13 Dec 08
Originally posted by uzlessAh, will i cut my throat after viewing it? I really can't afford the surgery,or a 30 day lock down in the loony bin.
The real debt is over 50 trillion.
The 10 trillion figure doesn't include the medicare deficit and other "off balance sheet" deficits.
Check out IOUSA for the true horror story.
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
GRANNY.
13 Dec 08
Originally posted by smw6869Well considering each household owes approx $450,000 in order to pay off the debt, I don't think you should worry about the cost of some cosmetic surgery.....
Ah, will i cut my throat after viewing it? I really can't afford the surgery,or a 30 day lock down in the loony bin.
GRANNY.
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by spruce112358Maybe we shouldn't subsicize failure in any business.
Still, I wish someone would explain to me why we will spend hundreds of billions on banks but not a penny on cars. I didn't want to spend hundreds of billions on banks.
And in Europe, Germany is complaining that the rest of the EU wants to 'toss billions around' to indebt future generations. They aren't going for it either.
So who has an answer for this?
15 Dec 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe auto industry is the same, and in fact their immediate problems are the direct result of the screwups of the bankers as much as their own incompetences and greed, management and worker alike.
But corporations like Citigroup and AIG were also badly mismanaged yet they were bailed out with golden parachutes to boot. So what makes the auto industry any worse? In fact, they are a cheap date compared to the bankers/insurers. Of course, I have not bothered to calculate if more US jobs would be lost with companies such as Citigroup/AIG compared to the auto industry, so I suppose this is the ONLY valid argument against my thesis.
It is an economic axiom that you get more of anything you subsidize. Punishment of failure, is a teacher. Bailout is a teacher also. What lesson do you want to teach?
Based on the wrangling in Congress, I don't see much chance of the auto companies ever becoming competitive and profitable, even if they get the money they are asking for. Too many strings will be attached, and part of the reason for their predicament at present is the governmental interference in their business already.
Our government actions favored the foreign manufacturers, who already had a product line of small efficient vehicles. When CAFE standards were introduced, the Japanese were already there, but Americans in large numbers still preferred larger vehicles. They had to either drop the large cars, or sell the small ones in larger numbers at a loss to meet CAFE requirements. This also led directly to the SUV and pickup craze, as they were not subject to CAFE regulations.
Other government mandates and decrees backfired, but the car companies paid the lawsuits as in airbags that killed people. The latest craze is GMs quest for the all electric car, which they admit they will most likely lose money selling.
Probably the worst thing to come out of a bailout or loan, will be a Car Czar. Most likely will end up being a pencil pusher of bean counter, with no knowledge of the auto business, and a political agenda. It should work out about as well as did a Drug Czar, or Education Czar.
Almost everything the Federal government has touched in the last five decades has been a pure disaster. Education, welfare, housing, so called Free Trade, fighting crime, creating jobs, you name it. Show me a Federal program that worked so well that it is no longer necessary. It doesn't exist.