After the stunning announcement Sunday of the Obama administrations firing of the chairman of GM are we now one step closer to total government take over of ALL private sector companies? Is the next step in governments plans for total control of our society and socialism?

Maybe Sen .Carl Levin will resign to assume control over GM . Obviously a top corporate exec is going to jump at the chance of running a company that they have no say in it's decisions. So a bureaucrat ;a pol. Will have to step forward.

Shareholders of GM stock now have a decision to make. They don't own the company so do they want to continue their investment ? I kind of doubt it. This should also be a lesson to all those banks that keep on coming to Washington with their hands out.

Friday they marched up the White House driveway demanding that the President back off his hate capitalism and anti-bank and wall street rhetoric .
He told them to control their wages and play by his rules or else.
Yesterday he demonstrated what or else means .
But a closer examination would show that Obama doesn't believe he has the power to take out one of the big bank execs... yet . That is why after initially going along and stoking the populist rage against AIG ,he backed down .

This is set up to be the issue of the week . President Obama will pronounce his vision for the auto companies this week .He wants them to do a product line makeover to produce small, fuel-efficient vehicles . This is a move that they are already undertaking ;but apparently not at a speed sufficient for the President who know so much about the industry.

GM chairman Rick Wagoner was the weakest link so he had to go. It did not matter that he had spent his life in the industry moving up through the ranks of the company. He had already taken many of the steps the President wants. It is not his fault that the demand side dropped and no one is buying cars. Under his watch ,GM made advances on a big risk in developing an all electric car. Something you would think the President would approve of.
I think Wagoner deserved better .

Bear in mind just how much Tax Dollars, YOUR money, these companies have had already and are asking for more.
I think it's more than reasonable for the Government to have some sort of overview in how they are run.
The question I want answered is when are they going to stop mucking about with AIG and finally announce it's NATIONALISATION?

Also why do Americans, in general, see Nationalisation as a BAD thing?
Remember how much of YOUR money has been invested in these PRIVATE companies, why should YOU have a saying in how they are run?

The same is true for the UK Banks that have had huge sums of money pumped into them to stop their collective collapse..

The bankruptcy structures are already in place to deal with failed companies. The mistake was in the bailout to begin with . AIG has many profitable divisions . Actually only the one that was based in London was a problem. It easily could've been restructured without the gvt.

As for nationalization ; our gvt screws up running the post office ,the rail road (AMTRACK ) ,the 1/3 part of the health care industry it already controls ,and just about anything else it get's it's hands on .
Government is good at breaking things .That is why the most efficient part of government is the military.

By the way ;you have hit on a national debate that is as old as the nation (nationalized banks ) . The founders squared off on this issue as early as the 2nd Washington term and by the election of 1800 it defined the political parties of the time.http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/era/parties/power/bank.htm

I don't understand why everyone says bad things about the post office (besides the fact they are 5 billion in debt). I never wait in line. I have always gotten my mail. And Seriously Tom you tell me who else gets a letter from Philly to LA in a week for 42 cents.

I wish more companies ran like the post office.

You don't see a problem in getting a letter from Philly to LA for 42 cents when it costs you the same amt. for mailing to your next door neighbor ? Why don't they adopt the sensible zoning rates that private carriers use ?

The Post office is bleeding loss every year even in the face of massive gvt subsidy and is now threatening a reduction in service as it looks for ways to cuts costs . Still ;even though their goal is to reduce costs by $5.9 billion they would still be in the hole for $6 billion by 2010.
They want to shut down small and rural postoffices so the vaunted mail to all corners of the country has a questionable future.

The truth is that when faced with competition in the larger delivery services the USPS underperforms every time. The same would be true if they were obliged to compete in the open market in the mail carrier service.

Good point Tom.

Tom, is this more to do with how these services are managed rather than the fact they are nationalised?
After all the best companies in the world can be destroyed by top heavy, ineffectual management.. look at the car makers.

My question is, is Nationalisation such a bad thing?

Thanks . We pay a heavy price to receive a box full of junk mail each day.

I am in the process of utilizing e-mailing bills so I don't get killed with the postage. Bills arrive at their destination on the day intended ;not too early ;not too late ,no secondary handler to be concerned ;and with a minimum saved of between $5-$10 every month in postage .

My question is, is Nationalisation such a bad thing?

I guess we should ask Hugo Chavez . What happens if GM became nationalized ? Let's look at British Leyland automobiles as an example .The government bought up and nationalized it and allowed it to drive its competition to bankruptcy .Then the company went down itself . Now the only car manufacturing in your country is by foreign companies.

What happens to Ford (which has refused bailouts ) when it has to compete against a company that isn't compelled to operate under the profit motive model ?

On the obverse we have a situation where HUNDREDs of Billions of Tax payers dollars are being pumped into a financial industry that has become greedy and bloated from it's own "successes"

Granted your example of British Leyland, but thus boiled down to top heavy and ineffectual management coupled with massive union intervention. The same issues never really disappeared when the Rover group emerged from the wreckage.

In a lot of ways GM, Chrysler and AIG are already Nationalised due to the vast funds employed. In fact AIG is more than whole owned by YOU the US tax payer.
How many MORE billions need to be given to AIG before this fact is realised.
They have already passed $180 BILLION to ONE private company alone!!

I fear the result ,although delayed ,remains the same... a restructuring and selling off the salvagable parts. That could've been accomplished without the tax payer taking a hit.

What I see with GM & Chrysler is the govt appointing the CEO and that will lead to a board of directors packed with union men and "greens".

What happens next?

Then they produce eco-friendly, butt ugly vehicles that no one will buy, except the greens, of course.

Then unless they stop the foreign companies from selling their products here, GM & Chrysler will go down the drain anyway.

Of course, the Socialists might do just that. East Germany only had one manufacturer of autos that I know of and everyone (who could afford to drive) drove a TRABANT.

