: The Shape of the American Car Industry, is very bad. lOOk



Sandy
12-06-10, 01:43 AM
Our Brands:
From Chrysler Corporation:
Chrysler, Dodge & Jeep
From Ford Motor Company:
Lincoln
Ford
From G.M.:
Cadillac
Buick
Chevrolet.
Total ? 8 brands

Gone ?
Plymouth
Imperial
Oldsmobile
Pontiac
Saturn
Mercury
Total ? 6 Brands gone.

The Competition?

BMW, Honda, Hyundiai,Kia, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru,Toyota, Volkswagon, Acura, Mazda, Infiniti, Suzuki, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Audi, Saab, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover,
Mini, Maserati, Asron Martin, Lotus, Ferrari, Bentley, Machback, Rolls Royce, Lamborgjini and Smart Cars - This equals 8 Domestic Brands -VS- 31 Foreign Brands.

Think of it this way. @ Baseball Teams:
Team #1 has 8 batters & 8 fielders to go against the other team that has 31 batters and 31 fielders.

How can we win? We can compete, yes, but can we win, on our OWN turf ??

Playdrv4me
12-06-10, 01:55 AM
Quality, not quantity.

Jesda
12-06-10, 02:29 AM
Really though, the only non-luxury imported brands with significant volume here are Toyota, BMW, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, and Nissan. BMW and Mercedes have had a significant presence here for decades.

GM has disallowed Saab from selling cars in shared GM showrooms, so a lot of those are closing in the US and Canada. I wouldn't count Saab as a threat to anyone.

ewill3rd
12-06-10, 09:26 AM
The only way to "fix" it is to get Americans to care about America.
That includes the beer swilling government handout loving average Joe, if he pulled his head out of his you know what and put some effort into his job and paid attention to what he was buying instead of just signing the back of his paycheck at Wal Mart to support the unions and the red chinese maybe things would turn around.
Our nationwide moral compass is pointed right down a path of total destruction.
But that is another topic altogether.

OffThaHorseCEO
12-06-10, 12:05 PM
The only way to "fix" it is to get Americans to care about America.
That includes the beer swilling government handout loving average Joe, if he pulled his head out of his you know what and put some effort into his job and paid attention to what he was buying instead of just signing the back of his paycheck at Wal Mart to support the unions and the red chinese maybe things would turn around.
Our nationwide moral compass is pointed right down a path of total destruction.
But that is another topic altogether.

the bad part about it is that in our area, that average joe is the same one screaming "all these [racist expletives] need to get out of 'my' country"

so many people around here drive around with their "why should i have to press 1 for english" bumper sticker, and their confederate flags and these colors dont run t-shirts and look down on people from different ethnic groups, then jump into a new toyota or nissan truck. Ignorance needs to be fixed before american can be fixed.

Stingroo
12-06-10, 12:07 PM
You know the funny part? My aunt invented the 'press 1 for whatever' concept when she worked at AT&T. :lol:

Ranger
12-06-10, 12:47 PM
I'd like a few words with your aunt. Number please?

orconn
12-06-10, 02:03 PM
Despite all the other reasons for the decline of the American auto industry, the real reason American car companies lost market share to foreign competitors was their willingness to peddle outdated, modified pickup trucks instead of developing passenger cars the the American public wanted to drive. While foreign car companies were still spending R&D dollars on sedans that were attractive to families wanting to escape the SUV and crossover fad, American companies were spending their efforts building glorified and frosted trucks and calling them "luxury" vehicles.

American companies were also late in realizing that Americans could and would appreciate quality in the form of well put together cars made from decent materials. Today they have awakened to the need to build high quality vehicles to compete, even here in the domestic U.S. market, and are bringing out some of the best cats in the world. Hopefully the American public will recognize this trend and return to domestic car brands showrooms to buy their next car.

Stingroo
12-06-10, 02:06 PM
I'd like a few words with your aunt. Number please?

:histeric: You're not the first. :p

gdwriter
12-06-10, 03:48 PM
I'd like a few words with your aunt. Number please?Press 1 for English :rofl:

billc83
12-06-10, 06:40 PM
Despite all the other reasons for the decline of the American auto industry, the real reason American car companies lost market share to foreign competitors was their willingness to peddle outdated, modified pickup trucks instead of developing passenger cars the the American public wanted to drive. While foreign car companies were still spending R&D dollars on sedans that were attractive to families wanting to escape the SUV and crossover fad, American companies were spending their efforts building glorified and frosted trucks and calling them "luxury" vehicles.

American companies were also late in realizing that Americans could and would appreciate quality in the form of well put together cars made from decent materials. Today they have awakened to the need to build high quality vehicles to compete, even here in the domestic U.S. market, and are bringing out some of the best cats in the world. Hopefully the American public will recognize this trend and return to domestic car brands showrooms to buy their next car.

That's partially true. BUT, the American automakers became content to live off their past reputations and stop putting out many good cars. It's a bit remniscent of a band that used to be big, had a lot of hits, but after years of releasing crap albums are wondering why no one's buying their new release. Meanwhile, other bands have become popular...

As an aside...

Sandy, while I appreciate your patriotism, may I ask you a question? Part of the reason we have so few brands is, during the 50s, GM and Ford basically killed off all the competition. The price cuts they made meant the remaining independents absolutely could not compete. Studebaker-Packard, Kaiser-Frazer, Crosley (though he left the car business beforehand), Tucker, Nash-Hudson-AMC all went bust. By your logic (more brands = better), measures should have been taken decades ago to ensure the independents' survival.

I understand federal regulations make it obscenely hard to build and sell a car in the U.S., but why aren't there more independent cars companies trying to compete with the Big 3?

Stingroo
12-06-10, 09:35 PM
Because the American independents focus on ultra-high-performance vehicles.

The two examples that come to me off the top of my head are:
SSC Ultimate Aero (it's successor is coming soon too)
Saleen S7

hueterm
12-06-10, 10:10 PM
You know the funny part? My aunt invented the 'press 1 for whatever' concept when she worked at AT&T. :lol:


:dummy:

I hate automated phone attendants....

hueterm
12-06-10, 10:15 PM
Despite all the other reasons for the decline of the American auto industry, the real reason American car companies lost market share to foreign competitors was their willingness to peddle outdated, modified pickup trucks instead of developing passenger cars the the American public wanted to drive. While foreign car companies were still spending R&D dollars on sedans that were attractive to families wanting to escape the SUV and crossover fad, American companies were spending their efforts building glorified and frosted trucks and calling them "luxury" vehicles.

