| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2008 09:40:26 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by JH:
But there are hundreds of impoverished countries who would benefit from international aid and rebuilding and might even appreciate it, rather than sending in the suicide bombers. Why Afghanistan?
|
Why indeed.
The mess inside Afghanistan is largely a result of U.S. Cold War policy and our earlier foray into Afghanistan. |
Thanks for that post Spazmo, makes interesting reading.
Oh, and just back on the original topic, if AIG goes the same way as Lehman Brothers..... *then* we'll really see some trouble. |
|
|
|
09/16/2008 09:58:20 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
When the Soviets retreated with their tails between their legs in 1989, the U.S. largely packed up and went home too, leaving Afghanistan hanging in the breeze with little or no government.
In essence, the Afghans helped the U.S. bloody the nose of the Soviets and when it was time to repay them for their hard work, the U.S. ran off without paying the bill. Kinda came back to bite the U.S. in the ass. |
George senior did the same in Iraq with the Kurds. I hope we don't see a repeat of that scenario in Iraq or Afghanistan.
On another note, since this was sort of an economic thread to start off with, I would like to see more accountability from these two countries. Where are all the billions donated from other countries? What is the money used for? Media outlets should report on where the money goes after the media events are done with where we see all these wonderful countries donating millions upon millions of dollars. Show me the progress and maybe I'll gain an understanding of the real situation and the politicians would gain the luxury of an easier task when asking for more money. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:07:02 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Now that Lehman Brothers has filed for bankruptcy, and after seeing Merrill Lynch & Co. and Bear Stearns go the same route, what is going on here exactly? Are we seeing a start to a very sever depression like in 1929 and the following years? Are these the first signs to a major breakdown of the world's financial markets? Should we be scared and start taking precautions to avert this, personally and by our governments?
Or are these major players just getting what they deserve? By lending money to people who they knew could not pay back the money in the event of a minor financial squeeze, be it a family death or a slowdown in the housing market. Are these lenders just blowing hot air about their financial woes and are they posturing themselves for hefty government handouts and subsidies that our children's children will be paying for?
80 years after the great depression
Is it happening again? Did they see it coming in '29?
Thoughts? |
I'm thinking that you may be a bit disingenuous.
In the "Canada's turn for an election" thread, you say this:
Originally posted by Jac:
Get ready for American style referendums on capital punishment and abortion, to name just two. We hated Bush and his policies, if you can call them that, but we're not going to be done with him like our American friends in Nov. We're going to be stuck with Mini-Bush for a few years yet. |
That post led me to believe that you were a Canadian citizen. But your post above seems to imply that you are a citizen of the U.S., worrying about how hefty [U.S.] government handouts or subsidies that your childrens' children will be paying for.
So, I'm curious. Are you an U.S. Citizen living in Canada pretending to be Canadian, a Canadian pretending to be a citizen of the U.S., or a Canadian whose children are citizens of the U.S.? |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:15:11 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So, I'm curious. Are you an U.S. Citizen living in Canada pretending to be Canadian, a Canadian pretending to be a citizen of the U.S., or a Canadian whose children are citizens of the U.S.? |
My guess is that he's a Canadian who's aware that the fallout of the U.S. banking failure has global consequences. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:19:30 PM · #55 |
Entertaining takes on the economy:
(1) "Ann" writes: How... did these smart-alecky Ivy League MBA whiz kids destroy a 158 year old firm that survived the Civil War, the depression of the ̢۪90s (1890s for historical ignoramuses), the panic of 1907 and the Great Depression? {continued}
(2) Sparky T. Penguin in Farewell, My Lovely Economy.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 09:30:26. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:22:35 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, I'm curious. Are you an U.S. Citizen living in Canada pretending to be Canadian, a Canadian pretending to be a citizen of the U.S., or a Canadian whose children are citizens of the U.S.? |
My guess is that he's a Canadian who's aware that the fallout of the U.S. banking failure has global consequences. |
My guess is that he is an adult who is able to speak for himself.