You didn't get into it, you put it on. And it would run an astounding 45 mph when you could get it started.

I hope they will let me keep my Subaru. Hey, I saved GM some money when I got it.

Bear in mind just how much Tax Dollars, YOUR money, these companies have had already and are asking for more.
I think it's more than reasonable for the Government to have some sort of overview in how they are run.
The question I want answered is when are they going to stop mucking about with AIG and finally announce it's NATIONALISATION ?!

Also why do Americans, in general, see Nationalisation as a BAD thing ??
remember how much of YOUR money has been invested in these PRIVATE companies, why should YOU have a saying in how they are run ??

The same is true for the UK Banks that have had huge sums of money pumped into them to stop their collective collapse..

First off, the government should never be involved in businesses and how they are run. That means that the government should never have given the businesses any money. Which means that they should not have any say in businesses.

Second, as for why nationalization is bad... nationalization leads to government intervention. Government intervention in business usually results in using the business to push a political agenda. When the goal of a business is to push a political agenda rather that making money, that business usually ends up failing, losing lots of money and lots of jobs. An agenda of profitability results in efficiency. An agenda of politics results in massive inefficiency.

Let's take a look at a few examples of cases where the government has gotten involved in what ought to be free-market businesses.

Example #1 - The VA Medical System. THe VA medical system is a complete shambles. The VA hospitals have been cited as examples of massive waste, mismanagement and poor administration. They are also festering cesspools of germs and disease. They are stuck with 1980s technology and they are unable to accomplish their goal of taking care of the medical needs of veterans. Comparing the VA system with privately-run hospitals, you can see the difference between government-run medical facilities and private facilities, and it is a very stark difference.

Example #2 - The Influenza Vaccination. A few years back we had a shortage of flu vaccine. It occurred because during the Clinton Administration the government decided to get into the flu vaccine business. The government declared itself the sole purchaser of flu vaccine in the USA, to be distributed through government programs to health-care providers. In doing so, the government did two things: they froze the price that they would pay for flu vaccine, and they increased the amount of regulation that vaccine providers had to go through. Regulatory compliance costs money, and since the government froze the price of the product, the companies were unable to recoup their costs and were losing money. As a result, the number of vaccine manufacturers decreased from over 100 to about 3 in the USA. Those three were unable to provide enough vaccine for the needs of the country. Thus, we had a shortage and had to buy vaccine from foreign countries at massively higher pricing than normal. This is another case of the government getting involved in the market by trying to nationalize the vaccine industry, and it backfired terribly.

Example #3 - NASA. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is one of only a handful of agencies in the world that have been involved in manned space flight. There are a number of companies that have launched satellites or rockets, but generally speaking, corporate space flight is unmanned. NASA is currently using technology first created in the early 1980s in their most "advanced" aircraft, the space shuttles. There has been no significant change in the technology involved in spaceflight since then, despite billions of dollars poured into space research by the US government. In 2004, Virgin Galactic and Mojave Aerospace Ventures teamed up to develop and create a fleet of space craft able to be used by civilians. Their technology is the cutting edge of aerospace technology, and they are already in the middle of testing of the new craft and expects to be able to open their craft for public use in a few short years. In less than five years, a privately-run company has managed to accomplish what NASA hass failed to accomplish since the 1980s... a forward movement of space technology toward common use by regular people, and a massive jump forward in technology. This is a clear case of the private sector being more capable of R&D than the government in all areas.

You are correct when you say that if the government plugs that much money into anything, then they should have a say in it. Where I disagree is that the government should never have plugged all that money in to AIG, GM or any other company.

And keep in mind that it isn't the government's money. It's OURS. WE should be the ones in control, not them.

Elliot

Well said Elliot.
My thoughts precisely.

And keep in mind that it isn't the government's money. It's OURS. WE should be the ones in control, not them.

But this is all from the "Office of People Who Are Much Smarter Than You Are (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/opinion/31brooks.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1238494630-l4adAf+aGwNO0dqVYKzGJg)."

Obama has made a corporate decision for GM and Chrysler . They are to cease their marketing and participation of their products in the NASCAR circuit . His Auto Task Force research concludes it isn't worth it . The same demand will be made of Ford if it asks for government assistance.

Make way for the Hyundai and Tata stock car !

Forget Hyundai, bring on the Nascar Lada.

Nascar yee-hah!

Nascar yee-hah!

It's yeehaw (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yeehaw) for you non-southerners. I trust you'll be there for the NAPA Auto Parts 200 Nationwide series in Montreal on August 30th?

Nope. Apparently my avatar is a foreign language to you. :)

First off, the government should never be involved in businesses and how they are run. That means that the government should never have given the businesses any money. Which means that they should not have any say in businesses.Hello:

Elliot is right... Government should NEVER be involved in business.. But, of course, it IS. As much as he might deny it, it WAS seriously involved during the Bush administration, too... And, when its involvement TILTS the playing field towards the richest of the rich amongst us, it's time for government to TILT it the other way.

Elliot will remember our arguments of the past when I complained about how the usury laws were changed under Bush to favor the banks. He'll remember when I complained about those payday loan centers that favored banks. He'll remember when I complained about the bankruptcy laws being changed to favor the banks... He'll remember when I complained about the ability of credit card companies to raise their interest rates, WITHOUT needing a reason.

Those are the kinds of things that TILTED the playing field, and a lot more. Of course, the right isn't going to like the tilt back. The right doesn't even think it did anything wrong by tilting it the way they did in the first place. But, they were wrong, and most of us know it.

excon

Nope. Apparently my avatar is a foreign language to you. :)

No, just a hint that you'd probably be irritated at that great "southern" tradition followed by millions of beer drinkin', toothless, pot bellied hicks continuing its path northward (http://www.autoevolution.com/news/montreal-secures-3-year-deal-with-nascar-4637.html). :D

The fans in Mtl for a Nascar race aren't remotely the same as those in the southern US.