American companies were also late in realizing that Americans could and would appreciate quality in the form of well put together cars made from decent materials. Today they have awakened to the need to build high quality vehicles to compete, even here in the domestic U.S. market, and are bringing out some of the best cats in the world. Hopefully the American public will recognize this trend and return to domestic car brands showrooms to buy their next car.


Or, people wanted SUVs back then and (truth be told) people want them now. They just either don't want to look un-PC, or are afraid they won't be able to afford the gas. (Which wouldn't be an issue, if we had a sensible energy policy, and not some green freak social experiment).

HOWEVER -- that doesn't excuse the Big 3 from taking the huge profits they made off of SUVs and further their car development efforts. IF they had, I wonder what a 2011 Roadmaster wagon could have been instead of a 1996....

Playdrv4me
12-06-10, 11:25 PM
:dummy:

I hate automated phone attendants....

I think I hate the "fake-real" phone attendants that FORCE you to talk to the computer even more though.

gdwriter
12-07-10, 12:47 AM
:yeah:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-07-10, 01:16 AM
Oh, fer chrissake, THIS discussion, AGAIN?


GLOBAL ECONOMY, PEOPLE! It's not as simple as "I only buy American made cars", because, ya know what? There's really no such thing anymore as an entirely domestically made and engineered car. The foreign brands have factories and R&D centers here, and a lot of the domestic brands build cars overseas or in Canada. I'm not saying it's all that way, but it's the majority and it's only gonna get more common.

If I were to buy new, which I won't ever, I'd rather buy from a company that employs thousands of Americans in their R&D and manufacturing and sends the money home to a foreign company, than a domestic company that has their car built in a foreign nation. Why should we support a company that decides to outsource labor to save money? Why not buy something from a company that employs hard working americans, because their employees are as American as we are (well, aside from you Canucks :) ) and by buying their product we're telling them "I like your car and your business structure. Keep it in America"

ewill3rd
12-07-10, 09:46 AM
That is true, most of the parts I see are sourced from other countries. Of course the labor unions made that happen too. GM used to manufacture parts, now they sell the sourcing to the lowest bidder and all they do is design them order parts and assemble them.
I would rather support my neighbor.

noahsdad
12-11-10, 01:14 AM
Speaking as someone who was born and lived most of my life in Michigan, the American Auto Industry problem has many fathers, but they are all named mismanagement.

Problem 1: Began in 1965 with Ralph Nader. While the Unsafe at Any Speed movement did accomplish several important safety advancements, the truth is Detroit had already begun shifting toward safer vehicles in the late 1950s. What Nader did is get the grimy hand of government involved, ramming all kinds of useless (and a handful of reasonable) mandates down the throats of the industry. Once the government cockroaches get in, it's just like the mob. They move in, take over, and own you. That dovetails directly into -

Problem 2: Most of the same officials were in the back pockets of Hoffa and the Unions. That gave the UAW big leverage, and tipped the adversarial balance. The car companies were raped raw during good times, and fought back with open warfare in lean times (Buick City). It got so bad, that up until GM and Chrysler sold their souls completely to the Washington thugs, roughly $2000 of every sticker price went to pay people who were no longer producing a dime for the company. Honda and Toyota were investing that money into R & D - and through the 80s and 90s, it showed with dramatic results.

Problem 3: NAFTA created exactly the giant sucking sound that Ross Perot predicted. To compete, the big three were forced to outsource thousands of tasks they used to do in-house. Oldsmobile used to build their own engines right next door to the plant where the cars were assembled for heavens sake! Now GM has two "assembly plants" in Lansing which are basically automated puzzle factories, employing less than 1/5th of the former workforce.

Problem 4: While I respect I-Luv-Caddies greatly, the world economy is a fantasy. The only way a world economy can function is if the competing nations share the same social values, ethics, and a level playing field. None of that exists, and isn't likely to ever exist. Nationalism is alive an well in every country except America, and we are the only nation who is expected to bend over and take it in the rear in the "world economy." The dirty little secret is that all of the Asian nations have subsidized their heavy industry for decades, while the US Government milks ours dry.

Problem 5 is the real core, and it's been expressed here already. A painful lack of American pride in America, and an even more painful lack of pride in ourselves as individuals.

Aron9000
12-11-10, 01:41 AM
Problem 3: NAFTA created exactly the giant sucking sound that Ross Perot predicted. To compete, the big three were forced to outsource thousands of tasks they used to do in-house. Oldsmobile used to build their own engines right next door to the plant where the cars were assembled for heavens sake! Now GM has two "assembly plants" in Lansing which are basically automated puzzle factories, employing less than 1/5th of the former workforce.


I think NAFTA and other free trade agreements is the MAIN reason for this recession/depression. So many jobs have moved overseas, even high tech jobs like computer programming are now done in India. There is absolutely no incentive for corporations to use American labor now days, which is quite sad. We'll never get out of this recession IMO unless we start building stuff here in this country again.

Playdrv4me
12-11-10, 04:06 AM
Problem 5 is the real core, and it's been expressed here already. A painful lack of American pride in America, and an even more painful lack of pride in ourselves as individuals.

A generally well-written, thoughtful and salient analysis of the problem at hand. However I take issue with your last two paragraphs and this one in particular.

Recently American cars have been for the first time in along time, the FIRST on my shopping list. However I have absolutely no problem replacing that spot with any manufacturer that I feel fulfills my needs and builds the best product, and I hope I never have to apologize for that fact. For most of the previous decade (early 2000s) Detroit built damn near nothing worth spitting 2 feet for and, the products they DID build, mostly reeked of shoddy quality. I have PLENTY of pride in my country, PRECISELY because I have the right to make the choice that suits me best.

noahsdad
12-11-10, 11:31 AM
A generally well-written, thoughtful and salient analysis of the problem at hand. However I take issue with your last two paragraphs and this one in particular.

Recently American cars have been for the first time in along time, the FIRST on my shopping list. However I have absolutely no problem replacing that spot with any manufacturer that I feel fulfills my needs and builds the best product, and I hope I never have to apologize for that fact. For most of the previous decade (early 2000s) Detroit built damn near nothing worth spitting 2 feet for and, the products they DID build, mostly reeked of shoddy quality. I have PLENTY of pride in my country, PRECISELY because I have the right to make the choice that suits me best.

This wasn't aimed at consumers who purchase imported goods. You won't find a stronger advocate for free markets than me; but what we call free markets in the "world economy" is closer to black-ops warfare than business. My "painful lack of pride" remark is a general statement on our culture, and how we approach our work, lifestyles, and building toward the future. Thirty years ago, the shared vision of almost everyone in the middle class was to work hard and make the world a better place for the next generation. Now it's generally accepted that our kids will have a lower standard of living, and incredibly, most people seem okay with that as long as it doesn't interrupt their own comfort. Presently we are spending our kids' futures like drunken sailors, just so crowds can rush out on Black Friday and trample each other for a $200 X-Box.

