to come back later...

Rootsy
02-11-2009, 10:40 AM
Rootsy/Ghost. Answer me this... (in laymans terms)

How can "we" ( us included) re-create textile/manufacturing Industry in the homelands when we have not had any in recent years. We have no factories, and when we did (prior to the offshore moves) we engaged in "Sweatshops" whereas the Employer wanted to create a similar/like product at the lowest possible cost. Hence illegal aliens and all that.

Then Japan/India/Vietnam/Phillipines/China comes along and relieves us of our factories and takes over at costs a fraction of sweat shops.

IF (IF) you were to bring manufacturing sector/factory/industry jobs BACK to the USA/Canada, you would NOT have a world market to sell the product to due to cost. What US/Can citizen can afford a $100 pair of Levis' when we are all accustomed to getting them for $19 at Costco?

Can any Country afford to pay Health Care costs, employee benefits etc, and (for arguments sake) $20/hour (blue collar eg: ) to an employee making "widgets" once again when the consumption of the product is worldwide and marketed to the same ones currently making this stuff for us? Can someone in India buy this from us at $40 when it has previously been sold for $10?

Our "stimulus" plan here, currently at 40 billion, also has "Protectionist" language that has since been smoothed over, (basically that the money be used to pay for Canadian made products to thus help everyone here in some way) as did yours in regards to steel manufacturing.

A lot of folks are quick to bash NAFTA but in reality, how much stuff do we unilaterally consume that has origins in Mexico/Canada and the US? How much of it comes from overseas?

I do not see anything working on this current stage. :( short of pulling everything back together and living in a protectionist environment.

Lenny,

I know you have experience with some automation.... On what scale I am not sure. But to tell you the truth.. You would be amazed at how fast you can turn out products with little manpower... with automation... There are of course widgits that don't lend themselves, due to either design or volume, to automated manufacturing. Do you honestly believe that because something has not been manufactured on this continent for a while that we suddenly have absolutely no idea how to efficiently make it?

Offshore companies can beat pricing of a product, even with tariffs and shipping costs because of subsidies, devaluation of currency, meager, to almost non-existent pay and lack of any form of government regulation for safety and pollution, etcetera...

30 years ago you had a guy standing at his mill cranking handles... today you set the part up, load the program, hit the button on the pendent and go to another machine to do the same... I can run lights out... if the machine errors someone gets a page... On the same token, in this country, and around the world, countless engineers work day in and day out to reduce manpower and increase efficiency in manufacturing. What once may have taken 3 employees 2 minutes to assemble now requires one employee to stock parts and a machine 30 seconds to make the part and package it.

Donzijon....

When I was a production engineer for Denso I could make a Honda Accord (as an example) windshield washer tank from plastic pellets to a working assembly, packaged, for about $4.... Honda paid us about $4.50... That includes raw materials, direct labor, purchased component price, overhead, depreciation, indirect labor and all of the other lovely things that you must add together to get a gross manufacturing cost. The dealer sells that tank for OVER $100...

Lenny
02-11-2009, 11:34 AM
Lenny,

I know you have experience with some automation.... On what scale I am not sure. Do you honestly believe that because something has not been manufactured on this continent for a while that we suddenly have absolutely no idea how to efficiently make it?



Yes, I have been around CNC use within woodworking for about 8 years. And, of course I know we could instantly and efficiently make a part/product effectively and at low cost, BUT, I also know that it will not compare as a business case financially to what the same machine can also do overseas with the same 3 Phase power source and albut free labour. Back to Levis. If the fabric was here, and the industry was re-visted, do you think it would create any blue collar jobs? , or any of any value that would assist in recreating a prosperous nation? or just 100,000 square feet of automation and three employees?

That is what I am getting at.

f_inscreenname
02-11-2009, 11:34 AM
We have thought our kids that "working" for a living is a dirty word. And for the ones that do "work" for a living have to be paid more then the guy that sits behind a desk just to justify "working" for a living. Americans are just too good for it anymore. I mean assembly line workers making 40+ bucks an hour, be real. That’s why industry is in the crapper. When labor on the floor is making more then the manager that went to collage for a degree it’s all down hill from there.

New one, how does putting sod on the Mall help stimulate our economy?

Ghost
02-11-2009, 01:23 PM
Ghost, it isn't about protectionism. I don't advocate playing that game. What I do advocate is trade agreements that are on a level playing field. It is no secret that China, India and other large benefactors in our trade agreements subsidize their industries and devalue their currency in order to make the move offshore too good to be true for corporate america....

What I'm thinking is that when talk fails in trying to secure (and realize) such agreements, protectionism is the force behind the negotiation. I don't see us negotiating the cheaters into a level playing field. And further, even if they don't devalue their currency and subsidize industries directly, the delta between our regs and theirs (dumping waste, labor safety regs, etc) makes the field impossibly uneven anyhow.

So, while I think if we eliminated the Big Govt artificial economy here, we wouldn't need to sweat protectionism. But so long as the Big Govt artificial economy here allows those who aren't actually competing here to ride on the backs of those who do, as we all bleed wealth overseas where real value is produced, protectionism would potentially create REAL jobs here that produce something of value as our living standards drop.



Rootsy/Ghost. Answer me this... (in laymans terms)

How can "we" ( us included) re-create textile/manufacturing Industry in the homelands when we have not had any in recent years. We have no factories, and when we did (prior to the offshore moves) we engaged in "Sweatshops" whereas the Employer wanted to create a similar/like product at the lowest possible cost. Hence illegal aliens and all that.

Then Japan/India/Vietnam/Phillipines/China comes along and relieves us of our factories and takes over at costs a fraction of sweat shops.

IF (IF) you were to bring manufacturing sector/factory/industry jobs BACK to the USA/Canada, you would NOT have a world market to sell the product to due to cost. What US/Can citizen can afford a $100 pair of Levis' when we are all accustomed to getting them for $19 at Costco?

Can any Country afford to pay Health Care costs, employee benefits etc, and (for arguments sake) $20/hour (blue collar eg: ) to an employee making "widgets" once again when the consumption of the product is worldwide and marketed to the same ones currently making this stuff for us? Can someone in India buy this from us at $40 when it has previously been sold for $10?

Our "stimulus" plan here, currently at 40 billion, also has "Protectionist" language that has since been smoothed over, (basically that the money be used to pay for Canadian made products to thus help everyone here in some way) as did yours in regards to steel manufacturing.

A lot of folks are quick to bash NAFTA but in reality, how much stuff do we unilaterally consume that has origins in Mexico/Canada and the US? How much of it comes from overseas?

I do not see anything working on this current stage. :( short of pulling everything back together and living in a protectionist environment.

Agreed I don't think we can sew shirts here and sell many to poor countries. But I might rather see people here make shirts at 2 to 3 times the nominal cost we pay today. What is the true cost of the "cheap" foreign made shirt to us, when a huge percentage of our North American population can produce no goods or services of significant value and yet, through sheer political favor, live well off the folks who do?

I'm listening to anything that produces incentive for people here to produce anything of value and stop supporting bureaucrats who do endless useless analysis and rewrite textbooks every year with advanced forms of political correctness and so on. When foreign goods are so cheap, it allows far more parasites to live well off the backs of the people who work, and nobody is forced to look at the tab and manage the situation. If you could make a living here doing real work like making clothes, at least you would be making a real living.

If every worker and parasite alike had to pay more for what they bought, they'd first be paying it to a real worker here, and second, they'd be far more motivated to be picky shoppers. And the workers would be motivated to start saying 'no more' to the parasites, because the pain of their impact on living standards would be intolerable.

Of course there are all the classic "closed shop" dangers, I know, where industries can abuse their protected places by dropping competition within the protected borders. No doubt.

Just musing on this...I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm just sick of seeing us get looted--our wealth is being siphoned off to the protection racketeers and the third world.

Ghost
02-11-2009, 01:36 PM
ONE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NOTE: in addition to the pure parasites mentioned above, a lot of us (maybe me?) are psuedo-parasites.

What I mean by this is that the funding for what we do is initiated not by market business decisions that are accountable to consumers. Instead it is initiated by political whim. When it is accountable to consumers, it will produce WHAT PEOPLE CAN AND WILL PAY FOR WILLINGLY, or die. When it is supported by political whim, and the ability to borrow against the promise of future taxes, natural market corrections allow it to live without correction until it crashes badly. (2009) It can produce, but not what people can and will pay for willingly.

So, lots of people may work hard and efficiently IN THE WRONG LINES OF WORK. (We have too many good restaurants and electronics stores, for instance.) Nothing wrong with what they do, but the artificial economy has created far more of them then the real economy will support as it re-asserts itself.

On a micro scale these businesses look and are fine. They run well and efficiently, stoking the fires and making the economic ship run better and faster, right into the iceberg where government malinvestment points it.

VetteLT193
02-11-2009, 01:47 PM
I hear what you are saying, but I apply it differently.

I have more than one neighbor that are proud of what they don't know and can't do. While I'm out changing the oil in my car, they sit back and chuckle that I do it myself instead of taking it to the quickie lube. When we go out to eat, we are bamboozled with the number of people out any night of the week... I cook dinner for my family almost every night, it's a special occasion to go out for us, but it seems normal for our neighbors who eat out or at do take-out 6 - 7 nights a week.

Then, they complain about having credit card dept. they make comments about my boat and not being able to have one of their own, etc.