The fans in Mtl for a Nascar race aren't remotely the same as those in the southern US.

Nope. They just wish they were.

Nope. They just wish they were.I have no idea what that means.

The fans in Mtl for a Nascar race aren't remotely the same as those in the southern US.

Of course not, the fans in Montreal talk funny. Btw, did you know that roughly 63% of NASCAR fans aren't southerners? Perhaps that's why they have races in Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, New York, Indiana, Nevada, Arizona, California... and Canada.

I have no idea what that means.

Let's try again. I'll type a little slower this time so you can follow.



You said that Mtl Nascar fans aren't remotely like Southerners.

My response was, no they aren't, they just wish they were like Southerners.

Did you follow it that time?

Elliot

No, why would they wish to be like southerners?

Of course not, the fans in Montreal talk funny. Btw, did you know that roughly 63% of NASCAR fans aren't southerners? So? I didn't bring up southerners, you did. I know quite a few nascar fans here, many on my hockey team.

How do I know... they're the ones copying Southerners by becoming fans of NASCAR.

Besides, what citizen of the 51st State of the United States wouldn't want to be more like real Americans.

Ah I see you're trolling now. :)
Well it is April 1st, I should know better.

So? I didn't bring up southerners, you did. I know quite a few nascar fans here, many on my hockey team.

No, you just began this whole exercise with that great (misspelled) southern exclamation, yee-hah (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/one-step-closer-335685-2.html#post1640377)... as if we don't get the stereotypical reference. It's either a lack of sensitivity or ignorance, which is it?

It's either a lack of sensitivity or ignorance, which is it?Hey thanks for the great choices! LOL! http://moransinc.com/forum/img/smilies/clap.gif

Hey thanks for the great choices! LOL! http://moransinc.com/forum/img/smilies/clap.gif

No wonder Canadians are the butt of so many jokes...

No wonder Canadians are the butt of so many jokes...
Like water off a duck's back...

Like water off a duck's back.....

I'm thinking more like a greased pig... :D

I'm thinking more like a greased pig... :DYep, that's your style all right, always trying to insult someone who is not like you. <yawn>

Yep, that's your style alright, always trying to insult someone who is not like you. <yawn>

Right on cue. LOL.

Children!!

Let's not get into "lipstick on a pig".

Elliot

Children!!!

Let's not get into "lipstick on a pig".

That's why I used "greased," it's more southern than lipstick.

I see this thread lost track... That's pretty much what happens to my mind when any type of motorsport is on. Talk about a boring waste of money.

But I think Excon makes a great point. Its like all of you righty's think the Government has never been involved in business in the past. It must be naivety or ignorance, cause I know it isn't stupidity. You guys isn't stupid. But then again I didn't think you were naïve either.

You don't get it . It is government interference in business that we fundamentally object to. All socialism (ooops I mean progressivism ) really is ,is mercantilism reincarnate [that theory that the government knows best how to manage the economy and the allocation of resources;that industry should be organized by the state].

They are two heads of the same coin .Both have in common dislike for market solutions.Collectivism in all it's manifestations leads logically and inevitably to tyranny.(The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek)

I see this thread lost track... That's pretty much what happens to my mind when any type of motorsport is on. Talk about a boring waste of money.

That's the great thing about DVR's, you an watch a whole Nascar race in less than an hour. Scan to the crashes then watch the last 20 laps and you haven't missed a thing. :D


But I think Excon makes a great point. Its like all of you righty's think the Government has never been involved in business in the past. It must be naivety or ignorance, cause I know it isn't stupidity. You guys isn't stupid. But then again I didn't think you were naïve either.

What tom said and then some. I don't like tyranny, and for the folks that think Bush was a tyrant... they ain't seen nothing yet. This crowd in charge will put Bush to shame if we don't set a different course.

You don't get it . It is government interference in business that we fundamentally object to. Hello again, tom:

You didn't fundamentally object when the dufus interfered into business, did you?? No, you didn't. Could that be because you LIKED the interference HE did, but you're not too thrilled with the interference Obama is doing??

I think it could be.

excon

I certainly did not object when President Bush cut business taxes or directed policies that encouraged private business ownership . Did he micromanage these businesses ,no he did not . Was he in favor of free trade ? Yes he was.

I certainly did not object when President Bush cut business taxes or directed policies that encouraged private business ownership . Did he micromanage these businesses ,no he did not . Was he in favor of free trade ? Yes he was. Hello again, tom:

That's your SPIN. You SAY his policies encouraged private business ownership, but what his policies did was siphon off the middle wealth to the rich. That ISN'T hands off. That ISN'T an UNFETTERED marketplace. That ISN'T conservative economics. That's fiddling around so your friends can get wealthy. That's tilting the playing field in THEIR favor. In fact, his friends looted SOOO much, that we're left holding the bag. It needs tilting back.

Yes, it's a shame that the dufus broke it SOOOOO badly, that a HANDS ON repair is needed.

excon

I see this thread lost track... That's pretty much what happens to my mind when any type of motorsport is on. Talk about a boring waste of money.

But I think Excon makes a great point. Its like all of you righty's think the Government has never been involved in business in the past. It must be naivety or ignorance, cause I know it isn't stupidity. You guys isn't stupid. But then again I didn't think you were naïve either.

Skell,

You seem to forget that most of us "righty's" (sic) complained when the government got involved in business long before Obama came to the White House. We were against it then, and we're against it now. Always have been, always will be.

The fact that government has done it before (albeit to a lessor degree) doesn't make it right.