Of course, I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:36:37 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
When the Soviets retreated with their tails between their legs in 1989, the U.S. largely packed up and went home too, leaving Afghanistan hanging in the breeze with little or no government.
In essence, the Afghans helped the U.S. bloody the nose of the Soviets and when it was time to repay them for their hard work, the U.S. ran off without paying the bill. Kinda came back to bite the U.S. in the ass. |
George senior did the same in Iraq with the Kurds. I hope we don't see a repeat of that scenario in Iraq or Afghanistan.
On another note, since this was sort of an economic thread to start off with, I would like to see more accountability from these two countries. Where are all the billions donated from other countries? What is the money used for? Media outlets should report on where the money goes after the media events are done with where we see all these wonderful countries donating millions upon millions of dollars. Show me the progress and maybe I'll gain an understanding of the real situation and the politicians would gain the luxury of an easier task when asking for more money. |
The biggest difference with Iraq was the establishment of the no-fly zones, restrictions on military movements allowed the Kurds to be, for the most part, independent of the Iraqis in the post Gulf War. That and the fact that a national government existed in Iraq after the conflict.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. literally just left. In 1987 $630 million dollars in arms, supplies and training was given by the US to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The Saudis and Egyptians added to that amount. The U.S. was also giving aid to Afghan refugees in Pakistan. When the conflict ended, all of that aid went immediately to $0. And chaos ensued.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:45:56 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
How much of your earnings would you like to send in? What are you willing to do without in order to help solve the problem? |
Whatever it takes, I will pay. That's the way it works. I'm not happy about being in Iraq and I think it was a tremendous waste of time, money and energy and viewed it as more of a diversion. Perhaps your children will pay for it...well, some American's gonna pay at some point...right??
Correct me if I'm wrong here... we have Never been at war and NOT raised taxes since now. |
The economy is 'fundamentally strong' because the oil companies and military suppliers are doing well LOL. It's the lobbyists point of view anyway. And who runs washington?
So to abu dhabi or china 'buying' the united states, let them take the chrysler building home - oh yeah, they can't, can they? We got their money from the sale and the building isn't going anywhere. fine by me.
A lot of the issues we're having we can fix. BUY AMERICAN! That keeps the profits in the US, the jobs in the US, the transportation in the US. Even if it costs you more (up front) to buy american (and I don't think it does) it will be cheaper in the long run. Look at oil prices. It's high because of China - they can afford more now. Why? Cause we're paying them to make almost everything we consume. We're to blame for our own situation.
And too many companies think short term, as in profits and such. That can be partly blamed on the tax code (and there fore lobbyists and politicians). A nice simple flat tax would be awesome and beneficial to us all.
How far will we crash? I'm getting worried about that. More bank failures in the US this year (and it aint over yet) than in the last 3 or 4 years combined. Housing still is in the crapper with no real end in sight. Car companies (at least the US ones) are advertising up to 40% off stick prices - FORTY PERCENT! Good god that can't be profitable at all, now can it? No profits and you can't pay your bills, or you need to borrow to do so. Not good. Not at all.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 04:57:48 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
How much of your earnings would you like to send in? What are you willing to do without in order to help solve the problem? |
Whatever it takes, I will pay. That's the way it works. I'm not happy about being in Iraq and I think it was a tremendous waste of time, money and energy and viewed it as more of a diversion. Perhaps your children will pay for it...well, some American's gonna pay at some point...right??
Correct me if I'm wrong here... we have Never been at war and NOT raised taxes since now. |
The economy is 'fundamentally strong' because the oil companies and military suppliers are doing well LOL. It's the lobbyists point of view anyway. And who runs washington?
So to abu dhabi or china 'buying' the united states, let them take the chrysler building home - oh yeah, they can't, can they? We got their money from the sale and the building isn't going anywhere. fine by me.