In summary, this F-ing bailout bill reminds me of all those people. Bunch of lazy bastards that don't understand work doesn't end at 5:00... they all want a free lunch from anyone that will give it. As long as the Gov't keeps spending these leaches will suck it up.

Ok.. done ranting for now :bonk:

Just Say N20
02-11-2009, 02:12 PM
As an aside, there is more to consider than just the purchase price of an object. Low initial cost doesn't necessarily mean it was a cost effective purchase. I just sold a 1985 Nissan 300ZX. Prior to selling it I replaced the clutch fan, which lasted a YEAR before it self destructed, the hydraulic slave cylinder for the clutch, which was bad right out of the NAPA box, and the water pump (and timing belt, which is a pretty big job), which failed in 3 months.

I'm not slamming NAPA at all, but I have started asking if there is an American made version of the part I want. The quality of the parts that are made in China is TERRIBLE! So, I saved a little money up front buying the Chinese built water pump, but it is $450 worth of labor to install it had I paid someone to do it. As more and more items in my home are coming from China, I am seeing a lot less dependability/durability.

Ghost
02-11-2009, 02:20 PM
I hear what you are saying, but I apply it differently....

...In summary, this F-ing bailout bill reminds me of all those people. Bunch of lazy bastards that don't understand work doesn't end at 5:00... they all want a free lunch from anyone that will give it. As long as the Gov't keeps spending these leaches will suck it up.

Good point.


...As more and more items in my home are coming from China, I am seeing a lot less dependability/durability.

Another good point. Further aside, some of those Chinese junk metal fasteners are incredibly bad. I've decapitated some 1/4" lag screws with very little effort. Never would have happened with the stuff I was using back in the early 80s I don't think.

f_inscreenname
02-11-2009, 02:52 PM
As the old saying goes, "you get what you pay for."
It’s a disposable world folks. Nothing is supposed to last longer then the time it takes to open the package.
Look at boats today (we have to say “boats” at least one time in this thread). Their not built like they used to. Mine is almost 40 years old with no major repairs to the hull. It has another 40 years in it beating and banging on the bay with a little TLC. There’s not a manufacture worth his salt that would build a boat today that would last up to 80 years.
Cars are the same. Look at repair costs for some of this stuff. The last major thing I priced was a couple years ago so cut me some slack but I had an 8 year old van at the time that dropped the tranny. $2500 was the lowest I could find for someone to do it. The van was worth a grand. Lets just say I was impressing the neighbors (while others thought I was cheapskate) and did it in my driveway.
It’s like refilling a disposable lighter. It can be done but at what cost? It’s not like your grandfather’s finely crafted silver lighter. It’s plastic, throw it away and get a new one. That is the world we live in. I guess that’s why I tend to live in the past when it comes to my “stuff.” http://www.supernova19.com/forumcw/Smileys/classic/old.gif (javascript:void(0);)

Ghost
02-11-2009, 05:08 PM
Yep.

BTW Mark, on a lighter note, to answer your thread's original question, this is my favorite:

Otter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001513/): Let me give you a hint. She's got a couple of major-league yabbos.
Boon (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0726200/): Beverly!
Otter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001513/): No. But you're getting warmer. Here's another: "Oh God, Oh God, OH GOD!"
Boon (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0726200/): Marlene! Don't tell me you're gonna pork Marlene Desmond!
Otter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001513/): Pork?
Boon (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0726200/): You're gonna hump her brains out, aren't you?
Otter (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001513/): Boon, I anticipate a deeply religious experience.

f_inscreenname
02-11-2009, 05:19 PM
"Who is John Galt?"

Who is Ghost? Are you running for office soon? It would be a short commute for ya and you got my vote.
http://www.supernova19.com/forumcw/Smileys/classic/grin.gif

Donziweasel
02-11-2009, 05:43 PM
I am a little shocked right now. My summer bookings are off the charts!!!! Not sure what is up. A BUNCH of high end weddings, some corporate groups, and just picked up a 375 person charter, thats 9 busses for that one evening. Even winter has shown some life, really made up ground Feb 1-11. Yes, me, the economic pessimist is feeling slightly cautiously optimistic about the rest of 2009.

Nothing to do with the stimulous plan, I think Americans are just getting tired and pissed at stating home suffering. Hell, go to JH this summer, gas is cheap. Who knows, just happy to see life in my local economy.

Lenny
02-11-2009, 08:05 PM
I am a little shocked right now. My summer bookings are off the charts!!!! Not sure what is up. A BUNCH of high end weddings, some corporate groups, and just picked up a 375 person charter, thats 9 busses for that one evening. Even winter has shown some life, really made up ground Feb 1-11. Yes, me, the economic pessimist is feeling slightly cautiously optimistic about the rest of 2009.

Nothing to do with the stimulous plan, I think Americans are just getting tired and pissed at stating home suffering. Hell, go to JH this summer, gas is cheap. Who knows, just happy to see life in my local economy.

John John John, it is all the "people" that are going to the opening of the "Church of Scientology" in Southwest Wyoming that are coming :rolleyes:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490844,00.html

:D

zelatore
02-11-2009, 08:49 PM
I am a little shocked right now. My summer bookings are off the charts!!!! Not sure what is up. A BUNCH of high end weddings, some corporate groups, and just picked up a 375 person charter, thats 9 busses for that one evening. Even winter has shown some life, really made up ground Feb 1-11. Yes, me, the economic pessimist is feeling slightly cautiously optimistic about the rest of 2009.
Nothing to do with the stimulous plan, I think Americans are just getting tired and pissed at stating home suffering. Hell, go to JH this summer, gas is cheap. Who knows, just happy to see life in my local economy.
Well, send some of those money spendin' types out my way. Surely some of them need a new boat, right?

Or maybe if they drop enough coin in JH I could interest you in something around 50 feet?:boat:

Donziweasel
02-12-2009, 07:25 AM
John John John, it is all the "people" that are going to the opening of the "Church of Scientology" in Southwest Wyoming that are coming

Great, just what we need. Why the hell do they need so many damn vaults? Got em' everywhere. Personally, I think they are setting up a huge underground grow room and plan on growing and selling high grade grass.


Or maybe if they drop enough coin in JH I could interest you in something around 50 feet?

Right now Don, I couldn't even afford a bag of Scientology grass from the new Wyoming vault/grow room.:bonk:

zelatore
02-12-2009, 09:52 AM
Scientology Grass.......LOL

Donziweasel
02-12-2009, 10:16 AM
It would sure explain Tom Cruise's behavior.
:bonk:

zelatore
02-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Oh, I think he's using something a whole lot stronger than a little weed.

Or maybe it's just that it doesn't take but one puff to totally blow away his little 5-foot-nothing frame.

Lenny
02-13-2009, 08:47 AM
Here is why I think it is envisioned in your stimulus bill.



Staking claim to the Arctic is top priority for Russia, envoy says

Last Updated: Thursday, February 12, 2009 | 9:19 PM ET Comments63 (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/12/russia-icebreaker.html#socialcomments)Recommend36 (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/02/12/russia-icebreaker.html#)

The Associated Press


Russia will modernize its icebreaker fleet and station more researchers in the Arctic as part of its push to stake its claim to the vast resources of the disputed polar region, a presidential envoy said Thursday.
Artur Chilingarov, a famed polar scientist who was recently appointed to the post, said that Russia's sizable icebreaker fleet gives the nation a strong edge in Arctic exploration.
He said that Russia would build a new Arctic research ship to supplement the Akademik Fyodorov, which conducted a 2007 expedition in which Russian mini-submarines put a capsule with Russian flag on the Arctic seabed.

'The Arctic has a special geopolitical importance for Russia.'—Artur ChilingarovCanada, Russia, the United States and other northern countries are trying to assert jurisdiction over the Arctic, whose oil, gas and minerals until recently have been considered too difficult to recover.
The dispute has intensified with growing evidence that global warming is shrinking polar ice, opening up new shipping lanes and resource development possibilities.
Chilingarov told reporters that Russia is also preparing to send a team of some 50 polar scientists to the island of Spitsbergen, where Norway claims exclusive rights. He said an advance team will leave Saturday to chose the place for the station.
"The Arctic has a special geopolitical importance for Russia," Chilingarov said at a news conference on Thursday.
Controversial mission

Chilingarov said the government's policy guidelines on the Arctic envisage "expanding the Russian presence there, intensifying research and rebuilding a network of polar stations."
In 2007, Chilingarov led two Russian mini-submarines on a mission to stake Russia's claim to the region that is believed to contain huge oil and gas reserves. The two subs descended some four kilometres to the Arctic seabed, where they collected geologic and water samples, and dropped a titanium canister containing the Russian flag.
The Russian mission exacerbated the controversy over an area which is believed to contain as much as 25 per cent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.
In Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon insisted last month that Ottawa's claims to the Arctic is recognized internationally.
Cannon said Canada is emphasizing its position to members of the Arctic Council — Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, the United States and Russia — as well as the European Union.
The minister said Canada defined its Arctic policy in the 2007 throne speech and has since announced a number of measures, including plans to strengthen its Arctic military infrastructure.
Canadian moves

Prime Minister Stephen Harper toured the Northwest Territories and Yukon last August. The following month, he expressed concerns about Moscow's efforts to advance Russian claims on the Arctic.
Ottawa has made moves to increase the jurisdiction of Canadian environmental law over northern waters and announced a requirement that large ships passing through Canada's Arctic waterways register with the Canadian Coast Guard.
Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev said last fall that Russia's long-term development and competitive place in world markets is dependent on developing Arctic resources.
Chilingarov said that Russia is preparing to resubmit its claim that an underwater mountain range crossing the polar region is part of Russia's continental shelf. Moscow first submitted the claim in 2001 to the United Nations, but it was rejected for lack of evidence.
Chilingarov said that Russia took notice of NATO officials' meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, last month at which they said the alliance will need a military presence in the Arctic as major powers rush to lay claim to lucrative energy reserves.
"We aren't going to wage a new Cold War in the Arctic," Chilingarov said, adding, however, that Russia will look to protect its interests.
© The Canadian Press

zelatore
02-13-2009, 10:22 AM
I don't think many of us would argue that there is value in building an icebreaker for polar exploration. Just like many of us may support some of the other projects that have been tacked onto this bill. There's pork here for everyone, from save the planet greenies (global warming satellites) to 'love it of leave it' conservatives (boarder fence).