Thankfully, it is a trend that appears to be gradually changing course, motivated mostly by one of the most basic of human instincts: survival.

Bro-Ham
12-11-10, 12:04 PM
People are smart, they buy the cars they want.

Unless government dictates the terms and stands in the way. High gas prices are crippling everything because we're not using our own resources. Unions are favored despite their strangling wastefulness in supporting people cradle to grave plus paying them unsustainably unrealistic wages. Interventions in over regulating safety mandates that should be left to the market to sort out. Now we have the government directly owning domestic car companies, deciding who will lead them, and what kind of cars they will make, and liberals always choose cars no one wants, but they think we should be forced to drive them, and the lib elites still ride in large SUV's and limousines.

I say if we were drilling here, drilling now, starting over two years ago had obama been defeated, our economy would already be jump started with stable low fuel prices and we would see the resulting car choices Americans would make which, I think, would be big, safe, comfortable vehicles - - as it should be.

hueterm
12-11-10, 12:38 PM
THIS ^ Very nicely put.

RippyPartsDept
12-11-10, 12:41 PM
Just FYI, the US Treasury has sold about half of their shares in the new GM bringing them to about 33% ownership of the company. I think the govt has to wait like 6 months before selling more ... if the stock prices rises enough by the time the govt does sell the rest of it's shares it looks like the US taxpayers might actually see some profit from the $50 billion 'investment'/bailout (apparently we made $12 billion from the Citigroup 'investment'/bailout).

RippyPartsDept
12-11-10, 12:54 PM
Not to de-rail the thread or anything, but i think the economy needs jobs more than it needs cheaper fuel prices

orconn
12-11-10, 02:22 PM
Speaking as someone who was born and lived most of my life in Michigan, the American Auto Industry problem has many fathers, but they are all named mismanagement.

Problem 1: Began in 1965 with Ralph Nader. While the Unsafe at Any Speed movement did accomplish several important safety advancements, the truth is Detroit had already begun shifting toward safer vehicles in the late 1950s. What Nader did is get the grimy hand of government involved, ramming all kinds of useless (and a handful of reasonable) mandates down the throats of the industry. Once the government cockroaches get in, it's just like the mob. They move in, take over, and own you. That dovetails directly into -

Problem 2: Most of the same officials were in the back pockets of Hoffa and the Unions. That gave the UAW big leverage, and tipped the adversarial balance. The car companies were raped raw during good times, and fought back with open warfare in lean times (Buick City). It got so bad, that up until GM and Chrysler sold their souls completely to the Washington thugs, roughly $2000 of every sticker price went to pay people who were no longer producing a dime for the company. Honda and Toyota were investing that money into R & D - and through the 80s and 90s, it showed with dramatic results.

Problem 3: NAFTA created exactly the giant sucking sound that Ross Perot predicted. To compete, the big three were forced to outsource thousands of tasks they used to do in-house. Oldsmobile used to build their own engines right next door to the plant where the cars were assembled for heavens sake! Now GM has two "assembly plants" in Lansing which are basically automated puzzle factories, employing less than 1/5th of the former workforce.

Problem 4: While I respect I-Luv-Caddies greatly, the world economy is a fantasy. The only way a world economy can function is if the competing nations share the same social values, ethics, and a level playing field. None of that exists, and isn't likely to ever exist. Nationalism is alive an well in every country except America, and we are the only nation who is expected to bend over and take it in the rear in the "world economy." The dirty little secret is that all of the Asian nations have subsidized their heavy industry for decades, while the US Government milks ours dry.

Problem 5 is the real core, and it's been expressed here already. A painful lack of American pride in America, and an even more painful lack of pride in ourselves as individuals.

Very well said, I also agree that there is a lack of pride as Americans and as individuals who are capable of over coming the problems facing America. Let's face several preceding administrations, whether Republican or Democrat, have successively given away trade privileges to foreign countries, while not insisting on equal access and fair trade practices from them in return. The unjustified, and unconscionable elimination of prudent regulation of fuinancial and other industries for the benefit of a small avaricious business class to the detriment of shareholders and the American middle classes. For the benefit and of all Americans and their future generations we must ask for and ensure the passage of laws that provide incentives for business to bring manufacturing and other economic engines back to the United States. We must break the hold that a small, self serving segment of our society has on Congress and demand that our representatives represent all their constituents and not just those that line our legislators pockets. If we do not do this we as a nation will continue our decline to an also ran in the world!

jedhead
12-11-10, 02:57 PM
I think another major part of our problems is the corruption of our educational system. Our schools are doing a bad job of teaching our kids and the parents who are pushing the schools for better education is in the minority. When my kids started school and I saw the quality of education, I worked hard with other concerned parents and replaced the school board. This helped the schools perform better but there was at least one teacher in each grade who actually harmed the kids education. I was able to steer my kids clear of these bad teacher because I was involved with the PTA and spent time at the school to identify these teachers. Since they were tenured they were protected by the unions and could not be replaced. Even the "Honors" programs at the high schools didn't push the kids harder than my regular classes at the DOD schools overseas, which were considered substandard in my day. When my kids were going to University, they ran into professors who graded them on how well they were indoctrinated. My daughters learned that my writing papers praising leftist causes guaranteed them "A's". I was also informed that some of the kids attending university were turning in papers in "chat speak" with all the abreivations used texting, scary. The school problems can only be fixed by having more parents be parents, replace school boards and fight the unions who protect the incompetant.

Bob

Bro-Ham
12-11-10, 03:56 PM
Not to de-rail the thread or anything, but i think the economy needs jobs more than it needs cheaper fuel prices

Lower fuel prices get everything moving. I say it's hard to have more real jobs without low fuel prices. Think about how much stimulation that could take place if gas were $1.50 per gallon like it was barely more than a couple years ago. That allows lots of people to move more economically for business and pleasure, also goods can be transported less expensively, and so on.

The current rusty engine of capitalism needs to come back to life, and for this to happen government needs to get out of the way, and then we'll see jobs. I say more oil refineries need to be built, same for nuclear power plants, and clean coal is good. Think about how libs oppose all of this. Then think of all the zillions of dollars that have been wasted on the myth of "green" energy and how it is only perpetuated the misery - and not stimulated but hindered, like all ideas that are put forth by the libs in government who think they know what's best for us rather than ideas that are the will of the people who know what is best for themselves.