A lot of the issues we're having we can fix. BUY AMERICAN! That keeps the profits in the US, the jobs in the US, the transportation in the US. Even if it costs you more (up front) to buy american (and I don't think it does) it will be cheaper in the long run. Look at oil prices. It's high because of China - they can afford more now. Why? Cause we're paying them to make almost everything we consume. We're to blame for our own situation.
And too many companies think short term, as in profits and such. That can be partly blamed on the tax code (and there fore lobbyists and politicians). A nice simple flat tax would be awesome and beneficial to us all.
How far will we crash? I'm getting worried about that. More bank failures in the US this year (and it aint over yet) than in the last 3 or 4 years combined. Housing still is in the crapper with no real end in sight. Car companies (at least the US ones) are advertising up to 40% off stick prices - FORTY PERCENT! Good god that can't be profitable at all, now can it? No profits and you can't pay your bills, or you need to borrow to do so. Not good. Not at all. |
The auto industry is a cluster-duck in and of itself. Unlike most industries where they company build the products the customer wants to buy, with the automotive industry, the CAFE standards force automakes to build and sell cars that people don't want. To get people to buy them, the companies have to sell them at a loss so that their "fleet" meets those fuel economy standards and they can sell the vehicles that people want to buy.
I say the government should do away with the CAFE standards and create demand for efficient vehicles by keeping fuel prices high(blowing the crap out of stuff in the Middle East is NOT a good way to do this), providing tax credits for the purchase of efficient vehicles and taxing the purchase of inefficient vehicles even more than now. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 05:10:57 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So, I'm curious. Are you an U.S. Citizen living in Canada pretending to be Canadian, a Canadian pretending to be a citizen of the U.S., or a Canadian whose children are citizens of the U.S.? |
Nice disingenuous cut-and-dry choices you're offering him. If your guess is that he's an adult who can answer for himself, why not ask questions that aren't dripping with accusatory sarcasm? Anyway, what difference does it make? He's just another person that's aware of the global consequences of the U.S. banking failure. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 05:31:03 PM · #61 |
| I was inspired by this thread to go read up on the history of Afghanistan. Interesting. It's been in a more-or-less continuous state of war since 2000 BC which I can understand, given its geographic location. What I can't understand is why the US thinks it will be the one to create peace there. I wonder if I will live long enough to see us give up. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 05:35:24 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The auto industry is a cluster-duck in and of itself. Unlike most industries where they company build the products the customer wants to buy, with the automotive industry, the CAFE standards force automakes to build and sell cars that people don't want. To get people to buy them, the companies have to sell them at a loss so that their "fleet" meets those fuel economy standards and they can sell the vehicles that people want to buy.
I say the government should do away with the CAFE standards and create demand for efficient vehicles by keeping fuel prices high(blowing the crap out of stuff in the Middle East is NOT a good way to do this), providing tax credits for the purchase of efficient vehicles and taxing the purchase of inefficient vehicles even more than now. |
Yeah, the govt is partly to blame trying to do social engineering on us, but whose to blame for buying SUVs and 450 HP cars? Not the cafe standards and not the car companies - they ARE building what people want. People want to waste their money apparently. I'd have a tiny little car if I had my choices. It gets me from A to B just as well as a gas guzzler and leaves me with money to buy other things (like L lenses :D ).
Fairly smart - we have a minivan and a taurus. And kids, a camper to two, etc. No SUV.
My BIL, single, has an Envoy extended 4x4. Why? To carry his guitar in. Really.
My FIL has TWO, count em, TWO suburbans. He's 64 and not married. WTF?