The problem is that they are in no way related to the bill to which they are attached, other than the very tenuous thread of 'creating jobs'.

Donziweasel
02-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Boo Boo and I got into it a little last night on the stimulous bill. She asked me why I hated it. I told her my reasons and then she asked me what I would do to fix the economy. Took me a while to think about it, but I came up with a simple answer.

Banks were given 100's of billion dollars for the bailout in December. Since then, they haven't been lending chit. They were even blasted by Congress 2 days ago for this. Tell the banks, either lend every penny, minus what you need for exsisting loans in the next 6 months or give every penny back.

The economy will not recover until individuals can secure credit. They will not buy cars, houses, boats, tv's etc..... The banks were given the frickin' money to lend to the consumer by Congress. They are sitting on it, paying themselves huge bonuses, planning huge corporate retreats and not doing chit. If people can secure credit, they will start buying again. Manufacturing will begin again, people will find jobs, etc.....but not until credit can be secured will the economy rebound.

Finally phuck the stimulous bill. I hate this thing.

Rootsy
02-13-2009, 11:51 AM
Banks had hundreds of billions in bad and worthless debt (failed mortgages, etcetera). Government bout that debt, gave the banks 100's of billions of dollars for it... There's still 100's of billions of debt on the fence that may go over the cliff if the economy goes belly up any worse than it is... Would you lend capital and take on more risky debt or would you sit on it?

Donziweasel
02-13-2009, 12:01 PM
That is why you have to force them to lend, not ask. Either get it in the consumer or give it back. I know the Banks have been burned by bad mortgages and are reluctant to lend, but that is what the money was for IMHO. Why bail them out if they aren't going to help? They were a big factor in causing this whole mess, and they should help get us out of it. Sitting on the money does nothing for anyone.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 12:25 PM
This sounds like it circles back to something I mentioned months ago: look at the total amount of taxpayer obligation/increase of the money supply that will go into this (so far and yet to come) and we will reach the 4.4 trillion needed to bail out 100% of all FDIC deposits.

My prescription for the bailout was to authorize (it's already in the law I think actually) funding of FDIC beyond the 1% reserve (45 Billion) they have. The justification for the first emergency bailout bills was to preempt a run on the banks. This would have done that, but would also have let perish the banks and shareholders that embraced reckless risk. The better ones would have survived. But at least this would have allowed corrections in the market that would curb the risky behavior. And with the what, 10% depositor cash reserves in the banks, the worst this could be was actually about 4 billion, if EVERYTHING failed.

I think the end-game they are shooting for is actually to drive inflation way up and the dollar way down. Everyone gets much poorer, but the banks' balance sheets wiill get better. Once the dollar is worth 50 cents, an $800k house on the banks' books (that is worth only $400k now) will ACTUALLY be worth $800k in new crummy-dollars. Then the toxic asset isn't toxic anymore.

Well, unless we're all so poor that no one will be able to afford to buy it anyhow, and the price may drop further.

I guess what frustrates me most is the assumption that government CAN do anything about it. When goverment is the disase that got us into this, why should anyone think it will be the cure? Ugh.

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 01:06 PM
Banks were given 100's of billion dollars for the bailout in December. Since then, they haven't been lending chit.

The economy will not recover until individuals can secure credit. They will not buy cars, houses, boats, tv's etc..... The banks were given the frickin' money to lend to the consumer by Congress...If people can secure credit, they will start buying again. Manufacturing will begin again, people will find jobs, etc.....but not until credit can be secured will the economy rebound.

Just a small technicality with the perception of the initial TARP funds. One of the factors on which financial institutions are regulated is the amount of "capital" they have. As financial institutions started to "mark to market" their investments to lower and lower values, these losses eroded their capital. The Federal Reserve was between a rock and a hard place because at a certain capital level a bank is forced to sell out or close altogether. So instead of that cataclysmic failure, the Fed injected capital to bring the ratios back from the brink.

Paulson, a horrible orator to begin with, didn't do a great job explaining the issue back then; perhaps that was by design. I think it was the media that hounded the perception that once banks got this money the spigots would be turned wide open. I don't think the banks ever offered a press release that said "give us money and we'll turn around and lend it right back out."

You have to understand that a lot of banks have been snake-bitten by this economy. Even if they've made perfectly good loans with no losses outside of the historic norm, they might have investments that have lost a significant amount of "market" value and accounting rules dictate they take those losses even though they're only on paper. Those losses erode capital and make it harder to offer loans.

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 01:13 PM
And with the what, 10% depositor cash reserves in the banks, the worst this could be was actually about 4 billion, if EVERYTHING failed.

You lost me here. Could you explain a little more the math or the rationale? Are you saying that you think if all the "bad" banks failed the losses to depositors would only be $4B?

Ghost
02-13-2009, 01:58 PM
You lost me here. Could you explain a little more the math or the rationale? Are you saying that you think if all the "bad" banks failed the losses to depositors would only be $4B?

No, I didn't mean that--you're absolutely right, I typed Billion by mistake. I meant to type 4 Trillion.

What I meant was, that of the total 4.5 Trillion in deposits insured by FDIC, the FDIC has enough cash to cover 1%, or 45 Billion. The banks have, as I understand it, about 10% required cash reserves, or about 450 Billion. So, if we had to bail out ALL 4.5 Trillion of FDIC deposits with our own taxpayer dollars, about 495 Billion of it would be covered already. We'd we'd be making up the remaining 4 Trillion. And one would hope that not EVERYTHING would fail, and it would be less than that. If it were half, we'd already be in the range of the "bailout" and "stimulus" monies already committed, and still growing.

Sorry, for the confusion. -Mike

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 02:17 PM
OK, I'm following the math there. But once again the devil is lost in the details.

Agree, not all would fail. Disagree that losses would be contained. "FDIC" misses a lot of large balances by large businesses. And even if the math happens to add up to what's being talked about now, just making people whole on their deposits doesn't exactly get people back to work.

As for the "stimulus" package, I'm cynical in thinking the numbers that are being thrown out will actually be injected into the economy. Even as it sits, most of the activity doesn't begin until later this year, into next and beyond. Just as the job creation number is a joke both in its timing and its expectation. I know the term as it was originally offered was in a different context, but I think just about every dollar figure out of any politician is rooted in "voodoo" economics. You always have to read the fine print: over the next 5 or 10 years.

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 02:19 PM
Riddle me this Batmen:

Everybody pins our current economic woes on the "foreclosure crisis." "We must fix the housing problem and all will follow from there."

What started the foreclosure crisis?

f_inscreenname
02-13-2009, 02:23 PM
That is why you have to force them to lend, not ask. Either get it in the consumer or give it back. I know the Banks have been burned by bad mortgages and are reluctant to lend, but that is what the money was for IMHO. Why bail them out if they aren't going to help? They were a big factor in causing this whole mess, and they should help get us out of it. Sitting on the money does nothing for anyone.

A flat 4% interest rate for all on a house would fix almost all. It's funny that after all that has been done it's still above 5+. The fed funds rate is under 1% and still no one is buying homes. Why? The payments are to high. How do you bring payments down? Either sell them for less or lower the rate.

Donziweasel
02-13-2009, 03:08 PM
What started the foreclosure crisis?

Sub-prime mortgages on bad applications and appriasals.

Do you need to go back to that kind of lending? Hell no. Let's face it, many of those loans should not have been funded.

Now, we are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Qualified buyers and applicants with excellent credit are NOT being approved for loans because of all the bad ones. We need to get banks, ESPECAILLY those who took advantage of the bailout, to loan to qualified buyers.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 03:19 PM
OK, I'm following the math there. But once again the devil is lost in the details.

Agree, not all would fail. Disagree that losses would be contained. "FDIC" misses a lot of large balances by large businesses. And even if the math happens to add up to what's being talked about now, just making people whole on their deposits doesn't exactly get people back to work.

Yep, it would not be contained. But nothing is painless, and we have no choice but to decide between painful but very unequal paths. We could do nothing, and perhaps that would be best. But guaranteeing FDIC would guarantee the deposits held by individual citizens, and that promise has already been made to those depositors. When businessess lose, their shareholders lose, and none of that is insured. In other words, there are going to be winners and losers. Best we can do is let the people who mis-ran business, and sadly, their stockholders, be the ones who lose. The average Joe should not have his saved, insured dollars taken away.