I hope people are wide awake on election day in 2012. Cadillac will make its way back to the top when Americans are first back on their feet as the standard of the world.

orconn
12-11-10, 03:56 PM
^^^ I agree entirely with Bob, our schools and our educators have let us down badly by diluting the content of the education delivered and by demanding less and less of their students. This not an impression, or hearsay, but can be seen in what is demanded of today's college students. In 1961 full time college students spent 24 hours per week outside of class studying, today's students are averaging 14 non class hours studying. Courses have been dumbed down and grades inflated to allow even mediocre intellects to succeed in obtaining a degree. Professors gladly trade a less demanding curriculum for their students for more time to spend on their, wage and status enhancing, research and writing.

The teacher's unions have so undermined the incentives for a demanding primary or secondary education that the sorry state of the preparation of high school graduates for higher education is the norm rather than the exception for the nation's school's. I remember a situation in the Fairfax County Virginia schools, when a study revealed that high school students required more hours of sleep than they were getting due to having to catch school buses at 6 to 6:30 AM. It was suggested that the high school hours be adjusted to make the starting time later (like 9;00AM instead of 8:15AM) and extending the school day to a later closing time in the afternoon. The howl from the teachers was deafening, even though their teaching day would remain the same and the change held the potential of greatly benefiting the students capacity to learn, the teachers howled bloody murder that this would greatly interfere with "their" schedules. While by no means unique to the Fairfax County schools (some of the best rated in the state and nation) this placing of teacher convenience over the needs of the students has become all too prevalent around America. It is true that there are excellent teachers teaching in our schools, but unfortunately there are many more that short change the student and remain in their positions due to union rules and activities.

Administrators seem to fail even more often in their responsibilities, and this is inspite of the proliferation of administrator numbers in our schools. When was the last time you saw a completely ridiculous, ignorant and just plain stupid decision on the part of a school administrator on the nightly news (both local and national)? Honor student suspended for bringing a cold tablet to school, or student sent home for wearing a tee shirt with the American flag on it! With brain power like this brought to bear on the nation's education problems is it any wonder that our schools are producing inferior products and costing us more, per capita, than any other, much better performing, school system in the world?

However, as Bob said, the fault also rests with us. We have not been diligent in ensuring that our children get a good education , or that our universities educate our students to the standards we need in our society. Our legislators have poured more and more money into education and yet we see declining standards and an inferior product emerging from our institutions of higher learning. It is up to us to quit leaving these responsibilities to others and to get involved.

Jesda
12-11-10, 04:45 PM
Ahh geez, this thread is full of flawed assertions about economics.

I'm going to take a nap and return to this topic later. Marking my place.

Playdrv4me
12-11-10, 05:23 PM
^ I knew this was coming.

drewsdeville
12-11-10, 06:57 PM
Lollerskates

EChas3
12-11-10, 07:19 PM
I think I hate the "fake-real" phone attendants that FORCE you to talk to the computer even more though.

I can deal with the fake attendants. I just hate computers 'thanking' me. I spend a third of my life forcing them to do my bidding... Thank who?

SDCaddyLacky
12-12-10, 06:33 AM
IMO corporate America has screwed over the American worker and has taken advantage of slave labor practices in other poor countries, which is slowly not going to cut it in the near future. The Republicans and their "Free Market" policies and beliefs, has taken it's tole on this country. Capitalism has it's faults, if we all think for a minute, "What If" Obama hadn't bailed out the banks, GM and Chrysler? How much worse would our nations economy be in right now. I know people, including myself hated the bailouts and corporate give aways, but the truth is, he had to do what was necessary, by spending billions just to keep us afloat. Any Repub, probably would have done the same thing, if McCain was president though, at this moment, I honestly feel the US would be in another great depression, because of his ultra conservative beliefs. His analogy "Let the free market take care of itself" YEAH SURE BUDDY! And wait until all the banks go under, including the auto industry, and other businesses with millions upon millions of more people out of work. It would be impossible for us to recover from this recession, if the government didn't step in.

I understand and know that auto workers in this country get paid way way too much money to do simple tasks, $45 an hour putting together door panels, is insane, I could see maybe $25 an hour to satisfy and give the employee a good wage so he or she can live on, but any more than that is putting the company in the hole. REALISTIC wages is more like it, instead of paying our workers dirt cheap, how about enough for them to raise a family, and not barely enough to pay for rent? Corporate America has ship so many jobs over seas, I don't know what the hell we make anymore. The government should be giving huge tax breaks or some sort of incentives to these greedy ass corporations so we can start bringing jobs back to our country for god sakes.

Greed has taken over many industries, companies want to make way over 100% profit in everything they do. Cash comes much easier for parts suppliers, or Wal Mart to pay a person 5 cents an hour to make a shock or a T-Shirt, and sell that Shirt for $60, or that shock for $45, think about the huge mark up and profit the manufacturer makes of slave labor? It's sad, and terrible, but the lust to make more money for these corporations has gotten out of control. They wont even sacrifice just a little to do the right thing by paying people decent living wages here in America, or over seas....zero. none..nada. Sure we might pay more in money for certain items, but at least we will be self sufficient, and dependent on ourselves, not other countries that seek to destroy or ruin our country. Seriously, America is turning into a country where we have accepted the fact, that at any moment, China could cut us off in a second. Hold us hostage, and possibly take over the US for whatever reasons. And all of us would say "I told you so", but the government cares too much about keeping corporate America happy, and will do everything in there power to keep it that way. The Repubs are to blame for this, I'm sorry but there policies are screwed up, and has damaged this country deeply. They don't care about the American worker, only the very wealthy and profits of big corps, thats the bottom line. Just wait until we go to war with China, or North Korea, China has us by the balls, and could destroy us in a second, by stopping all trade. That is very scary people.

SDCaddyLacky
12-12-10, 07:01 AM
Back to the car segment of this topic. GM and Ford built shitty cars 10-20 years ago, not all of them were bad, but many of them were. Shoddy cheap interior build quality, unreliable FWD cars that were below par, and behind the curve when it came to the imports.

Today on the other hand, is completely different. YES, there really isn't a true American car anymore, everything is made from somewhere else, and the quality between many brands are closing in fast. I used to like Honda's, especially the Accords, but the 2009-10 Chevy Malibu is a better car than the 09-10 Accord, it's quieter inside, it rides nicer, has nice material quality, that's the truth. I wouldn't have said that 10 or 7 years ago.