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 05:55:38 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, I'm curious. Are you an U.S. Citizen living in Canada pretending to be Canadian, a Canadian pretending to be a citizen of the U.S., or a Canadian whose children are citizens of the U.S.? |
Nice disingenuous cut-and-dry choices you're offering him. If your guess is that he's an adult who can answer for himself, why not ask questions that aren't dripping with accusatory sarcasm? Anyway, what difference does it make? He's just another person that's aware of the global consequences of the U.S. banking failure. |
I "might" believe that if I heard it from  Jac, and not you and  posthumous. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 06:36:25 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by freakin_hilarious:
 |
The one in Pakistan?
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 06:40:41 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Someone needs to put the National Credit Card through the shredder and go back to pay-as-you-go. |
That is not a good solution. Being able to leverage debt has been the driving force of Western economies for more than the last half century.
However, strong regulation is critical. Weak regulation of big business drives abuse. America has been at the forefront of deregulation in the last decade.
Regulations were passed in 1933 implemented the lessons learned in great depression (the Glass-Steagall Act) - this kept consumer banks, investment banks and financial insurers financially segregated. This was repealed in 1999 (by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) to allow greater leveraged risk between these industries in the search for greater profits.
Now we have over-leveraged consumer banks, investment banks and financial insurers that have taken highly leveraged risks based on greater integration of their portfolios. Collapse of one has an extensive domino effect across global markets. It does not take a genius to see the link.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 07:48:43 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The auto industry is a cluster-duck in and of itself. Unlike most industries where they company build the products the customer wants to buy, with the automotive industry, the CAFE standards force automakes to build and sell cars that people don't want. To get people to buy them, the companies have to sell them at a loss so that their "fleet" meets those fuel economy standards and they can sell the vehicles that people want to buy.
I say the government should do away with the CAFE standards and create demand for efficient vehicles by keeping fuel prices high(blowing the crap out of stuff in the Middle East is NOT a good way to do this), providing tax credits for the purchase of efficient vehicles and taxing the purchase of inefficient vehicles even more than now. |
Yeah, the govt is partly to blame trying to do social engineering on us, but whose to blame for buying SUVs and 450 HP cars? Not the cafe standards and not the car companies - they ARE building what people want. People want to waste their money apparently. I'd have a tiny little car if I had my choices. It gets me from A to B just as well as a gas guzzler and leaves me with money to buy other things (like L lenses :D ).
Fairly smart - we have a minivan and a taurus. And kids, a camper to two, etc. No SUV.
My BIL, single, has an Envoy extended 4x4. Why? To carry his guitar in. Really.
My FIL has TWO, count em, TWO suburbans. He's 64 and not married. WTF? |
If gas were $8/ gallon and they had to pay an extra $10k to buy them, do you think they'd still have them? What if their registration fees were multiplied by a factor of 10 or 15?
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:06:33 PM · #67 |
After hearing on the news a few months back that the federal reserve was not part of the federal government and more powerful than congress, the senate, the oval office, and the USA. I started to search the net, that's when I found these clips. There are five in all and about 8 minutes each. The fifth's audio goes bad in the middle that the reason for the Part 5.b. It picks up where the audio goes bad in part 5.
Now I'm not saying I believe everything in these clips but it is pretty interesting to listen to and to keep an open mind about some not all accusations as it seems to be effecting our economy NOW!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 5.b
Here is another video on the subject. It's only one Part and 42 min long but worth watching.
Money, Banking & The Federal Reserve
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 00:05:34. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:06:07 PM · #68 |
Up until a year ago my specialism was insolvency and restructuring in international finance. I moved to telecoms because insolvency was getting a bit dull.
On the one hand I am quite sad not to be involved - I used to handle bank liquidations and the UK administrator of Lehmans is a former client. My ex-colleagues are advising a number of key players including the UK government and it would be interesting to see the inside story. On the other hand, I am quite pleased not to be stuck all day and night at work - it would have been pretty hard-core and I have some other priorities at the moment...!
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:22:19 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... with the automotive industry, the CAFE standards force automakes to build and sell cars that people don't want. |
Is that why there's (again) a months-long waiting list to buy a Prius?