Another option is to dupe foreigners into lending us money and then not paying it back. In pure form, that's just a default (which we have not yet done because we want to keep borrowing as much as we can). In the sneakier form, it means borrowing as much as we can, devaluing the dollar by borrowing and printing, and paying back dollars that are worth pennies by the time they are repaid. (This we are doing on a massive scale, but it won't be enough to keep us from suffering. And if the Chinese and the rest of the world conclude they need to foreclose, that is called war. It is only so sneaky. The Chinese called us on it TODAY in the news. They actually used the phrase "we hate you for it" in an official statement!)

Ghost
02-13-2009, 03:58 PM
Agree, not all would fail. Disagree that losses would be contained. "FDIC" misses a lot of large balances by large businesses. And even if the math happens to add up to what's being talked about now, just making people whole on their deposits doesn't exactly get people back to work.

The phrase "get people back to work" is incredibly misleading, and this is at the heart of what is really wrong and what people don't understand. The work has to produce something that people CAN AND ARE WILLING TO BUY. Work that achieves that RAISES LIVING STANDARDS. Work that doesn't LOWERS LIVING STANDARDS.

We could take all the borrowed and printed "bailout" and "stimulus" money and hire people to dig holes and fill them in. Or build a giant stone pyramid. Or whatever. But the result would be a short term relief, as that money got snatched up when the hole-diggers and stone masons spent the money. But we would then be left with debt, and some loose soil or a big-a$$ pyramid. You might as well just hand the money out, and let people use the 8 hours/day to work on their houses and tend gardens to grow some food.

The math is slightly harder to comprehend when the jobs produce SOMETHING whose value is arguable, but its value is not 100% clear and it is hard to tell if you are overpaying. But know this: real value comes when sensible people WILLINGLY PAY THEIR OWN MONEY TO BUY. When government mandates how it is spent, the first casualty is the discipline caused by the threat of individual suffering when you waste your money.

If government came to your door with a gun and told you you must buy a flat screen TV from their big donors for $1500, and the "TV" was actually an Etch-a-Sketch, you'd see immediately that you were being robbed. But when they do it to everyone off in the distance, by taking half your pay and spending it on whatever they want, with you having no real voice in the decision, it is the same thing, just easier to ignore. For a while.

And, it is further muddied by the fact that the big donors, and their employees and cronies, LIKE what it does for them.

But eventually, this squandering of your money and my money cannot do anything but DROP OUR LIVING STANDARDS TO WHERE WE SUFFER ON A MASSIVE SCALE. The "stimulus" money is 80%+ waste, and though it can create a temporary illusion of making something better, it is a short term high with a torturous or even fatal hangover.


Riddle me this Batmen:

Everybody pins our current economic woes on the "foreclosure crisis." "We must fix the housing problem and all will follow from there."

What started the foreclosure crisis?

I disagree with the premise. The cause is government interference with natural market forces, as described above. The WHOLE mortgage crisis is one mere offshoot of this. The last 40-80 years of escalating heavy taxation and squandering of the tax revenue has created a whole artificial economy. People may work hard and think they are doing good work, but if the whole industry they are in is artificial, it actually DROPS living standards. (The guys building the huge pyramid may innovate, and do it better and cheaper and faster, but the end product won't feed, clothe or shelter anyone.)

Government has been able to hide this by borrowing on a massive scale, unprecedented in the history of the known universe. Seriously. Further, government pushed artificially low interest rates that got almost everyone to spend massive amounts of money they didn't have. This includes individuals, state and local governments, everyone.

The mortgage crisis was one piece of this bigger picture.

The credit default swaps were a swindle encouraged by this.

And government got paid a lot by Wall St to turn a blind eye to the credit default swaps. The one place we needed more government was in stepping in and regulating these as they do with other insurance. But government got bought off and didn't do it. THEN, they stepped in and put the price tag on you, rather than letting the shareholders in those swindling businesses eat the cost, by convincing the people that letting those banks fail was intolerable.

I mentioned bailing out FDIC because it would have removed the threat that allowed that swindle to be dumped on the taxpayer.

The implication of all of this is that the real market will need to force HUGE numbers of people to move into industries that provide real value or go without any pay. HUGE numbers of people MUST switch jobs because their current jobs WILL disappear. THE ONLY OTHER WAY IS TO STEAL THE WEALTH FROM ELSEWHERE, AND PROP UP THE ARTIFICIAL ECONOMY FOR A WHILE LONGER. BUT THAT WILL FAIL IN A FEW MORE YEARS, WHEN THE WORLD IS POOR ENOUGH THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LEFT TO STEAL.

THIS IS CERTAINTY. IT IS LIKE PHYSICS. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES THESE TO MAKE IT BETTER.

f_inscreenname
02-13-2009, 04:56 PM
Here, watch this.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3479955&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 05:00 PM
Sub-prime mortgages on bad applications and appriasals.

First off DW, I'm not picking on you personally, as evidenced by my deleting you from the quote. Just picking on the concept.....

Hmmm....a $35B notional market that wasn't defaulting much more than historical norms. That's what started the ball rolling on a Trillion dollar economic crisis? Something had to come before "sub-prime" went bad.

f_in: what rate would you offer to the borrowers that just lost their job? How low of a price would be fair to the recently unemployed?

You see, the other side of the coin here is that there aren't nearly as many "qualified borrowers" as you'd like there to be. It's a bit myopic to consider the members of a boating forum as representative of the borrowing public. DW, I know you've had your hurdles recently but I think it's just a short term reaction. I bet you'll find things a little "looser" before long.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 05:12 PM
Here, watch this.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3479955&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/ (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3479955&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/glennbeck/)

Yep, spot on. The one thing I think that I would add is to give a number for the the money supply before the bailouts started, and where we are now. Glenn only showed growth of dollars in the money supply, but not percentages.

My understanding is that about 70% of the money supply has been created in the last 12 months!! So, all the dollars that ever existed before 2008 are only 30% of the dollars there exist now. So, if that were a stock split, the dollar would now be worth about 30 cents. Since it isn't, I figure it will take a little time, but for my thinking, the only thing to do is get stored wealth out of dollars and into something else. That's why I put it all into gold funds about 18 months ago. If this is true about the money supply, eventually, this stuff has to catch up with the dollar--I don't see how it can do anything else.

One other side note about this. When the dollar starts to tank quickly, the lower dollar will tend to drive UP the apparent value of stocks. It will look like "Hey, Obama's making the market go up!" But the actual value will probably be dropping, as business suffers like all of us.

Of course, it lets the government tax you on capital gains that don't really exist. Your stock looks like it is worth more to the IRS, even though you can buy less bread or milk or ammunition with it. But the crooks tax it anyway, falsely claiming you've made a profit.

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 05:14 PM
When businessess lose, their shareholders lose, and none of that is insured. In other words, there are going to be winners and losers. Best we can do is let the people who mis-ran business, and sadly, their stockholders, be the ones who lose. The average Joe should not have his saved, insured dollars taken away.

Oof, I'm average Michael and I'm a shareholder. Chances are average Joe and I have a lot more of our wealth tied up in corporate equity than we do in cash. That is just a really bad idea.


Another option is to dupe foreigners into lending us money and then not paying it back. In pure form, that's just a default (which we have not yet done because we want to keep borrowing as much as we can). In the sneakier form, it means borrowing as much as we can, devaluing the dollar by borrowing and printing, and paying back dollars that are worth pennies by the time they are repaid. (This we are doing on a massive scale, but it won't be enough to keep us from suffering. And if the Chinese and the rest of the world conclude they need to foreclose, that is called war. It is only so sneaky. The Chinese called us on it TODAY in the news. They actually used the phrase "we hate you for it" in an official statement!)

Just heard the "we hate you" piece on the news. I have to read more on that but it doesn't surprise me. I haven't thought it through too much, but I have started contemplating a US debt default. Maybe it doesn't come through as a default leading to war, but perhaps a forgiveness. A large part of the money flow is circular in nature anyways....we have a huge trade deficit which means we export dollars. They just use those dollars to buy our debt. I wonder what would happen if all the dollars that China has were suddenly worthless?

Ghost
02-13-2009, 05:23 PM
Oof, I'm average Michael and I'm a shareholder. Chances are average Joe and I have a lot more of our wealth tied up in corporate equity than we do in cash. That is just a really bad idea.

I hear you, but I suspect it is far more fair than the alternative. I don't mean this personally at all, but like everyone who buys stocks, you and I see the fine print that we could lose all our money. We are betting on the companies we invest in, and as shareholders, we have certain powers. Most important is the power to sell when the companies are doing the wrong things.

But FDIC is insurance that is promised already, a bailout long since waiting to happen. That contract was written long ago, and the people who said "I'm moving OUT of stocks and INTO an insured deposit" have both legal and moral precedence over shareholders.

The massive borrowing and printing to bail out those mismanaged companies and their shareholders is FORCIBLY taking the depositors' money in their bank accounts. How? By devaluing it to 30 cents on the dollar, they will steal 70% of it, and hand some of that back to shareholders to cover losses that weren't insured. Further, they impose a tax burden with the new debt they borrow.

Further, many of the businesses are going to crash and die regardless, just a bit later, because the industries they are in are inflated and unsustainable.

This is a WORSE idea, in my opinion, no?

f_inscreenname
02-13-2009, 05:24 PM
f_in: what rate would you offer to the borrowers that just lost their job? How low of a price would be fair to the recently unemployed?


