News Can the market alone fix the economy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrClapeyron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the U.S. economy's sustainability, emphasizing the need for effective government oversight and personal responsibility in financial matters. Participants argue that the current system encourages excessive debt accumulation without accountability, leading to a cycle of complacency and financial hardship. There is a call for uniform usury laws to protect consumers from predatory lending practices, while also acknowledging that many individuals make poor financial decisions. The conversation also touches on the impact of medical debt on bankruptcies and critiques the role of corporations and unions in perpetuating economic issues. Ultimately, the need for a systemic overhaul to promote fairness and responsibility in financial practices is underscored.
  • #601
WhoWee said:
I guess Geithners request for more power )last week and before the Summit) was just a really big coincidence?

No, that results from the catastrophic failure of the existing system and the need to take corrective actions.

We/Congress/Obama better wake up, we account for 30 to 40% (?) of the world's economy...and we only get 5% of the vote...1 of 20.

We need to wake up and do what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #602
Talk about needing to wake up:

"The Republican Road to Recovery" is a 19-page document released March 26 that includes sections on curbing spending, creating jobs, lowering taxes and controlling debt.

But it came under quick criticism from White House officials who said it was remarkably short on specifics — so much, in fact, that it doesn’t contain actual numbers about how much the Republicans would spend on various areas of the government.

"It's interesting to have a budget that doesn't contain any numbers...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ican-budget-proposal-lacks-numbers-revenues-/
 
  • #603
Ivan Seeking said:
"It's interesting to have a budget that doesn't contain any numbers...
Who would refer to a 19 page document as a federal "budget"?
 
  • #604
Ivan Seeking said:
Gibbs is a clown. That was an early overview release.
The numbers in detail are here:
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20090401_gopbudget.pdf
Side by side if you like:
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/pres/2007/pr20090401_gopbudget_sidexside.pdf

home page:
http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #605
Ivan Seeking said:
No, that results from the catastrophic failure of the existing system and the need to take corrective actions.



We need to wake up and do what?



The formation of the new FSB is a very important development.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/g...nt_7645212.htm

http://en.ce.cn/subject/g20london/g2...18703033.shtml

http://www.forexyard.com/reuters/pop...ATIONS-FACTBOX

The US will have 1 of 20 votes on all matters...including new guidelines that could ultimately super-cede our US SEC and banking regulations.

The extended powers that Geithner requested last week...can basically flow through to these SOCIALIST European Central Bank officials...on this note...you are correct & I must agree...what can we do? The ship has sailed.

Do you honestly believe the timing is a coincidence?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #606
Al68 said:
Who would refer to a 19 page document as a federal "budget"?

The same people who think it's appropriate for Obama to include $634billion as a down payment on health care reform without any details for spending.
 
  • #607
I swear, if I hear another pundit or economist explain that employment is a lagging economic indicator, I may shoot the TV.

Almost without fail, any analysis that I've seen over the last two weeks begins with that explanation. ALRIGHT ALREADY! :biggrin:
 
  • #608
Wells Fargo earnings surprise sends market higher
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

NEW YORK – Stocks surged Thursday to their highest levels in two months after banking giant Wells Fargo & Co. surprised the market with an early profit report that blew past analysts' expectations thanks to a strong pickup in its lending business. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped nearly 250 points and major market indexes logged their fifth straight week of gains. Markets are closed for Good Friday.

Investors have been grasping at any sign of improvement in the crippled banking industry, and Wells Fargo's report Thursday that it expects first-quarter earnings of $3 billion provided an encouraging sign that a deep freeze in borrowing activity may finally be thawing. Wells Fargo said it benefited from its January acquisition of Wachovia and an increase in mortgage applications.

"The fact that Wells Fargo can have record profits despite the troubles facing the banking system tells you something," said Rick Campagna, chief investment officer at 300 North Capital in Pasadena, Calif. "It's very good news."

. . . .
So presumably they can return their TARP funds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #609
Astronuc said:
Wells Fargo earnings surprise sends market higher
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090409/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

So presumably they can return their TARP funds.


If Geithner determines they pass his test...record earnings notwithstanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #610
Budget deficit triples to $957 billion for year
March deficit hits $192 billion has receipts drop 28%, outlays rise 41%

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. federal budget deficit rose to a record $956.8 billion in the first six months of the fiscal year after the government stepped up spending to cope with a recession that has depressed tax receipts, the Treasury Department reported Friday.

The deficit is well on its way to the $1.75 trillion -- or 12.3% of gross domestic product -- that the White House has estimated for the full fiscal year, which ends in September.
The deficit through the first six months is more than three times higher than it was at this time last year. The government has borrowed $1 trillion from the public so far this fiscal year.