So the point is, buy the car that makes you happy, since all of them are great cars now. Hyundai for crying out loud, is doing a terrific job with their cars, building better vehicles than Crapola Toyota's. I still have no idea why people are buying Toyo's at this time, when there's so many other better options for non car people to choose from. They still believe Toyo's are reliable, the older ones from the 90's were for sure, but 2003+ forget it.

What the American Auto Industry needs badly, is an identity. Because it doesn't have one at the moment. Everybody is trying to be like Honda and Toyota. They need to stop that already! build cars that scream style and flair for Americans! Build bold vehicles like before that brought customers in the show rooms. The engineering is bolted down, all that's missing is an identity, a styling trait people can relate to.

Chevy needs to do more with it's styling, it needs to be a lot sharper, a design that is more luxurious like the new Elantra. Or bring out a car that's more upscale to lure buyers that might be considering a Toyo Avalon or something in that price range that's truly worth it.

billc83
12-12-10, 08:19 AM
GM's entire system is still suspect, even though their quality has improved. If you beat your wife 10 - 20 years ago (not all the time, granted, but often), do you think she would return to you after the divorce?

Jesda
12-12-10, 10:45 AM
There is unfairness in the way trade agreements are arranged. I can't disagree with that. Japan gets to dump its cars on the US but remains protective of its home market. However, the solution isn't to counter their heavily government-supported industries by doing the same with our own. Japan and South Korea compromise by spending vast public resources manipulating currency, influencing trade policy, and arm-twisting their banking systems to favor large homegrown conglomerates. This takes away from resources available for other public services and programs. So, while it seems like they've cleverly found a way to clobber our domestic industries, understand that it comes at a cost. Japan has been dealing with an economic slump since the 90s, itself the victim of maturity and the aggressive growth of Asian competitors.

Its easy to fall back on protectionism as a way of protecting our industries, but tariffs lead to counter-tariffs which lead to higher costs and closed markets. The Smoot-Hawley Act raised tariffs dramatically and was one of several major contributors to the Great Depression.

We also have the unfortunate burden of two wars, ongoing global policing, and other expensive global and domestic agendas. We simply can't afford to protect our industries this way. American ambition has no limit, but we don't have unlimited resources.

Our overall standard of living is much higher in a global economy thanks not just to low-cost labor, but because of markets that allow us to export our goods and services. If you need proof, see the video I posted last week with the bubble charts and the man with the funny accent. Global transportation and communication have allowed human beings on the bottom to emerge from poverty in a way never before seen in history, of course that means emerging markets are joining the industrialized world and exporting their own goods.

That brings us back to the issue of competition. Like Bob and Orconn said above, education standards have to improve. We send young people to college where they get hammered and drop out, and college basketball coaches earn more than professors and administrators. We'll build a gymnasium before we build a new chem lab. If education is a vital part of basic infrastructure, its crumbling.

There's also an increased burden on American firms to rapidly improve its products and services at a pace exceeding its competition. Looking at GM, it seems pretty clear that complacency was a greater cause of its three-decade decline than foreign competition. We should look at Honda as a "check" on domestic autos, an additional push to maintain high levels of quality and design appeal.

We also have to tackle our debt crisis. In the past, bonds sold to Americans were used to raise money for war efforts and large federal projects. Now, we sell our debt to China. Some have called it the financial equivalent of handing our strategic oil reserve to Saudi Arabia. While foreign ownership of American debt can be a major vulnerability, it also ensures China's interest in our ongoing prosperity. Likewise, we also purchase foreign debt and profit from Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian growth.

Moral of the story:
Everything is connected. "Us vs them" is an antiquated perspective.



Sorry about the wall of text. :)

Bro-Ham
12-12-10, 03:23 PM
bottom line, pride in ourselves, pride in our country, waaaaaaay less government, people are smart and will figure it out without government trying to be a nanny. We shall overcome. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-12-10, 03:30 PM
No more nannystate!

orconn
12-12-10, 04:42 PM
There is unfairness in the way trade agreements are arranged. I can't disagree with that. Japan gets to dump its cars on the US but remains protective of its home market. However, the solution isn't to counter their heavily government-supported industries by doing the same with our own. Japan and South Korea compromise by spending vast public resources manipulating currency, influencing trade policy, and arm-twisting their banking systems to favor large homegrown conglomerates. This takes away from resources available for other public services and programs. So, while it seems like they've cleverly found a way to clobber our domestic industries, understand that it comes at a cost. Japan has been dealing with an economic slump since the 90s, itself the victim of maturity and the aggressive growth of Asian competitors.

Its easy to fall back on protectionism as a way of protecting our industries, but tariffs lead to counter-tariffs which lead to higher costs and closed markets. The Smoot-Hawley Act raised tariffs dramatically and was one of several major contributors to the Great Depression.

We also have the unfortunate burden of two wars, ongoing global policing, and other expensive global and domestic agendas. We simply can't afford to protect our industries this way. American ambition has no limit, but we don't have unlimited resources.

Our overall standard of living is much higher in a global economy thanks not just to low-cost labor, but because of markets that allow us to export our goods and services. If you need proof, see the video I posted last week with the bubble charts and the man with the funny accent. Global transportation and communication have allowed human beings on the bottom to emerge from poverty in a way never before seen in history, of course that means emerging markets are joining the industrialized world and exporting their own goods.

That brings us back to the issue of competition. Like Bob and Orconn said above, education standards have to improve. We send young people to college where they get hammered and drop out, and college basketball coaches earn more than professors and administrators. We'll build a gymnasium before we build a new chem lab. If education is a vital part of basic infrastructure, its crumbling.

There's also an increased burden on American firms to rapidly improve its products and services at a pace exceeding its competition. Looking at GM, it seems pretty clear that complacency was a greater cause of its three-decade decline than foreign competition. We should look at Honda as a "check" on domestic autos, an additional push to maintain high levels of quality and design appeal.

We also have to tackle our debt crisis. In the past, bonds sold to Americans were used to raise money for war efforts and large federal projects. Now, we sell our debt to China. Some have called it the financial equivalent of handing our strategic oil reserve to Saudi Arabia. While foreign ownership of American debt can be a major vulnerability, it also ensures China's interest in our ongoing prosperity. Likewise, we also purchase foreign debt and profit from Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian growth.

Moral of the story:
Everything is connected. "Us vs them" is an antiquated perspective.



Sorry about the wall of text. :)

I agree with what Jesda has said in the above, however, our government must pursue greater access to foreign markets. Given the cost pf labor advantage that still prevails in the second and third world, there is no reason for the U.S. putting up with very restrictive tariff barriers preventing our products from free access to their markets. We must also negotiate free access to their markets for our efficient marketing companies so their competition can penetrate these countries market places for the benefit of their consumers (the antiquated and highly restrictive distribution system of Japan not only effectively closes off American access to their marketplace, but literally rapes the Japanese consumer with high cost of not only consumer hard goods, but food, beverages and other daily consumables).