No charity, You have to qualify like you should have had to. The 4% needed to already happen. But.....it would get the housing market moving again. Housing is what makes this country tic. The Fed doesn't need to artificially start things. We do. What happens when the money runs out? When all this stuff kicks in gov spending will go from 20% to 40% of our GDP. How can we do that? New taxes and they are a coming as soon as they can get people thinking that things are getting better.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 05:39 PM
No charity, You have to qualify like you should have had to. The 4% needed to already happen. But.....it would get the housing market moving again. Housing is what makes this country tic. The Fed doesn't need to artificially start things. We do. What happens when the money runs out? When all this stuff kicks in gov spending will go from 20% to 40% of our GDP. How can we do that? New taxes and they are a coming as soon as they can get people thinking that things are getting better.

I kinda disagree with you on this a little, but in a weird way. If the govt hadn't put a huge debt and dollar devaluation load on the taxpayer, then interest rates should be high right now. When risk of default is high, interest rates MUST be high. At what rate would you be willing to lend your own money right now to people who may blow it?

Where it gets weird, and maybe this is what you're saying, is that the money they borrowed and gave to the banks, that WE have to pay back, should be lent back to us at low rates. I think this would give some short term relief, but it seems like it will make the problem much worse in the long run.

If we did absolutely nothing, and let stuff fail, and protected depositor monies, and did our best NOT to let the currency plummet by printing any more money, we'd have lots of pain for a year or two, lots of unemployment, but it would force people into the right lines of work at the right pay. They may not like it, but they are heading there whether they want to or not. Question is: how long will it prolong the agony, and how much EXTRA pain and suffering will this approach of borrow-more-for-a-better-today create tomorrow? It will be a lot, but the real question is will it topple what was once our country and our Constitution? Sad, but I think true.

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 05:39 PM
The phrase "get people back to work" is incredibly misleading, and this is at the heart of what is really wrong and what people don't understand.
.
.
.
THIS IS CERTAINTY. IT IS LIKE PHYSICS. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS BESIDES THESE TO MAKE IT BETTER.

I think you're mostly preaching to the choir there. :D It's something that we like to tout, but I think it's a double-edged sword: the fact that our economy is nearly evenly split between actually making something (manufacturing) and "service." Can an economy survive on "service" alone? I think in theory it's possible, but not at our magnitude.

I don't think the idea that people need to get back to work is misleading. The idea that the government can print money to pay people to be unproductive and that solution will sustain long term....that is misleading.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 05:42 PM
I think you're mostly preaching to the choir there. :D It's something that we like to tout, but I think it's a double-edged sword: the fact that our economy is nearly evenly split between actually making something (manufacturing) and "service." Can an economy survive on "service" alone? I think in theory it's possible, but not at our magnitude.

I don't think the idea that people need to get back to work is misleading. The idea that the government can print money to pay people to be unproductive and that solution will sustain long term....that is misleading.

I don't just mean service work at all. Service can be fine. I mean real waste. Like the non-return 100Billion gets from the Dept of Education per year, every year. Every dollar of that will not feed a child, heat a home, etc. When we *thought* we were rich, we didn't bother to manage this stuff. Now that we know we're not, we will start fighting over it.

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 06:09 PM
I hear you, but I suspect it is far more fair than the alternative. .
.
.
.
This is a WORSE idea, in my opinion, no?

Are you talking just banks here? Is your idea that the banks should've been left to fail and we just give back whatever was FDIC insured?

handfulz28
02-13-2009, 06:14 PM
Like the non-return 100Billion gets from the Dept of Education per year, every year.

What does the $100B represent? Is that the Dept budget for administration? Or is that the amount doled out to states? I'm not up on my government Dept criticism. Other than the idea that our Dept of Energy was originally created to manage our reduction in reliance on foreign energy...and is now a $XX Billion budget item.

DonziJon
02-13-2009, 06:35 PM
I see a lot of Bloviating going on here on this board.......Monday morning crap......

The government BLEW it (controlled by Republicans)... when the Republicans said...HEY..this Fanny Mae thing is getting out of hand. Barney Frank (D), Christopher Dodd (D), and Maxine Waters (D) said......."Everything Is Fine".

Those Democrats reminded the Stinkin Republicans that they didn't want to be considered Racists...did they??? And then the Republicans said....Absolutely Not,..... and... All Was Well. That was 2004. There are Video tapes of those hearings. The Stinkin Republicans ROLLED OVER...and we have what we have.

Gentlemen: THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED. Back Then..the rules should have been tightened for making loans to "Section 8" applicants. But they were not. The Democrats Cowed the Republicans when the Republicans were in charge. I am ashamed to have been a Republican.

SO: Let the Government get out of the way and let the market settle the problem.

OH WAIT: We (US Citizens.. and Regular Americans) are Screwed...The DEMOCRATS WON..............fill in the blanks.

OMG: John

Ghost
02-13-2009, 07:43 PM
I see a lot of Bloviating going on here on this board.......Monday morning crap......

The government BLEW it (controlled by Republicans)... when the Republicans said...HEY..this Fanny Mae thing is getting out of hand. Barney Frank (D), Christopher Dodd (D), and Maxine Waters (D) said......."Everything Is Fine".

Those Democrats reminded the Stinkin Republicans that they didn't want to be considered Racists...did they??? And then the Republicans said....Absolutely Not,..... and... All Was Well. That was 2004. There are Video tapes of those hearings. The Stinkin Republicans ROLLED OVER...and we have what we have.

Gentlemen: THIS IS NOT COMPLICATED. Back Then..the rules should have been tightened for making loans to "Section 8" applicants. But they were not. The Democrats Cowed the Republicans when the Republicans were in charge. I am ashamed to have been a Republican.

SO: Let the Government get out of the way and let the market settle the problem.

OH WAIT: We (US Citizens.. and Regular Americans) are Screwed...The DEMOCRATS WON..............fill in the blanks.

OMG: John

Completely agree with your assessment of that, just think the overall financial crisis we all face today is far bigger, and stems from government policy dating back at least to the simultaneous monster spend increases of Vietnam and the Great Society, followed by Nixon dropping the gold standard and opening the door to currency abuse, followed by 38 or so years of monster borrowing and artificially low interest rates. The recent stuff is awful as you say, but is just a piece, IMO.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 07:48 PM
Are you talking just banks here? Is your idea that the banks should've been left to fail and we just give back whatever was FDIC insured?

The investment banks should have been allowed to fail, yes. Most probably would have I think.

Commercial banks would, I think, have seen some failures and some solvency.

The notion that something is too big to fail is kinda ridiculous. One of two things happens if you try to stop it. You either POSTPONE the failure (not stop it) or you force a bunch of other things to fail by saddling them with bailing it out. That makes the "too big" part and argument strongly against intervention, rather than for it seems like to me. The bigger it is, the more certain that only the two outcomes above are possible.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 07:54 PM
What does the $100B represent? Is that the Dept budget for administration? Or is that the amount doled out to states?

I believe it is a mix. But even the stuff doled out is wasteful, because it allows garbage like the politically correct annual re-writes of all textbooks to be mandated by the federal strings attached. Do what our bureaucrats say, or you don't get the money. Then, doing what they say costs money, and cuts proper local control of the schools.

The fraction of money spent on "education" that actually pays the salaries of the people who actually roll up their sleeves and teach, and puts a roof on the school, is probably mortifying. I've seen some of this up close.

Ghost
02-13-2009, 07:55 PM
I see a lot of Bloviating going on here on this board.......

I prefer "bloviashonh", a-la Cajun Man.

handfulz28
02-14-2009, 10:14 AM
Oh man DonziJon, you had to bring in the whole Reps v Dems and make it political. :nilly: :D

Part of my problem with just letting these institutions "fail" is the mark to market accounting. Let me see if I can think of an example. Let's say you bought your house for "100%" of its market value. As this housing crisis has unfolded, the market value declines to 25% of what you originally paid. Now because of that decline you are forced to sell or otherwise abandon the property. Even though you are working and paying the bill, "the market" and some rules associated with that market dictate that you lose any chance of holding on and waiting the storm out.

I know that's oversimplified and not a perfect example, but mark to market is a large factor behind the original bailout. That's not to say that there aren't real losses: inflated equity lines that aren't paying come to mind first. But when mortgage securities backed by real property are valued at $.20 on the dollar, "the market" is askew and just letting everyone "fail" seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

zelatore
02-14-2009, 11:21 AM
Let me see if I can think of an example. Let's say you bought your house for "100%" of its market value. As this housing crisis has unfolded, the market value declines to 25% of what you originally paid. Now because of that decline you are forced to sell or otherwise abandon the property. Even though you are working and paying the bill, "the market" and some rules associated with that market dictate that you lose any chance of holding on and waiting the storm out.


Why?

Why are you 'forced to sell or abandon'?

I'm about as far away from an economist as they come, but looks to me that if you bought for 100%, then the market declined to 25% but you're still earning the same and making your payments, you haven't really lost anything except on paper.

Now, if you were to try to sell your property then you'd take a bath of course. But assuming you didn't buy it to flip, but as an actual home to live in then you really haven't lost anything at this point. You haven't paid anything more than you were to start with, you're still getting the same tax write-off, and maybe you're property taxes will even go down if they re-evaluate your property at the current market value.

Since the typical home loan runs 30 years and most people tend to stay in their home a long time if not that entire period, there's quite a lot of time for the market to sort itself out before you have to worry about how much you've 'lost'.