By what Constitutional authority or legal precedent does the President of the United States have the authority to fire the CEO of a private corporation and/or appoint the members of its Board of Directors? This is way past the government being involved in regulation for safety or for the public good. This is direct control of a major private business interest. What about the rights of the shareholders to appoint the members of the Board or to make decisions about the company's management? What about their rights as owners? Please keep in mind that, unlike AIG, GM has not given any stock to the US government in exchange for government funds, which means that the stockholders of GM are still its owners and controllers. With the President firing GM's CEO, he is running roughshod over the rights of the shareholders.

Also keep in mind that Obama did this after specifically saying that the US Government has no desire or intention of taking control of GM.



Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM.
---President Obama, 3/30/09


His actions most definitely do not match his words. The US Government is not only dictating regulation to GM, it has taken control of its corporate management, and has publicly pledged to guarantee its service agreements.



It is my hope that the steps I am announcing today will go a long way towards answering many of the questions people may have about the future of GM and Chrysler. But just in case there are still nagging doubts, let me say it as plainly as I can -- if you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warrantee will be safe.

In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been. Because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee.
--- President Obama, 3/30/09


The government has no business backing up the service agreements of GM or any other private-sector company. They have no business getting involved in the management of private-sector businesses. They have no business firing CEOs or hiring members of the Board of Directors.

Conservatives were against government intervention when it was much less intrusive, albeit widespread. We're even more against it now.

This is exactly what I and other Conservatives warned was going to occur if the government bailed out these companies... massive government intervention and control.

Elliot

That's your SPIN. You SAY his policies encouraged private business ownership, but what his policies did was siphon off the middle wealth to the rich. That ISN'T hands off.

You guys have followed Obama and the Dem's lead on this but apparently have no clue as to the facts. I've posted this here before, that according to the Census Bureau "income inequality" (as ridiculous a term as "social justice") and poverty levels were relatively unchanged during Bush's time in office, and in fact income inequality "decreased between 2006 and 2007 (http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=73361)."


Income inequality decreased between 2006 and 2007, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index. The share of aggregate income received by households in the top fifth of the income distribution declined, while the shares for the third and fourth quintiles increased. Meanwhile, the Gini index declined from 0.470 to 0.463, moving closer to 0, which represents perfect income equality (1 represents perfect inequality).

That sounds nothing like siphoning off the middle class wealth to the rich.

Hello again, tom:

That's your SPIN. You SAY his policies encouraged private business ownership, but what his policies did was siphon off the middle wealth to the rich. That ISN'T hands off. That ISN'T an UNFETTERED marketplace. That ISN'T conservative economics. That's fiddling around so your friends can get wealthy. That's tilting the playing field in THEIR favor. In fact, his friends looted SOOO much, that we're left holding the bag. It needs tilting back.

Yes, it's a shame that the dufus broke it SOOOOO badly, that a HANDS ON repair is needed.

excon

First, what companies did Bush take control of? Lowering the tax rates is NOT the same as taking control of companies or manipulating industries, which is EXACTLY what Obama is doing. Don't tell me that Bush took control of companies, because you know that's BS.

Second, if you feel that massive spending by the Bush admin, as well as manipulating the tax structure is what messed things up, then why are you cheering on a guy who is not only doing the same thing, but doing it to a degree never seen in US history? If what Bush did was wrong, then why are supporting the very same actions multiplied to the Nth degree?

Since when is creating massive budget deficits and massive debt a solution to massive inflation and massive debt?

OK evidently the whole NASCAR thing was an April Fools Joke by Car and Driver Magazine. Car and Driver later pulled the fake story and apologized for "going too far". It was picked up by the media and took off.

First, what companies did Bush take control of?Hello again, El:

Bush? Nahhh, not him. But, why would you take over a teeny little company when you can hand your friends the keys to the treasury? Letting his Wall Street buddies take control of our economy (and that would be ALL the companies), and RIP us off like we've never been ripped off before, isn't quite what Obama is doing.

excon

Hello again, El:

Bush?? Nahhh, not him. But, why would you take over a teeny little company when you can hand your friends the keys to the treasury? Letting his Wall Street buddies take control of our economy (and that would be ALL the companies), and RIP us off like we've never been ripped off before, isn't quite what Obama is doing.

excon

As I understand it, the words "rip off" mean "to steal".

Who on Wall Street did Bush help steal anything? Aside from actual cases of fraud, like Bernie Madoff, which Wall Street companies "ripped off" anyone, and how did Bush assist them in the "ripoff"?

You throw words around flippantly, excon, and assume that that's what took place. As far as I can tell, there was no theft by any company with which Bush is connected or with who's management Bush has a friendship. Wall Street didn't rip anyone off. They just made bad decisions. Oil companies didn't rip anyone off, they just charged more money than you want them to charge. Insurance companies didn't rip anyone off, they just charged more than you want them to charge. Credit Card companies didn't rip anyone off, they just charged high rates. Lenders didn't rip anyone off, they just made loans to people who couldn't afford them. The term "ripped off" is a loaded term with a very specific meaning that doesn't apply to anything Bush or his supposed "cronies" did.

If you are going to use that term, then please state what act of theft took place, and how did Bush participate in it?

Just because something is unfair in your perception doesn't make it theft. Nor does it make it illegal... or even wrong.

Unlike Bush, Obama actually is breaking the law and committing Unconstitutional acts vis-à-vis GM.

Elliot

Sometimes I wonder if Ex is playing devils advocate just to irritate us?

Nahhh! Couldn't be.

If he asked the GM "big boss" to resign, just why on earth didn't he ask the "big boss" of AIG to do the same? It would have halted a heck of a lot of money being bled out of the system. But then I guess Rahm would have gotten mad that he didn't have his palm greased with lots of moolah like he did. We are not going to see any big wigs of Wall Street deposed in any big hurry either.

Not sure of that Biz~tzar Geithner is capable of anything .