I think the way US automakers market their products -- pushing high-profit SUVs and trucks to people who don't need them -- has far more to do with their difficulties than the CAFE standards ...
Otherwise, I agree with you -- my dad said 20-30 years ago that if gas were priced at its true cost (as a limited resource) we'd have (efficient) electric cars in 5 years ...
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 15:26:48. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:42:02 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, I'm curious. Are you an U.S. Citizen living in Canada pretending to be Canadian, a Canadian pretending to be a citizen of the U.S., or a Canadian whose children are citizens of the U.S.? |
Nice disingenuous cut-and-dry choices you're offering him. If your guess is that he's an adult who can answer for himself, why not ask questions that aren't dripping with accusatory sarcasm? Anyway, what difference does it make? He's just another person that's aware of the global consequences of the U.S. banking failure. |
I "might" believe that if I heard it from Jac, and not you and posthumous. |
I'm Canadian and Live in Canada and I own land in your country Ron. Happy? I don't want to sell at a loss and would love for your government to switch hands to some people who might just care a little more about their country's economy instead of what's happening in a desert. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:53:39 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Jac:
.... who might just care a little more about their country's economy instead of what's happening in a desert. |
Oh SNAP! :-D
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 04:17:39 PM · #72 |
A couple of exerpts from this Op-Ed piece:
You should be raking it in like Richard Fuld, the longtime chief of Lehman Brothers. He took home nearly half-a-billion dollars in total compensation between 1993 and 2007.
Last year, Mr. Fuld earned about $45 million, according to the calculations of Equilar, an executive pay research company. That amounts to roughly $17,000 an hour to obliterate a firm....
Three decades ago, C.E.O.̢۪s typically earned 30 to 40 times the income of ordinary workers. Last year, C.E.O.̢۪s of large public companies averaged 344 times the average pay of workers...
These Brobdingnagian paychecks are partly the result of taxpayer subsidies. A study released a few weeks ago by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington found five major elements in the tax code that encourage overpaying executives. These cost taxpayers more than $20 billion a year.
That̢۪s enough money to deworm every child in the world, cut maternal mortality around the globe by two-thirds and also provide iodized salt to prevent tens of millions of children from suffering mild retardation or worse. Alternatively, it could pay for health care for most uninsured children in America.
Do we truly believe that C.E.O.̢۪s like Mr. Fuld are more deserving of tax dollars than sick children?
Perhaps it̢۪s understandable that C.E.O.̢۪s are paid heroically when they succeed, but why pay prodigious sums when they fail? E. Stanley O̢۪Neal, the former chief of Merrill Lynch, retired last year after driving the firm over a cliff, and he walked away with $161 million. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:14:01 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... with the automotive industry, the CAFE standards force automakes to build and sell cars that people don't want. |
Is that why there's (again) a months-long waiting list to buy a Prius?
I think the way US automakers market their products -- pushing high-profit SUVs and trucks to people who don't need them -- has far more to do with their difficulties than the CAFE standards ...
Otherwise, I agree with you -- my dad said 20-30 years ago that if gas were priced at its true cost (as a limited resource) we'd have (efficient) electric cars in 5 years ... |
I'd wager that, despite its popularity, the profit margin for Toyota on the Prius is pretty slim so there's little incentive for them to ramp up production and people have already shown that they're unwilling to pay some more for one.
I don't disagree with you at all about the marketing. It's all part of maximizing profit.
BTW, Did you know that Ford sells a 65mpg car in Europe that it won't bring to the U.S.? Link |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:27:45 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, Did you know that Ford sells a 65mpg car in Europe that it won't bring to the U.S.? Link |
That's a shame. I wonder what reasons they have for not selling that in the U.S. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:30:16 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
BTW, Did you know that Ford sells a 65mpg car in Europe that it won't bring to the U.S.? Link |
That's a shame. I wonder what reasons they have for not selling that in the U.S. |
The oil companies wouldn't like it.
|
|