Let's suppose you sell in 10 years - not an unreasonable amount of time to be in a house. Where will the market be then? I can't say. Chance are it will be up from where it is now, although likely not as high as it was at the peak. You end up taking a loss, but not the crazy 75% we were talking about if you sold today. And while nobody wants to take a loss, one hopes that by that time you'll be able to absorb that lesser loss without going under.

OK all you smarter types out there can now rip this theory to shreds and make me feel bad. I'm using this premise with my own house ... I'm sure it's worth less now than when we bought (not 75%; we bought before the peak and my town isn't quite that far down) but at this point I'm in exactly the same boat I was as a few years ago when the market had our place worth $100K more than we paid. I might feel like I've lost something, but all I've really lost is opportunity in that I didn't flip it at the peak, live on my boat for a year or two while the market tanked, then use the proceeds to buy something cheap. But hey, I'm not smart enough to pull that off anyway...I'd have used the money to buy another boat or some other bad investment!

Ghost
02-14-2009, 11:40 AM
Part of my problem with just letting these institutions "fail" is the mark to market accounting. Let me see if I can think of an example. Let's say you bought your house for "100%" of its market value. As this housing crisis has unfolded, the market value declines to 25% of what you originally paid. Now because of that decline you are forced to sell or otherwise abandon the property. Even though you are working and paying the bill, "the market" and some rules associated with that market dictate that you lose any chance of holding on and waiting the storm out.

I know that's oversimplified and not a perfect example, but mark to market is a large factor behind the original bailout. That's not to say that there aren't real losses: inflated equity lines that aren't paying come to mind first. But when mortgage securities backed by real property are valued at $.20 on the dollar, "the market" is askew and just letting everyone "fail" seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Interesting thought. While I think it is ignoring the fundamentals of the larger economic crisis (unproductive work subsidized with artificially low interest rates for government as well as individuals to borrow recklessly), the point about losing the houses is interesting.

Think there is any way to renegotiate without the shuffle? For instance, let's say the real estate market is (keeping the math easy for the example) overvalued by 100%, so everything is really worth half what it was bought for.

Like you say, mark to market forces the banks to re-value their assets based on current value. So, when the prices fall to half, the bank has all these loans that are much larger than the actual house values.

Now, the bank can't fix this, they would need incredible amounts of cash to make up the difference on the books, or they fail. And likewise the holders of mortgage backed securities are at great risk, because if people start defaulting, the foreclosures will bring 50 cents on the dollar. Or less, with all the transaction costs and the hurried sales of auctions forced by the rapid losses when anything sits empty and unpaid for.

The RIGHT way for the market to deal with this is to let the chips fall where they may. Housing prices will drop to 50% of original, banks will fail, stockholders will lose their investments, and holders of mortgage backed securities will lose their money. But the guy on the street who loses his house that he bought for a million and was paying at that amount, can come back and buy it for 500k LESS. Prices go down, rents go down, etc. Housing gets cheaper, which is GOOD for the economy and for all those people who overpaid for their houses.

The morality in this is that the most disciplined are rewarded, and the most reckless suffer the consequences of their behavior. The part that seems silly is a LOT of transactions have to happen as people basiscally lose their houses and buy or rent them back (or something a little better or worse) for a LOT less. Lots of foreclosure costs, re-selling/auctioning costs that don't always get competitive prices, moving costs, transaction costs, etc.

But if you HAD to intervene, how about letting the people STAY in the houses if possible, and let them renegotiate? House is worth half what it was, so, re-buy it from the lienholders (the banks/mortgage-backed security holders) for half. At 50 cents on the dollar they will probabluy do better than if they foreclosed on you re-sold at auction, getting a full 50 cents on the dollar. Now, without all the inefficiences of everyone moving out and moving in, all the transaction costs and taxes, etc, people are back in their overpriced houses for real market price. The bank shareholders take the hit on the toxic assets, as do the holders of mortgage backed securities.

The immorality is that it doesn't accurately reward and punish behaviors, but it sort of seems to make sense.

Just brainstorming, I'm probably missing something big.

handfulz28
02-14-2009, 11:59 AM
Why?

Why are you 'forced to sell or abandon'?

That's kinda the point on what "mark to market" entails. Let's say the banks bought assets: mortgage backed securities. Even if that security is paying 100% of its obligations, if "the market" value drops 50% then the bank has to take that loss on its books. Like you say, it's just a paper loss but accounting rules dictate the loss must be accounted for at each accounting period. The banks don't actually have to sell to have the loss erode their capital.

That's the very over-simplified analogy. And it's not the entire problem but a significant part of why banks got a capital injection from the Fed instead of being shut down. If you shut down or let fail the 10 biggest players in the field, who's going to pick up the pieces? And the reason I have a huge disagreement with Ghost's idea of letting them fail and having FDIC pick up the pieces is that these big players hold a lot of cash that isn't guaranteed on any given day. Whether it be huge multi-national corps, state governments, local governments, successful mom and pop shops and even other banks, there's a much larger deposit base that would be wiped out if the banks are left to fail.

You might not like the term or the idea, but "too big to let fail" is rooted in reality, not politics or greed.

handfulz28
02-14-2009, 12:26 PM
I'm probably missing something big.

:D The difference between theory and reality. Theory relying on rational markets, reality proving that markets are not always rational but much less so when expectations fail to materialize.

It's the same contagion that affected energy prices last year: "the market" deemed energy was a good investment so it was bid up to the point where "market demand" hugely exceeded true consumption demand. It's the opposite for the housing market. "The market" for mortgages deemed all of these investments as worthless. Even though there is real value and perhaps even cash flow (gasp!), "the market" has reduced the value of these securities to pennies on the dollar.

I think another leap you're making is if we let banks fail and stakeholders lose their invesments, who is left to recapitalize the houses? How do you define "most disciplined?" I imagine the most disciplined investors are those you're actually looking to punish.

:pizza: :pizza:

EDIT: Instead of throwing out another post I'll add quick thoughts here. As for what to do now with the housing crisis, "it depends." There are borrowers right now that just can't be helped because they don't have a job and simply can't afford any payments. Those are toughest...morally. Other borrowers that either got in over their heads or were truly misled and are now suffering from exhorbitant rates and payments but would otherwise like to stay and pay a reasonable amount need some consideration from their lenders. There's probably also a huge market of equity lines that are upside down. If the rates are exhorbitant, adjust them if the borrower is willing and able. Otherwise these guys just take their hits as already prescribed; nothing really needs to be done for them. As for speculators, fraudulent borrowers, etc. I don't think there's truly enough of them to warrant anything new. The biggest hit to this market is people not having jobs. The other very real and simple explaination for a lot of problems is the actual administration for home mortgages. You've heard the term "servicer." These are the guys in the middle of all this stuff and are holding up a lot of the change needed.

Donziweasel
02-14-2009, 12:35 PM
First off DW, I'm not picking on you personally, as evidenced by my deleting you from the quote. Just picking on the concept.....

Don't sweat it, it is all good and a interesting conversation.



Hmmm....a $35B notional market that wasn't defaulting much more than historical norms. That's what started the ball rolling on a Trillion dollar economic crisis? Something had to come before "sub-prime" went bad.

The problem this time was that lending had gotten so bad, people were being approved for loans and mortgages with no money down. Much of this was based on inflated appraisals. Then, when home values started dropping, the foreclosures were much worse, because the consumer owed more than what the house was worth. The farther values dropped, the worse it got and the more banks were burned. Snowballed.


You see, the other side of the coin here is that there aren't nearly as many "qualified borrowers" as you'd like there to be.

And there shoudn't be, but the ones who are qualified should be able to secure credit and they can't. GMAC did a deal for me last spring. When I went this fall for the same deal, the shot me down. I have a 760 credit score. I had a 250,000.00 line with them and had only used 62,000.00. They pulled the rest. The dealer said 99% of commercail loans were being declined, even with perfect credit. GMAC got some bailout. I had to go elsewhere (Chase Manhattan Bank). Not only that, I am on the GM Fleet program. I offered to put down up to 50% (31,000.00) but they still said no.



DW, I know you've had your hurdles recently but I think it's just a short term reaction. I bet you'll find things a little "looser" before long.

I am good. I can still get plenty of credit and my winter is getting better everyday. Raising prices this summer to offset fuel has really helped. My gross from Jan 1 to Feb 11 was dead even with last year, which was a record year, although Decemeber was ugly. Jackson has not gotten any snow in a while, and my Targhee Express bus ride and lift ticket combo is going of the charts. I am fine for now.

Ghost
02-14-2009, 12:44 PM
You might not like the term or the idea, but "too big to let fail" is rooted in reality, not politics or greed.

In general, I *think* I get what you're saying.

Is this a fair assessment on the mark-to-market front? You say the paper losses of mark-to-market are just that, paper losses, and we can overlook them to a degree? Where I say mark-to-market is good and important, just like regulating an insurance company's assets is good and important. The purpose of it IS THE WHAT-IF SCENARIO, when things have to be liquidated for payoff.

If so I will agree to disagree. (But if you were saying it is morally acceptable to forcibly take money from the innocent to cover the losses of the guilty, incurred by those guilty losing risky bets, I can't ever buy that.)

But to clarify one particular stance which I think I must have failed to explain well: my position on "too big to let fail" is based on what I consider reality (or a denial of it). To me, saying something is "too big to fail" is like saying the law of gravity is "too annoying not to repeal". If something IS failing (as these things are), the bigger they are, the more likely an attempt to stop it will just take other innocent" things down with it.