Geithner can send both the markets and the dollar on a tumble, but he can't run Turbotax, can't tell the truth (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/1833945.aspx) and apparently can't count (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/04/gao-says-geithn.html). Heckuva job, Timmy.

I am curious as to what fans of government take over of private companies expect governemnt to do with GM and Chrysler?

What kind of cars will the government manufacture?

Think of all the major automakers: Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, VW, Mazda, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Peugeot, Fiat...

Are any of them government owned?

Do any of you drive a government made car like a Lada, a Skoda, Trabant?

Can they compete in a free market?

Why would you think a government made car could succeed, without taxpayor subsidy, in today's market?

What about innovation?
Are what we take for granted ; anti-lock brakes, fuel injections, turbos, disc brakes, stability control, 4 wheel drive - are any of these invented or designed by some government bereaucrat?


Top Gear-Communist cars- Video (http://videos.streetfire.net/video/Top-GearCommunist-cars_206395.htm)

Check out the 5 minute mark in which A DOG was quicker than the Communist cars :D






G&P

What kind of cars will the government manufacture?Hello in:

They can't do worse than GM... Remember the Nova? Know what it means in Spanish? Won't go.

excon

Hello in:

They can't do worse than GM... Remember the Nova? Know what it means in Spanish? Won't go.

excon

Sure they can do worse than GM! Several worse are named above. Even the notorious Corvair wasn't too bad once GM installed a stabilizer bar. One thing a government dictated auto will NEVER be is innovative. You can't say that about GM.

PS: I don't own a GM auto. I have in the past though.

And anyone who grew in the 70s knows that a Chevy Nova or A Dodge Dart could be hot rodded to get to the quarter mile in less than 12 seconds.

Certainly, faster than a dog.


Oh, by the way , The Corvette and the Viper are world class cars that can compete with Porsche, Ferrari in performance and definitely beat them on price. The same can be said of Cadillac vs Lexus, BMW , Mercedes.

Ex - and what government made vehicle do you drive?








G&P

Hello in:

They can't do worse than GM... Remember the Nova? Know what it means in Spanish? Won't go.

excon

Nova also means a star that suddenly becomes thousands of times brighter and then returns to its original brightness... or put more simply, an exploding star.

It is also the name of type of lox.

It is the feminine of "love" in Latin.

It is also a Latin word for "new".

Nova was the name of a computer processor developed in 1969 for Data General.

Just because the car had a name that meant "no go" in Spanish doesn't mean it was a bad vehicle.

"A rose by any other name" and all that...

And by the way, that story about it not selling in Latin American countries because of what its name means in Spanish is an urban legeng. It has been debunked by Snopes.

snopes.com: Nova Don't Go (http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp)

Elliot

I am curious as to what fans of government take over of private companies expect governemnt to do with GM and Chrysler?

They plan to introduce the Obamauto Memorial Day.

Would it be bad if Obama, and his administrative government did take contorl over the private sector?

I've bin told that People have intelligence, but I seriously doubt our wisedom to use it. First, we cut down trees, and for some odd reason are too foolish to see that we need those to breath. Ok, so we can still breath if we cut those trees down and plant more, let the cycle progress as long as we never upset the balance. Ok fair enough.
Then there is toxins in the air. How much air pollution do you like to breath? You drive a car, buy products from oil industry, forest industry, transportation industry (busses, Jets, plains, taxies, B-trains, trains, Low beds, oil tankers, water tankers, Boats, Cruise liners, even animal wast and yes we are aprat of the animal world. Especailly you ET Wolverine, just kiddin.) and CFCs, and other such chemicals. If we keep cutting down the trees as we are, they won't be able to filter the CO2 in the air fast enough to make up for the air that we are rendering useless to us. Yes, it may be used again, but not in the state in which we leave it.
Then there is the forest fires from natual causes, never mind global warming. Then the pine beatle is killing more and more trees each year. YouTube - Mountain Pine Beetle Presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCbiDidqp0)
There is a lot more but I'd be here for ever. I'm sure you get the idea that, we are cutting off our own air. So, if the government steps in, maybe we won't need to do that any more. Maybe they can regulate our lives better, not compleately contorl everything, but stop us from taking too much. We have houses way too big, far too many cars, eat much too much over packaged items, wast ridiculous amounts of resources in general. If you ever get the chance take a look at "Kleer-cut" in the Google search bar. My point is, people are getting Too free, and thus forcing this undue stress on those who haveless than the socially accepted/expected norm.

I see capitalism as being too much of a bigger, badder, and better juggernaut of propaganda. It seems to blind us into believing that we deserve everything we ever wanted, and we should get it at any cost. People are being to greedy. Seems senseless. Mhy not have a similar life style as we do, but cut it back on a lot of the stuff we don't need, like more than one TV in a house, more than a vehicle for a house hould, smaller houses, etc? As for those who have more than a million dallors, take the rest and give it to scientific research, hospitals, police, fire rescue, animal shelters, social supports, army, etc. So, no more super rich people, simply keep every one to the one million dallor mark and keep people working, educated (Free tuitions for all), money flowing, and those who are incapable of mental, or phisical work, find a program for them, higher some one to care for them and the elderly.

As it stands, I see western society as being a social imprisonment. The rich get richer, and the poor get poor. I s'pose you can't have one with out the other, but do we need the two extreams to be so far apart? Moderation is a strong support for keeping balance. The scale doesn't have to tip so far if you don't fill one side too much. A big problem is, that most people don't want to give up their social status to make the system more equal, and less dependent upon how much money you can acquire. Still we will probably always be in an "Iron Cage".

"Once capitalism came about, it was like a machine that you were being pulled into without an alternative option; currently, whether we agree or disagree, if you want to survive you need to have a job and you need to make money." - Wikipedia (yes I know it's not a very solid source but it seems consistent with what I've read about Max Waber and Rationalization.)