Our government must also devise incentives for keeping manufacturing capabilities and facilities within the U.S. We not only need to have manufacturing in this country for strategic an tactical defense purposes, but we need to have a work source for those Americans, who are not equipped intellectually or educationally, or temperamentally, to perform the tasks required in an "information economy." Business must be given incentives to pursue long term profit goals that benefit the nation as a whole, and business leaders must be trained to seek long term profitable success as admirable goals instead of slavishly managing for the purpose of producing next quarter's paper profit. The current environment in this country encourages, no promotes, management practices which seem only to enhance supposedly "key" executives remuneration at the expense of shareholder return and the long term benefit of the nation.

The solution to America's present dilemma, does not lie in simple "laissez faire" rhetoric or knee jerk calls for the elimination of the "nanny state" but rather policies that encourage American economic growth and a return of middle class solvency.

gdwriter
12-12-10, 05:28 PM
The solution to America's present dilemma, does not lie in simple "laissez faire" rhetoric or knee jerk calls for the elimination of the "nanny state" but rather policies that encourage American economic growth and a return of middle class solvency.:yeah:

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-12-10, 05:57 PM
I agree that we need to find ways to keep business, especially manufacturing business, in America. Since the 1970s, so much of that has gone overseas or to Mexico/Canada it's ridiculous. Tax breaks for those that keep more workers in America would be crucial, or perhaps a bigger tax break (or other reward) for those that close down foreign offices or factories and bring the work back home?

What always interested me was how so many foreign car manufacturers assemble their cars in America, yet some of the domestic companies make theirs overseas. Why is that? It can't be a wages/price thing because the cars end up costing the same in the end.

Sandy
12-12-10, 06:19 PM
Ha Ha Ha ~ ~ You do not like "Press "1" for English ???? HOW friendly will you be when it becomes "Press " 1 " for Spanish ??

Bro-Ham
12-12-10, 06:33 PM
Orr, your premise is "government must do this" and "government should do that" and I disagree because I observe that government could screw up a one car parade. Continuing government meddling with our economics has never solved our national problems except when government gets out of the way of the will of the people with lower taxes, simplified tax code, less regulation for businesses and individuals, and, simply, more freedom. We are the entrepreneurs, business owners, hard workers, etc. You may not like the over simplification although I do not like the behemoth government has become which has strangled all of us. The giveaways, especially recently, to unions, including labor, teachers, and federal workers, adds to the misery. I hope we can all look past the real or imagined obstacles of government being such an apparent high measure of how our lives operate. It's time for a new starting point because where we're at and where we're going isn't pretty.

Playdrv4me
12-12-10, 07:55 PM
^ This.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-12-10, 08:09 PM
Totally agree with Dave!

orconn
12-12-10, 09:03 PM
Orr, your premise is "government must do this" and "government should do that" and I disagree because I observe that government could screw up a one car parade. Continuing government meddling with our economics has never solved our national problems except when government gets out of the way of the will of the people with lower taxes, simplified tax code, less regulation for businesses and individuals, and, simply, more freedom. We are the entrepreneurs, business owners, hard workers, etc. You may not like the over simplification although I do not like the behemoth government has become which has strangled all of us. The giveaways, especially recently, to unions, including labor, teachers, and federal workers, adds to the misery. I hope we can all look past the real or imagined obstacles of government being such an apparent high measure of how our lives operate. It's time for a new starting point because where we're at and where we're going isn't pretty.

When it comes to negotiating foreign trade agreements and providing incentives to bring manufacturing and customer service operations back to the U.S. it is the government that must take the initiative. Individual companies don't stand a chance of breaking the barriers preventing them from equal access to foreign markets. To think otherwise is naive.

Being in a period when deregulation of the financial industry brought on a situation that threatened (and may well yet)to bring the international financial system to total collapse, we have witnessed what ignorance and unbridled greed can to when left to strictly market forces. Left to do business unfettered by regulations members of the financial community (from various segments) pursued short term profits by discarding even moderate prudence and taking risks (with other people's money), that either neither understood or disregarded, for their own personal gain resulting in gross mismanagement and in the final solution the repudiation of capitalist principals by having to be bailed out by the constituents of the government they so disdained.

While it is wonderful to espouse a philosophy of independence and self reliance, it is quite something else when your own personal initiative is blunted and destroyed by capitalism's nasty side .... the monopolistic greed of the few which crushes those too weak defend themselves against these forces. Regulation that stifles individual initiative is a bad thing, however, regulation that attempts to prevent the baser elements in society from cheating and stealing the wealth accumulated by others, or to destroy competitors by artificially manipulating the marketplace, to name just two instances, must be embraced to insure a true marketplace where newcomers as well as established players can have an equal shot at success.

I agree many of regulations should be rescinded because they either are so strict (as in many of our environmental regulations) that they cannot be enforced or because they stifle the development of technology capable of dealing effectively with the danger. I also agree our tax codes should be reviewed and rewritten to more equitably spread the burden of financing the nation's needs. But to advocate the abolishment of all regulation I believe is both foolhardy and terminally naive.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-12-10, 09:31 PM
Don't terminate all regulation, just back it off a bit (a lot).

Jesda
12-12-10, 10:59 PM
Completely free and open markets -do- work. Unfortunately, its hard to enjoy the benefits from that when your trading partners are so restrictive.

orconn
12-13-10, 12:30 AM
Completely free and open markets -do- work. Unfortunately, its hard to enjoy the benefits from that when your trading partners are so restrictive.

What exactly are you saying? That in theory, or an ideal situation, "free markets work"; however, in the real world, we live in, the ideal free market scenario is not present and therefore "free markets" are unable to work as you would like? As far as making international trade policy, what use is this assertion?

Jesda
12-13-10, 01:37 AM
What exactly are you saying? That in theory, or an ideal situation, "free markets work"; however, in the real world, we live in, the ideal free market scenario is not present and therefore "free markets" are unable to work as you would like? As far as making international trade policy, what use is this assertion?

Nations that trade amongst each other are stronger economically than those that do not.

Say you have:
Nation A | Nation B | Nation C

Symbols:
| = Borders with no trade
<-> = Free trade

Nation A <-> Nation B | Nation C

A and B have access to each other's markets, labor resources, natural resources, and goods. C is forced to rely on itself and suffers limited growth. Trade restrictions are the equivalent of poor nutrition.
You can't possibly get all the nutrition you need from just eating spinach. You need a diverse mix of meats, vegetables, and fruits, which you can't produce entirely by yourself, to stay healthy.