I'm curious, however, what you think about the idea of letting everyone renegotiate their home prices. Seems like maybe this could keep them in homes and put the significant (but not total) losses where they belong, on the holders of bad risky investments. It wipes out the mark-to-market problem by having the actual losses realized and removed from the books, right? Further it would minimize the disruption that would otherwise come if everyone HAD to move out, re-buy or rent, and move in. Like I say, I assume I am missing something, but this seems like a more reasonable compromise, no?

I do appreciate your thoughts--lots of people's eyes may glaze over but to me, kicking ideas around seems like a healthy thing for those concerned enough to do so.

Ghost
02-14-2009, 01:09 PM
:D The difference between theory and reality. Theory relying on rational markets, reality proving that markets are not always rational but much less so when expectations fail to materialize.

It's the same contagion that affected energy prices last year: "the market" deemed energy was a good investment so it was bid up to the point where "market demand" hugely exceeded true consumption demand. It's the opposite for the housing market. "The market" for mortgages deemed all of these investments as worthless. Even though there is real value and perhaps even cash flow (gasp!), "the market" has reduced the value of these securities to pennies on the dollar.

This was all greater fool theory on a massive scale. Markets do it, because it is rational, but there is also risk. And rationally, it crashes, and there are losers. But if artifically postponed, subsequent crashes are bigger and even more destructive. Like "a little revolution every now and then is a healthy thing." But postponing the realization of losses makes for an even nastier crisis to come.


I think another leap you're making is if we let banks fail and stakeholders lose their invesments, who is left to recapitalize the houses?

You lost me here a bit. *Anyone* with something to invest, worldwide, including the the people who just lent us money for the economic ruin-us package, would be interested in investing in American real estate if it were back to being undervalued (per your description about the irrational undervaluation above), wouldn't he? And not ALL the banks would fail. What was left would grow and flourish.


How do you define "most disciplined?" I imagine the most disciplined investors are those you're actually looking to punish.

You've totally lost me here. Most disciplined means the ones who invested in stuff that wasn't a bad risk that failed. Gold, insured accounts, etc, rather than mortgage backed securities in a housing market that everyone has been saying was a bubble since the tech bubble burst. The people who properly locked their stuff down are getting socked by the bailouts of the people who bet on risky mortgages.

As far as thinking the bailout of FDIC approach would be foolish, I do have one question. What will you think in hindsight if we eventually have to bail out FDIC anyway? Because the things we have done, which cannot do anything but make the long run worse (IMO), will wreck the economy and devalue real estate so much further that we go back to the original mark-to-market crisis again?

f_inscreenname
02-14-2009, 02:57 PM
On a side note, spring is coming.:wink:

zelatore
02-14-2009, 03:15 PM
On a side note, spring is coming.:wink:

Yeah.

I skipped a few pages because my head was starting to hurt.

I think I'll go change the oil in the boat. I can handle that.

Ghost
02-14-2009, 05:39 PM
Agreed, we really need Spring. Had a taste here recently--about 65 for a high. Clock is ticking down to April 1...

f_inscreenname
02-14-2009, 06:20 PM
Clock is ticking down to April 1...

Getting a late start? http://www.supernova19.com/forumcw/Smileys/classic/grin.gif

Donziweasel
02-14-2009, 06:43 PM
Really, it is, I have proof...

Damn, Hiedi is looking good.......:bonk:

Ghost
02-14-2009, 07:17 PM
Getting a late start? http://www.supernova19.com/forumcw/Smileys/classic/grin.gif

April 1, every year. Til then, it costs big money to get the boat down off the shelf.

You'll have a 3 week head start at least...here's hoping you get good painting weather.

gcarter
02-14-2009, 08:00 PM
[quote=Ghost;494674]This sounds like it circles back to something I mentioned months ago: look at the total amount of taxpayer obligation/increase of the money supply that will go into this (so far and yet to come) and we will reach the 4.4 trillion needed to bail out 100% of all FDIC deposits.

My prescription for the bailout was to authorize (it's already in the law I think actually) funding of FDIC beyond the 1% reserve (45 Billion) they have. The justification for the first emergency bailout bills was to preempt a run on the banks. This would have done that, but would also have let perish the banks and shareholders that embraced reckless risk. The better ones would have survived. But at least this would have allowed corrections in the market that would curb the risky behavior. And with the what, 10% depositor cash reserves in the banks, the worst this could be was actually about 4 billion, if EVERYTHING failed.

I think the end-game they are shooting for is actually to drive inflation way up and the dollar way down. Everyone gets much poorer, but the banks' balance sheets wiill get better. Once the dollar is worth 50 cents, an $800k house on the banks' books (that is worth only $400k now) will ACTUALLY be worth $800k in new crummy-dollars. Then the toxic asset isn't toxic anymore. quote]

Mike the only problem w/this is the rest of the world is printing money too.
I don't think you'll see any real movement.
The Chinese will continue to buy a lot of our paper, but they have their own problems.....exports are down 20% or so, 20,000,000 people out of work. They're probably printing money internally.
The oil states are hurting, I read an interesting article about Dubai....would the last person to leave please turn out the lights?
So the only thing left is the printing press.
The French are using it for their auto industry.
The Russians are using it to keep the riots down.
The list goes on.
In the short term, there may not be anything to worry about. Everyone's doing the same thing.

There's an interesting historical item about the post WW-I German government.....inflation was so bad you couldn't buy lunch w/your mornings wages. People paid off their mortgages w/ a couple of days pay.
The government finally stated, in so many words, that the currency wouldn't be backed by anything but the integrity of the German people. Things actually got better.

Here's an interesting piece by Dick Morris;


Newsmax.com


Fear, Hoarding Doom Stimulus

Thursday, February 5, 2009 12:22 PM

By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Very few economists buy into Keynesian theory anymore. Instead, the idea of "rational expectations" has taken its place. The difference between the two approaches is essential to understanding why President Barack Obama's stimulus package won't work.

John Maynard Keynes felt that people would react automatically to a few dollars in their hands. Consumers would run out and buy new products, and businessmen, seeing the uptick in sales, would rush to open new plants and hire new workers who would, in turn, generate more demand.

But that's not the real world. In reality, consumers, knowing there are hard times ahead, save any money they get either by salting it away or by paying down their debts and bills. That's why the personal saving rate in the last quarter of 2008 was the highest in six years and spending on residential construction was down 22 percent during the past year.
And the savings rate rose from 2.8 percent in November 2008 to 3.6 percent in December as the storm clouds grew grayer.
And, in the real world, banks hang onto their money for fear of making bad loans, no matter how many bailouts or stimulus packages Washington passes.

The Fed now holds upwards of $1.7 trillion for American banks, more than twice what it had in its vaults at the start of 2008, according to the Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis. How did the Fed get the money? Congress voted the Troubled Asset Relief Program package of bailout funds. The Fed bought bank assets to get liquidity onto their balance sheets.
What did the banks do with the money? They gave it right back to the Fed to hold in its vaults. They didn't lend it out. They didn't use it to stimulate the economy. They are using it for a nest egg to tap when times improve. Just like the theory of rational expectations says they would.

If banks, suddenly awash in capital, don't decide all is fine and rush to lend money; and consumers, given a tax cut or a pay raise, don't rush to buy a flat-screen TV, then what good will the stimulus package do?

Not much. Confidence will not return until there is evidence that the underlying problem — massive personal and corporate debt — is being solved. And, without confidence, the rational expectation theory means people sit on their money.

But the package will do a whole lot of harm by piling up capital that people won't spend, banks won't lend, and businesses won't invest. When confidence rises and the money comes out of hiding, watch out for the massive inflationary pressures all that extra cash will unleash.

Obama's stimulus package won't stimulate much except inflation down the road, which will, in turn, mean the onset of another round of high interest rates and renewed recession to check the inflation.

Republicans should defeat the stimulus package and then negotiate a much smaller bill that emphasizes tax cuts and avoids the pork-barrel feeding frenzy Obama has unleashed. You can see the stimulus package rotting away before our very eyes.

People are turning against it as they see the things on which government will now be spending money, just as they turned against Clinton's more modest $35 billion stimulus package in 1993. Republicans should stay away in droves. On this issue, they can recapture something they have lost during the past eight years: the mantra of less spending and smaller government


© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

handfulz28
02-14-2009, 08:21 PM
In general, I *think* I get what you're saying.

Is this a fair assessment on the mark-to-market front? You say the paper losses of mark-to-market are just that, paper losses, and we can overlook them to a degree? Where I say mark-to-market is good and important, just like regulating an insurance company's assets is good and important. The purpose of it IS THE WHAT-IF SCENARIO, when things have to be liquidated for payoff.

Sort of. "It depends" on what the time horizon is. As of today, there are real losses in terms of mortgages not cash flowing and loan balances exceeding "current" home values. Mark to market isn't for liquidation purposes. It's an accounting rule intended to provide uniform comparibility, not guidance for an economic apocolypse.


If so I will agree to disagree. (But if you were saying it is morally acceptable to forcibly take money from the innocent to cover the losses of the guilty, incurred by those guilty losing risky bets, I can't ever buy that.)

I'm not considering morality or guilt. I don't have as much contempt for the institutions that were executing their fiscal duty to earn a return for their constituents. I hate to go personal here, but I think the evil doers aren't so much the investors, as they were the brokers and originators that never put up real money in all this. Yes, "Wall Street" became the largest buyer of MBS but they didn't do it as a nefarious, risky "bet."