Nestor

Are you aware that the US is a net carbon sink ? Do you know what that means ? It means that we absorb more C02 then we generate.

How is that possible ? Well with capitalism and industrial innovation farmers learned how to make less land become more productive . Idle farm land has returned to forest and field ;a great reversal in land use in the country.

America's second-growth forests absorb 1.7 billion tons of atmospheric carbon annually.

Why is it desirable to use wood products over ;let's say plastics or metals ? Because wood is a renewable source. Did you not know that ?

In many parts of the country proper land management requires the clear cutting of the forest . New growth cannot start without sufficient sunlight. If we did not do it then nature would take matters into it's own hands . You did mention your concern about forest fires right ?

We have more trees today than we had 70 years ago. And some 4 million more are planted each day.

Do you know who is planting these trees ? Yes ;the greedy forestry industry. 91 percent of all trees planted in America during 1999 were planted by foresting companies and private timberland owners.The Sustainable Forestry Initiative is an industry effort that combines the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the long-term protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. There are currently 107.8 million acres of forestland in North America enrolled in the SFI program, making it the largest sustainable forestry program on the continent .It is not a government initiative .It is an initiative by those d@mn greedy capitalist foresters .


"Once capitalism came about, it was like a machine that you were being pulled into without an alternative option; currently, whether we agree or disagree, if you want to survive you need to have a job and you need to make money."

One cannot fully understand the European fascist movement in the early 20th century without studying Max Weber's contributions to the philosophical thought behind it.

Would it be bad if Obama, and his administrative government did take contorl over the private sector?


Well let us see what we have to base this statement on?

Capital Research Center: (http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/2008/08/28/obama-annenberg-ayers-2/)



A 2003 CAC final report on the effectiveness of the Annenberg grant compared test scores in so-called Annenberg schools, which had received the benefit of some $150 million in outside grant money, to test scores in comparable schools. It concluded:

“There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement


So Obama spent 150 million of someone else's money and had no significant results :eek:

He picks tax cheats like Geithner, Daschle, Sebelius, and a percentage of people believe he could run GM better than Mr Wagoner :confused:

Is this a reasoned belief?













G&P

With Claire McCaskill's plan for journalistic stimulus (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/04/stimulus-plan-for-unemployed.html), they just might get people to believe anything.

Or they can concentrate on helping the NY Slimes recover... which now has the urgency of stopping the genocide in Darfur.
Michael Calderone's Blog: Keller: Times will be 'left standing after the deluge' - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0409/Keller_Times_will_be_left_standing_after_the_delug e_.html)

Well what can you expect from a paper that embraces Nazinomics (http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2009/04/03/this-is-the-stupidest-thing-you-will-read-all-week/).

Hey, Nestorian.

Check out how the poor people live in those countries that Don't have capitalism!

You've been listening to too many professors who don't have a clue as to how the real world works. You've been programmed! Indoctrinated!

Steve ;amazing stuff. But as one of the comments points out ,it was easy for Hitler to turn the German economy around when he started confiscating the private wealth of the German Jews . Hitler stoked envy against that segment of the population.

Last week Obama told the bankers in a meeting at the White House that he was the only thing that stood between them and the pitch forks... this after his government's rhetoric inflamed the masses against the bankers... hmmmmmm.

Does David Leonhardt see that simularity also ? He does note that like Germany ,Roosevelt's recovery did not happen until we mobilized for war. Putting 15million into the armed services puts a dent in the unemployment rate.

Would it be bad if Obama, and his administrative government did take contorl over the private sector?

YES!!


I've bin told that People have intelligence, but I seriously doubt our wisedom to use it. First, we cut down trees, and for some odd reason are too foolish to see that we need those to breath. Ok, so we can still breath if we cut those trees down and plant more, let the cycle progress as long as we never upset the balance. Ok fair enough.

This entire statement shows your lack of understanding of the environment you seem to champion.

Approximately 90% of our air comes from UNDERWATER PLANTLIFE, not land-based trees. It comes mostly from bacteria, algae, and underwater plants. The cutting of trees doesn't even amount to a blip on our radar in terms of oxygen production. That is why the protests by the tree huggers against loggers is such a ridiculous turn of events.


Then there is toxins in the air. How much air pollution do you like to breath? You drive a car, buy products from oil industry, forest industry, transportation industry (busses, Jets, plains, taxies, B-trains, trains, Low beds, oil tankers, water tankers, Boats, Cruise liners, even animal wast and yes we are aprat of the animal world. Especailly you ET Wolverine, just kiddin.) and CFCs, and other such chemicals. If we keep cutting down the trees as we are, they won't be able to filter the CO2 in the air fast enough to make up for the air that we are rendering useless to us. Yes, it may be used again, but not in the state in which we leave it.
Then there is the forest fires from natual causes, never mind global warming. Then the pine beatle is killing more and more trees each year. YouTube - Mountain Pine Beetle Presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCbiDidqp0)
[\quote]

Aren't beetles part of the environment? Are you suggesting that we eliminate these natural creatures from their natural habitats? For our own purposes? Come on, Nest. That's incredibly selfish of you, don't you think?

[quote]There is a lot more but I'd be here for ever. I'm sure you get the idea that, we are cutting off our own air. So, if the government steps in, maybe we won't need to do that any more.

Exactly what in human history gives you the impression that government... ANY GOVERNMENT... could possibly run ANYTHING in an efficient manner? Take a look at our broken VA system, our bankrupt social security system, our inefficient welfare system, our broken down government-housing projects, and the length of time it even takes for the government to pave a friggin highway. Tell me that the government can efficiently manage the environment in a way that doesn't make things WORSE than they are now.


Maybe they can regulate our lives better, not compleately contorl everything, but stop us from taking too much.

The government doesn't know how to limit itself. It is constitutionally incapable of self-limitation... even more so than private citizens.