Imagine if you had to raise your own pigs, corn, build your own shelter, and provide for your own defense all at the same time. You wouldn't have any resources left to develop a great deal of technical expertise. This is how several third-world nations with protective military regimes operate. They're primarily agrarian and will remain that way without outside investment and access to foreign markets.

It doesn't have to be an ideal world for free trade to work. All it takes are a few parties willing to accept the risks and rewards. Our leaders should focus less on protecting our poorly run, uncompetitive firms and more on preparing complacent Americans to finally accept the reality of competition.

We're no longer competing with our neighbors in Mexico and Canada for jobs, resources, and goods. We're competing with the whole world. In a short period of time, we've gone from a competitive environment of 400-600 million people to several billion.

Its been a shock to some industries, and a few have risen to the challenge. The only options are to step up or get left behind.

gdwriter
12-13-10, 01:38 AM
I heartily agree with Orconn.

The only thing I can add is to steal a line from the late, great Molly Ivins: "if you think any and all government regulation must be eliminated, take down all the stops signs and traffic lights and see how you like it."

Jesda
12-13-10, 02:30 AM
Molly's statement makes the unsubtle assumption that a society wouldn't function without a large, intrusive federal government, that human beings are helpless in a free society, therefore freedom must be replaced with regulation. In turn, those regulations intended to save us from ourselves are often controlled by well-established and successful firms that make the rules. Politicians pat themselves on the back while the knife digs deeper.

Molly is wrong, and her clever quip doesn't make any kind of valid statement on the issue of capitalism and free trade. Capitalism is a natural state where human beings are free to associate or dissociate with another economically. Interference ultimately involves forceful interjection.

gdwriter
12-13-10, 03:02 AM
I'm all for capitalism and free trade. I agree with Orconn's assessment, however, that unbridled greed aided by lax or non-existent regulation of the financial industry has done horrendous damage.

At the same time, lighten up. The quote was a joke, for cryin' out loud. Not a policy statement.

Jesda
12-13-10, 03:43 AM
I'm all for capitalism and free trade. I agree with Orconn's assessment, however, that unbridled greed aided by lax or non-existent regulation of the financial industry has done horrendous damage.

At the same time, lighten up. The quote was a joke, for cryin' out loud. Not a policy statement.

What you perceive as "unbridled greed" is actually greed funneled in a very organized, very deliberate way through the control mechanisms of government.

Who makes the rules? Not you or me. Populists will say "We oughtta nail them to the wall! We need new rules!"

Those who actually have the power to make these rules turn around and say, "Yeah, great idea! Let's do it!"
http://www.cibercronicas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/cool-face.jpg
Road to hell, good intentions, etc etc. Sounds like Iraq.






Molly Ivins wasn't joking either. She was making a lighthearted statement but she meant exactly what she said. Wordsmiths are skilled at taking major philosophical statements and packaging them into bite-sized chunks. Newspaper columns have word limits, after all, and she was one hell of a skilled writer.

RIP Molly.

Bro-Ham
12-13-10, 01:33 PM
What Wall Street "greed" are we talking about? The collapse of the financial system came about because of bad loans made to people who had no business getting them in the first place, that was not the decision of wall street, but the mandate of the liberal democrats who lowered the standards so anyone with a pulse could not only own a home, but a home that was way nicer and expensive than they had any business being able to buy - - that pressure for all the common folk to have homes was due pressure from ACORN who not only hustled banks individually but also got their great leader into the whitehouse. The subprime mortgage mess nearly wiped out our economy and the libs in government continue to dictate the terms of how business operates, and it seems that many people on this forum continue to give reality a pass - - I think that is the epitome of naive. My three cents. :)

97EldoCoupe
12-13-10, 02:21 PM
The answer to the USA and Canadian economies is simply, IMO, hard work, tax breaks, and buying local. Canada and the USA do so much business together I'm surprised there's not an express lane at each border that just x-rays the trucks and waves them on through - (well there is something close to that). Canadian labor rates are not that cheap so we're not much of a threat to the USA - it's other countries that has their "made in _____" sticker on the bottom of amost everything purchased at Walmart - that is a threat to both USA and Canada, probably more countries as well.

Buy American, buy Canadian. Very simple. Canada does not even have an auto manufacturer of its own, and I am surprised. There was for a while but Canada forced them into the USA -

If we need more than just GM, Ford, and Chrysler, producing vehicles for us, we need new, domestic manufacturing companies to form and fill the voids- keep the money in the countries. Of course there will always be exports and imports, which is good for everyone - but there has to be better regulations on how much, at what price, and people need to think "if we allow this to be sold within our country, what will it do to our economy and jobs-" Analysts need to forecast all of this and create limitations accordingly to protect Americans and Canadians.

If the sources and raw materials we need to produce something, exist here at home, we need to do it/build it/process it ourselves at all costs.

gdwriter
12-13-10, 02:51 PM
Dave, no offense, but blaming people who got mortgages they couldn't afford and ACORN is a right wing canard aimed at deflecting the blame from Wall Street. Yes, there are people who foolishly borrowed more than they could afford, but the borrowers themselves are a small part of the problem. Many lenders pushed these mortgages, not based on pressure from so-called liberals, but for the commissions and other fees they'd earn from approving these loans, then bundling what would become subprime mortgages and selling them as safe investments — aided and abetted by bond rating companies who rated them as investment grade, even though they were junk. Since these mortgage brokers sold off these subprime loans, they took on no risk.

Then there are things like credit default swaps (http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/26/the-monster-that-ate-wall-street.html)and other complex financial instruments that create no value other than to hide toxic assets (and rake in fees for companies like AIG and Goldman Sachs) until the time bomb blew. That is what lead to the taxpayer-funded bailout of AIG. 60 minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/05/60minutes/main4502454.shtml) did a story last year that explains how the subprime mortgage mess ballooned into a full-scale financial meltdown in layman's terms.

There's plenty of blame to go around for this. Essentially, Wall Street gambled on extremely risky investments that were sold as safe, mostly on borrowed money.