But to clarify one particular stance which I think I must have failed to explain well: my position on "too big to let fail" is based on what I consider reality (or a denial of it). To me, saying something is "too big to fail" is like saying the law of gravity is "too annoying not to repeal". If something IS failing (as these things are), the bigger they are, the more likely an attempt to stop it will just take other innocent" things down with it.

But don't you have to consider WHY something is failing? And from what perspective "failing" entails? Reconsider the house example I gave. If "the market" is given some time, these assets will appreciate in value. But an unintended consequence of regulation forces an extraordinary action.


I'm curious, however, what you think about the idea of letting everyone renegotiate their home prices. Seems like maybe this could keep them in homes and put the significant (but not total) losses where they belong, on the holders of bad risky investments. It wipes out the mark-to-market problem by having the actual losses realized and removed from the books, right? Further it would minimize the disruption that would otherwise come if everyone HAD to move out, re-buy or rent, and move in. Like I say, I assume I am missing something, but this seems like a more reasonable compromise, no?

I don't think home "prices" need adjustment as far as mortgages are concerned. The losses have already been taken. What's left is to try and realize that there's more value out there then the market currently values.


I do appreciate your thoughts--lots of people's eyes may glaze over but to me, kicking ideas around seems like a healthy thing for those concerned enough to do so.

Agreed.

handfulz28
02-14-2009, 09:01 PM
This was all greater fool theory on a massive scale. Markets do it, because it is rational, but there is also risk. And rationally, it crashes, and there are losers. But if artifically postponed, subsequent crashes are bigger and even more destructive. Like "a little revolution every now and then is a healthy thing." But postponing the realization of losses makes for an even nastier crisis to come.

Rational markets don't crash. They also don't support the bubbles of inflated asset values. They do seek out a return commensurate with "expected" risk. As I said, when expectations aren't met irrationality sets in.


You lost me here a bit. *Anyone* with something to invest, worldwide, including the the people who just lent us money for the economic ruin-us package, would be interested in investing in American real estate if it were back to being undervalued (per your description about the irrational undervaluation above), wouldn't he? And not ALL the banks would fail. What was left would grow and flourish.

What's undervalued are the securities backed by mortgages, not the real estate itself. Well let's see. I'm guessing mostly American capital would get wiped out by a mass bank failure. That would leave foreign investors to re-capitalize the system. So either way dollars go offshore again leading to the same negative economic consequences you predict.


You've totally lost me here. Most disciplined means the ones who invested in stuff that wasn't a bad risk that failed. Gold, insured accounts, etc, rather than mortgage backed securities in a housing market that everyone has been saying was a bubble since the tech bubble burst. The people who properly locked their stuff down are getting socked by the bailouts of the people who bet on risky mortgages.

Yes, most disciplined are those that adjust their investments when the reward no longer justifies the risk. But like you say, if you rolled into gold, which is a hedge against government, hedge against inflation, then you'll at least be keeping up. So where's the sock? :D


As far as thinking the bailout of FDIC approach would be foolish, I do have one question. What will you think in hindsight if we eventually have to bail out FDIC anyway? Because the things we have done, which cannot do anything but make the long run worse (IMO), will wreck the economy and devalue real estate so much further that we go back to the original mark-to-market crisis again?

Believe it or not there are ways to take the money supply back out of the economy. Not overnight, and quite probably never to the levels before abandoning the gold standard. But I disagree with your take that the banks are all to blame and that they should've been left to die and take everyone down with them. ESPECIALLY when so much of what ails them will correct over time.

People need to get back to work. I agree in your fundamental view that digging ditches and filling them back in on borrowed money will only prolong the inevitable. But like it or not, and for whatever the root cause, people losing jobs is why the economy is in the crapper.

Ghost
02-15-2009, 08:22 AM
Mike the only problem w/this is the rest of the world is printing money too.
I don't think you'll see any real movement.
The Chinese will continue to buy a lot of our paper, but they have their own problems.....exports are down 20% or so, 20,000,000 people out of work. They're probably printing money internally.
The oil states are hurting..., I read an interesting article about Dubai....would the last person to leave please turn out the lights?
So the only thing left is the printing press.
The French are using it for their auto industry.
The Russians are using it to keep the riots down.
The list goes on.
In the short term, there may not be anything to worry about. Everyone's doing the same thing.

George, I didn't quite follow you there--do you mean there won't be much inflationary movement? Because other currencies are in the same boat? If so, I totally concur in that the dollar won't fall relative to other currencies, but won't currencies worldwide fall in purchasing power of goods and services? Can't we expect inflation worldwide if everyone is printing? That seems like a near certainty, if everyone is just creating money, no?


I'm not considering morality or guilt. I don't have as much contempt for the institutions that were executing their fiscal duty to earn a return for their constituents. I hate to go personal here, but I think the evil doers aren't so much the investors, as they were the brokers and originators that never put up real money in all this. Yes, "Wall Street" became the largest buyer of MBS but they didn't do it as a nefarious, risky "bet."

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that one, I agree with you--the most guilty are the crooks who created and pushed the bad instruments that ate up others' money. Absolutely. The swaps brokers in particular, who basically invented a way to sell insurance while bypassing the laws insurance companies need to obey to guarantee they can pay claims. But I would also say that when deciding who gets the shaft and who doesn't in eating the losses, it is morally wrong to force the guy who didn't invest in risky ventures that failed to pay for the losses of the guy who did. I don't mean to say the folks who invested were bad people, rather I just mean they (not me) are financially responsible for their own losses. Changing the rules AFTER the play is ex post facto law, and totally immoral in my opinion--legalized theft.


People need to get back to work. I agree in your fundamental view that digging ditches and filling them back in on borrowed money will only prolong the inevitable. But like it or not, and for whatever the root cause, people losing jobs is why the economy is in the crapper.


I think here we've gravitated our way about as close to the core of everything we believe, which is kinda cool. Where I think our assessments really diverge is that:

as you say "people need to get back to work...people losing jobs is why the economy is in the crapper."
I differ in that I think the economy has actually been in the crapper for a very long time, people just didn't realize it. It went into the crapper because so many people (who mistakenly thought they were well off) consumed the wrong things and worked the wrong jobs (for reasons I won't get into now), jobs that don't produce any or enough value at a competitive price, such that living standards are maintained. But the massive debt incurred by government and individuals and states and corporations masked how bad the fundamentals really were. I don't think people need to get back to work UNLESS they start doing that work in jobs that return real value. Otherwise, we just temporarily re-create the temporary illusion of prosperity/solvency, and let the problem grow even worse.
The more I contemplate it, the more it seems like this fundamental difference in assessment is driving most of our thinking. Hmmmm.

Regards,

Mike

gcarter
02-15-2009, 08:46 AM
George, I didn't quite follow you there--do you mean there won't be much inflationary movement? Because other currencies are in the same boat? If so, I totally concur in that the dollar won't fall relative to other currencies, but won't currencies worldwide fall in purchasing power of goods and services? Can't we expect inflation worldwide if everyone is printing? That seems like a near certainty, if everyone is just creating money, no?
Regards,

Mike

Mike, I mean since we live in a world economy, we won't see a large increase in prices of imported goods or goods w/high percentages of imported content. Also, high unemployment is deflationary, so we won't see large increases in goods due to wages.
I don't disagree that in general we may see higher than normal inflation, but nothing in relation to the early '80's.
What I'm not sure abvout is the outcome when the recovery starts to take place.

DonziJon
02-15-2009, 06:30 PM
Mike, I mean since we live in a world economy, we won't see a large increase in prices of imported goods or goods w/high percentages of imported content. Also, high unemployment is deflationary, so we won't see large increases in goods due to wages.
I don't disagree that in general we may see higher than normal inflation, but nothing in relation to the early '80's.
What I'm not sure abvout is the outcome when the recovery starts to take place.

Dam it George..I was just about to respond to this thread and out of the corner of my eye I noticed your New Sig and had to Back Up to verify: It threw OFF my whole train of thought. :bonk: John

gcarter
02-15-2009, 06:43 PM
Dam it George..I was just about to respond to this thread and out of the corner of my eye I noticed your New Sig and had to Back Up to verify: It threw OFF my whole train of thought. :bonk: John
What do you mean John???
I think she's a BEAUTIFUL woman.:wink:
Nothing scary about her!:eek::yes:
I remember during her first term as First Lady (remember, she said we got two for the price of one?), her apologists on the Sunday morning news shows kept telling those of us who didn't understand her, that we just weren't aware that she was a very sexy woman and we didn't know how to respond to that fact. :confused:

DonziJon
02-15-2009, 06:56 PM
What do you mean John???
I think she's a BEAUTIFUL woman.:wink:
Nothing scary about her!:eek::yes:
I remember during her first term as First Lady (remember, she said we got two for the price of one?), her apologists on the Sunday morning news shows kept telling those of us who didn't understand her, that we just weren't aware that she was a very sexy woman and we didn't know how to respond to that fact. :confused:

I can just picture Matty fumbling around pushing buttons to turn his Sigs BACK On to see what we're talking about. :nilly: John

Ghost
02-15-2009, 07:05 PM
I can just picture Matty fumbling around pushing buttons to turn his Sigs BACK On to see what we're talking about. :nilly: John

And afterward, throwing his entire computer out in disgust.