We have houses way too big,

Says who? Who's the judge to determine what size house I get to live in?


far too many cars,

Again, says who? A house with two parents and two teenagers in a rural neighborhood, where nothing is within walking distance, and where public transportation is limited (which is most of the Midwest) is likely to have four cars... and need all four of them. Everyone has a different schedule, and needs to be in different places at the same time. Who are you (or anyone else) to determine that they have "too many cars"?


eat much too much over packaged items,

We have over 300 million people in this country. Only a part of those 300 million people live on farms. If not for the packaging of food for shipment to other areas of the country, how do expect people would eat? If not for the use of anti-weed and anti-bug sprays on the veggies, how would we produce enough food to feed everyone. "Organic" methods of food production are very inefficient. They produce approximately 20% of what modern methods of production are able to produce with the same land and seed. That is why organic foods are so expensive... they are scarce. (That whole "supply and demand" thing again... annoying, I know.) Organic foods also spoil more quickly because they lack PRESERVATIVES. If we were to move over to more organic forms of food production, we would starve to death as a nation within months.


wast ridiculous amounts of resources in general.

We also PRODUCE most of those resources that we "waste". Keep that in mind.


If you ever get the chance take a look at "Kleer-cut" in the Google search bar. My point is, people are getting Too free, and thus forcing this undue stress on those who haveless than the socially accepted/expected norm.

Huh? I don't understand this at all. Nobody is forcing people who are under any financial stress to buy anything they don't want or can't afford.

Also, keep in mind that our (capitalist) system is the only one that allows free movement from lower to middle class and from middle to upper class. In other systems of human history, if you were born poor, you died poor. In the United States, a poor child of immigrants from Ireland could become one of the richest, most beloved, most respected members of society because of something he created that allowed people to increase their ability to communicate with each other. His name was Alexander Graham Bell.

In our society, a middle-class kid from Seattle, Washington, tinkering with electronics in his garage, could become the richest man in the world. His name is Bill Gates.

In our system, a lower-class kid, born in Nebraska in 1930, who grew up working in his grandfather's grocery store, and who made his first earnings by owning pinball machines could become the second richest man in the world. His name is Warren Buffet.


I see capitalism as being too much of a bigger, badder, and better juggernaut of propaganda. It seems to blind us into believing that we deserve everything we ever wanted, and we should get it at any cost. People are being to greedy. Seems senseless. Mhy not have a similar life style as we do, but cut it back on a lot of the stuff we don't need, like more than one TV in a house, more than a vehicle for a house hould, smaller houses, etc?

If I earn more, why shouldn't I be able to spend it? If I am more successful than you, why shouldn't I earn more. If you want more, all you have to do is get up off your butt and work for it. But I should not be penalized because you aren't able to earn as much as I am.


As for those who have more than a million dallors, take the rest and give it to scientific research, hospitals, police, fire rescue, animal shelters, social supports, army, etc.

No. I want to give it to my kids and grandkids. I earned it, and I should get to say where it goes. It is MINE not yours.


So, no more super rich people, simply keep every one to the one million dallor mark and keep people working, educated (Free tuitions for all), money flowing, and those who are incapable of mental, or phisical work, find a program for them, higher some one to care for them and the elderly.

Interesting how liberals always want to be charitable with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

There's an old joke. A liberal and a conservative are walking together. They come upon a poor person collecting money to feed his family. The Conservative reaches into his pocket, pulls out $20 and hands it to the poor man. Impressed the liberal decides that he wants to help a poor man as well.

As they continue walking they come upon another poor man. So the liberal smugly reaches into the pocket of the conservative, pulled out $40 and hands it to the poor man.

Do you see my point? I worked for my money. I should decide where to give charity, not you and not the government.


As it stands, I see western society as being a social imprisonment. The rich get richer, and the poor get poor.

See what I said above about people being able to changed classes.

Also, please keep in mind that the gap between the rich & the poor in the USA has been shrinking over the past couple of decades. The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer too. There are very few people in this country, no matter how poor, that don't have at least one TV, one car, one cell phone, etc. The poorest of the poor in the USA get free education through high school, free medical care at any emergency room or clinic in the country, etc. The poor of the USA are infinitely better off than their counterparts in Third World countries. And that is only possible because the RICH are able to support them.

Eliminate the rich, and you eliminate the ability to support the poor in the USA.


I s'pose you can't have one with out the other, but do we need the two extreams to be so far apart?

Who cares how far apart the extremes are if the poor have the ability to become rich too.


Moderation is a strong support for keeping balance. The scale doesn't have to tip so far if you don't fill one side too much.

We have seen systems where everyone was "equal" before. In every case in history, they were equally poor and hungry.


A big problem is, that most people don't want to give up their social status to make the system more equal, and less dependent upon how much money you can acquire.

You are assuming that "equality" means that everyone has to have the same financial outcome. To me, equality means that everyone has the same OPPORTUNITIES. The difference is in what you do with your opportunities.

If you work your tail off and have a modicum of talent, you can become very successful in this country. (Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example: a college dropout who had talent and worked his tail off, and became a success.)

If you have a lot of talent but work very little, you can still become successful in this country. (Take a look at most of Hollywood. A bunch of rich folks who do almost no work, but are successful based on talent and looks.)

And if you have absolutely no talent, but work your tail off, you can become successful in this country. (How else do you explain Katie Couric? No talent whatsoever, but she worked her butt off and became a success.)

The only people who cannot become successful in this country are the ones unwilling to work for it. Why should I support them? Why should I have what I have worked for taken away because YOU think its unfair that they don't have what I have?


Still we will probably always be in an "Iron Cage".

"Once capitalism came about, it was like a machine that you were being pulled into without an alternative option; currently, whether we agree or disagree, if you want to survive you need to have a job and you need to make money." - Wikipedia (yes I know it's not a very solid source but it seems consistent with what I've read about Max Waber and Rationalization.)