Bro-Ham
12-13-10, 03:19 PM
gd, that's creative thinking, and wishful also, yet it sounds like you've consumed the liberal kool-aid, and using 60 minutes in your footnotes hardly is an unbiased or credible source, so I'm not buying the handbook you're selling. :)

orconn
12-13-10, 03:45 PM
Both points of view expressed here have some merit. Yes there was complicity on the part of those who thought they were entitled (a lot more so called stable middle class working people than low income marginal borrowers) and there was the unethical and corrupt behavior on the part of "Wall Street" and the many who transacted business on financial companies' behalf. Whether it was naiveté that inspired folks to believe they could afford what only the top earners in our society could actually afford, or the desire to have the trappings of a class that they did not qualify (financially) to join .... the fact is that a lot of people did not realize that their new found status was supported by foundations of clay (unsupportable debt), and those who should have known better let better judgment go by the wayside and when they found out reality was about to rear its' ugly head foisted their mistakes off by lying and cheating and discarding the integrity that had made financial markets possible. Regulations had been rescinded and those that that remained were not enforced. Once again the trust of the followers of "laissez faire" economics and the reliance on the "best and brightest" had let us all down. The saddest part of all this is the roll that these events played in undermining the creditability of capitalism around the world.

I believe in the free enterprise system, but with prudent safeguards, in the form of regulations, that attempt to prevent the crooks and just plain ignorant among us who would defraud and otherwise wreck the system with their reckless and or immoral acts. The quest for profit is good for all of us, but divorced from any concern for the welfare of others and society as a whole it becomes "greed," and greed in the end only breeds destruction of the systems that mankind depends on for his welfare.

gdwriter
12-13-10, 04:35 PM
No Kool-Aid for me, Dave. I simply try to read from multiple sources and make my own judgments. I hew to no ideology beyond pragmatism. But I'm used to being in the minority here when discussing political issues, so it's no skin off my nose. But I continue to agree with Orconn's well-reasoned assessments.

Jesda
12-13-10, 05:09 PM
Once again the trust of the followers of "laissez faire" economics and the reliance on the "best and brightest" had let us all down. The saddest part of all this is the roll that these events played in undermining the creditability of capitalism around the world.

Except that's not what happened. There was no deregulation. The rules were simply manipulated to favor a powerful few.

It was as far removed from real capitalism as anything else. It was corporatism, something entirely different. Corporatism is the collusion of government and large well-established firms.

Bro-Ham
12-13-10, 05:52 PM
We're continuing to ask and attempt to answer the unanserable questions. I view the world differently than some here and I'm not about to walk in lock step with the liberal mantra. I think there is a difference between having laws and unreasonable regulation. There should be risk, reward, and also failure.

We learn from our mistakes and the losers should pay the penalty, just as winners should profit. What I see with the liberal mindset is the futile attempt to insulate people from the consequences of their decisions by always providing a safety net or bailout, and with this comes the price tag of government being in charge more and more, and that's what I would call the nanny state. Plus, how is it that the government is so good at what it does that we would trust it to do anything?!

Allowing failure causes all of us to learn and know better what to do or not to do. Putting government in charge of deciding what is right and wrong leads to endless government and still the problems and corruption exist, and seem to worsen the more government meddles. :)

RippyPartsDept
12-13-10, 06:32 PM
Did Deregulation Cause the Wall Street Crisis? (http://blog.heritage.org/2008/09/23/did-deregulation-cause-the-wall-street-crisis/)
(comment discussion is better than the article itself, but it was the number one google result)

Wall Street crisis is culmination of 28 years of deregulation (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/09/15/52559/wall-street-crisis-is-culmination.html)
"Warning signs began to appear. At least nine federal agencies oversee some part of the mortgage market, and from 2004 to 2007, at least three had issued warnings about risky loans."

Paulson admits deregulation has failed us all (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/paulsons-lament-deregulation-has-been-a-failure)
"You know things are very very bad on Wall Street when a guy like Henry Paulson -- Treasury secretary, solid Republican, and former Goldman Sachs CEO -- joins the crowd calling for more regulation over the financial markets."

those are #'s 1, 3, & 5 of the top google results for "deregulation of wall street"

Then, you've got stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUJ_Qn0AHTU

SDCaddyLacky
12-13-10, 10:55 PM
The next time this country gets into another major financial fiasco, with Wall Street collapsing, the auto industry failing, let's hope the government "doesn't step in", and allow Capitalism take care of itself. Our country can't afford any more bailouts, it's unsustainable.

At the same time, the government will always step in to protect Wall Street, at the cost of tax payers money. There should be a law against doing just that, because it will force corporations and banks to make honest decisions, and will promote better business practices because no longer will the government be able to step in and save their companies. Regulation is desperately needed to prevent another depression. You win some, and you lose some. That's true Capitalism.

RippyPartsDept
12-13-10, 10:59 PM
we actually made a few billion bailing out citigroup
aig might not work out so well
and it looks like we'll make our money back at least on the GM bailout too

http://www.dailyfinance.com/article/treasury-financial-bailout-income-at-35/1455727/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/credit/income-from-bailouts-rises-to-17-billion-report/19755052/

to sum it up:
earlier this year it looked like we would lose 109 billion of the 700 billion in TARP but now it only looks like we'll lose only 25 billion

who knows, if GM's stock price goes way up in the next six months we could break even! (like that's going to happen)

Aron9000
12-14-10, 02:44 AM
Honestly if we had allowed all of these institutions to fail and close up shop(Citigroup, AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc) I'm convinced we'd be seeing something like the great depression right now with unemployment from 15-20%. There wouldn't be a job to be had in Michigan.

As for the financial crisis, I agree with Orconn, pure greed on the part of banks and mortgage companies was our undoing. Of course goverment regulation( or lack of) allowed this type of market and lending practices to fly. Part of that does go back to the goverment wanting EVERYBODY to own their own home, which is a laudable goal, as long as people buy within their means. Loose lending practices allowed people to buy more than they could afford, thus our current mess.

Jesda
12-14-10, 05:40 AM
those are #'s 1, 3, & 5 of the top google results for "deregulation of wall street"


Its funny how they call it deregulation, yet there's nearly a dozen federal agencies overseeing activity. Its like the so-called deregulation of the energy industry in California. It was nothing more than a manipulation of the rules that allowed Enron to shut the lights off and jack up prices.

There needs to be a new word to define "halfass example of a regulated market"

Bro-Ham
12-14-10, 11:15 AM
"More regulation" is simply more and bigger government. Careful what you wish for. No amount of government regulation can hold everyone's hand enough to protect everyone from the big bad wolf. Time to put on the big boy pants, take personal responsibility and demand it from others. Leadership with these same values and ideals will do alot to inspire all of us to do the right things and make our country great again.

Be careful of trading away your freedoms - as regulations grow, freedoms die. :)

drewsdeville
12-14-10, 11:20 AM
Time to put on the big boy pants, take personal responsibility and demand it from others. Leadership with these same values and ideals will do alot to inspire all of us to do the right things and make our country great again.


POTD, right here.