Have you ever wondered why socialist and communist societies that push the idea of equality of wealth for all always seem to develop underground, illegal black-market systems of capitalist commerce?

Simply put, people do not want to be stuck with earning the same as the other guy for doing more work. Those who work hard want to be rewarded for their work. So they create a system that allows them to get more if they work harder. It is a system that gives back to those who give the most. And so, that system pops up NATURALLY wherever other systems are in effect.

Capitalism is the TRUE equalizer. What you put in is what you get out. Every time.

What could be fairer than that?

This guy says Geithner's "Stress test" for banks is "a complete sham (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/225897/Geithner%27s-Stress-Test-%22A-Complete-Sham%22-Former-Federal-Bank-Regulator-Says?tickers=UBS,C,BAC,XLF,SKF,FAS?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD)."


Geithner's Stress Test "A Complete Sham," Former Federal Bank Regulator Says
Posted Apr 06, 2009 10:00am EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Recession, Banking
Related: UBS, C, BAC, XLF, SKF, FAS

The bank stress tests currently underway are “a complete sham,” says William Black, a former senior bank regulator and S&L prosecutor, and currently an Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. “It’s a Potemkin model. Built to fool people.” Like many others, Black believes the “worst case scenario” used in the stress test don’t go far enough.

He detailed these and related concerns in a recent interview with Naked Capitalism. But Black, who was counsel to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board during the S&L Crisis, says the program's failings go way beyond such technical issues. “There is no real purpose [of the stress test] other than to fool us. To make us chumps,” Black says. Noting policymakers have long stated the problem is a lack of confidence, Black says Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is now essentially saying: “’If we lie and they believe us, all will be well.’ It’s Orwellian."

The former regulator is extremely critical of Geithner, calling him a “failed regulator” now “adding to failed policy” by not allowing “banks that really need desperately to be closed” to fail. (On Saturday, Geithner said on Face the Nation, if banks need "exceptional assistance" in the future "then we'll make sure that assistance comes with conditions," including potentially changing management and the board, but did not say they'd be shut down.)

Black says the stress test must also be viewed in the context of Geithner’s toxic debt plan, which he calls “an enormous taxpayer subsidy for people who caused the problem.” The fact bank stocks have been rising since Geithner unveiled his plan is “bad news for taxpayers,” he says. “It’s the subsidy of all history."

That ain't all I'd consider a sham in this administration...

This guy says Geithner's "Stress test" for banks is "a complete sham (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/225897/Geithner%27s-Stress-Test-%22A-Complete-Sham%22-Former-Federal-Bank-Regulator-Says?tickers=UBS,C,BAC,XLF,SKF,FAS?sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD)."



That ain't all I'd consider a sham in this administration...

I'm going to put on my Chief Credit Officer hat for a moment. I do this sort of thing for a living.

Black is 100% right. Banks have been using "stress testing" for years. The purpose of stress testing issupposed to be to see just how far a transaction has to go south before you start losing money. How much money does a company have to lose, how much do revenues have to decrease, how much value do their assets have to lose before the loan cannot be paid back.

The problem is that "stress test" is just another word for "projection". Projections are, by their nature, only as good as the assumptions made. Poor assumptions lead to poor projections. Projections are nothing more than a way to guess, using numbers to be wrong.

If you assume that a company will only lose x this year and in fact the company loses 2x, you're screwed. Your assumption, while it might have looked good on paper, bares no reseblence to reality. Thus your projections are highly inaccurate, resulting in a major loss.

I have not seen what Geitner's stressors (assumptions) look like. But I can tell you that they are nothing more than assumptions. Any guess at what the future holds for a company or an industry is nothing more than a guess.

Back in the day, I learned that projections by the borrowers are ALWAYS rosy. They want money, so they will make themselves look as good as possible. It was my job to do worst-case-scenario projections to offset the rosy picture.

Geithner wants something here. He wants hedge-funds to buy up the "toxic assets". It is in his best interest to make the projections as rosy as possible so that the hedge funds bite. Therefore, his projections will be as rosy as he can make them without being caught. It's not hard to do... he just needs to make MODERATE assumptions of losses instead of worst-case assumptions. Who's to say that it isn't really a worst-case projection? Who's going to call Geithner on it unless it is very blatant that he's making the picture too rosy?

Stress tests don't tell you anything except that the guy making the projections knows how to do basic math.

A better way to test these loans would be through BREAK-EVEN analysis rather than stress tests. A break-even analysis simply calculates at what point the loan breaks even vs. when it starts losing money. It makes no assumptions about what the future holds. It simply says "This is where the loan is now, that is where it must be to stay profitable." After that, you have to look at the other factors (soundness of the assets, soundness of the neighborhood, cash flow generated by the owners, other market factors, etc.) and determine what the chances are that the loan will dip below the break-even point. There are no assumptions regarding future performance being made.

Black is 100% correct. Stress-testing is a useless excersize that fools most people into being wrong with authority. Geithner's system is headed for a fall.

Elliot

Geithner's system is headed for a fall.

More like taking us over the cliff. Excellent analysis as usual, Elliot.

A better way to test these loans would be through BREAK-EVEN analysis rather than stress tests. A break-even analysis simply calculates at what point the loan breaks even vs. when it starts losing money. It makes no assumptions about what the future holds. It simply says "This is where the loan is now, that is where it must be to stay profitable." After that, you have to look at the other factors (soundness of the assets, soundness of the neighborhood, cash flow generated by the owners, other market factors, etc.) and determine what the chances are that the loan will dip below the break-even point. There are no assumptions regarding future performance being made.



Which was a system that was turned upside down when the mark to market accounting rules were implemented as I understand it . The banks were actually forced to declare losses on mortgages that were being paid off monthly. Is that correct ?