In March, the deficit widened to $192.3 billion from $48.2 billion in March 2008. Outlays rose 41% to $321.2 billion from $227 billion, while receipts dropped 28% to $129 billion from $178.8 billion.

Receipts from individual income taxes fell 27% in March, versus year-earlier figures. Individual refunds are up 14% so far this year. Compared with a year earlier, corporate income tax receipts fell 90% to $3.4 billion.
. . . .
:bugeye: This certainly doesn't look good.

I guess I'll just wait for the bill.
 
  • #611
This was all to be expected. It is starting to seem that Obama's plan is working and we may have hit bottom. The DOW is up almost 25% from early March; the rise in unemployment is decelerating; housing sales are up in some areas; refinances are up; business loans are up 20%.
 
  • #612
Ivan Seeking said:
This was all to be expected. It is starting to seem that Obama's plan is working and we may have hit bottom. The DOW is up almost 25% from early March; the rise in unemployment is decelerating; housing sales are up in some areas; refinances are up; business loans are up 20%.



What part of Obama's Plan is working?
 
  • #613
WhoWee said:
What part of Obama's Plan is working?

We're not speaking Somalian yet.

Someone at work today actually said that was going to happen in the next couple of years. I do not know where some peoples heads are at.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a4hFwJm41h4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a4hFwJm41h4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #614
DrClapeyron said:
With numbers being thrown about in the range of $100's of million to $100's of billion, a growing trade deficit, an ever expanding public debt and private debt it looks like the economy is nearing the end of the road. Is it bad, is it good, does it need mending?


We need a worldwide economic stimulus of $20 trillion. All countries on the world should participate such that no trade deficits are generated. Then it is a simple matter of letting the factories run and geting the people who are out of work and at home anyway, back to work. This doesn't have to cost a penny if it is coordinated well. All the costs for the government are earned back in the form of taxes, just like they were before the economc crisis when the same factories were running.


One can also think of starting big projects like building a bases on the Moon or Mars. Anything that requires the world to pumpt trillions into mobilizing people will do as long as the burden is shared equally.


Example from antiquity: Ancient Egypt became a superpower after they started to build pyramids.
 
  • #615
Ivan Seeking said:
This was all to be expected. It is starting to seem that Obama's plan is working and we may have hit bottom. The DOW is up almost 25% from early March; the rise in unemployment is decelerating; housing sales are up in some areas; refinances are up; business loans are up 20%.
A tripling of the deficit was expected? What generally do you take to be Obama's 'plan', that is, more specifically than spending a boat load of money on any and everything? And what causal theory do you cite that the 'plan' is having a positive effect, as opposed to, say, a drag on an economy that might be improving in spite of the plan.
 
  • #616
Here's an interesting take on the government's stimulus program.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/231221/Great-Speech-Obama!-But-Still-Wrong-About-the-Problem?tickers=%5Edji,%5Egspc,xlf?sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=Great Speech, Obama! But Still Wrong About the Problem

From The Business Insider, April 14, 2009:

We can't say enough about the joy of having a sharp, articulate, and charming president lead this country through this crisis. Every time we watch Obama speak, our confidence is restored.

That said, we wish Obama didn't spend so much time hanging out with Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who we assume are responsible for the mistakes Obama continues to make in his diagnosis and treatment of the banking problem.

Let's go to today's speech (annotated segments first, then full text):

. . . .

Then the housing bubble burst. Home prices fell. People began defaulting on their subprime mortgages. The value of all those loans and securities plummeted. Banks and investors couldn’t find anyone to buy them. [TRUE, BUT WITH AN IMPORTANT QUALIFIER..."at the price banks wanted to sell them." This is the whole problem in a nutshell. The banks can't sell the assets at prices the market is willing to pay, because then they'll be bankrupt. Thus, this whole canard about how prices are artificially low--a canard that Obama is unfortunately buying into. ] Greed gave way to fear. Investors pulled their money out of the market. Large financial institutions that didn’t have enough money on hand to pay off all their obligations collapsed. Other banks held on tight to the money they did have and simply stopped lending. [NOT TRUE. BANKS HAVE SLOWED LENDING AND TIGHTENED LENDING STANDARDS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T STOPPED LENDING (color from the original article)]

. . . .
This is part of what concerns/bothers me about the Federal stimulus program.

I listened to Vt. Congressman Peter Welch (D) during an interview, and I have to wonder if he and others really understand economics/capitalism. He was talking about energy savings and how jobs would be created for local contractors/construction. OK that's great, but once the construction is done, then what? More construction? I think not.

I doubt most home owners have and endless supply of funds, and I don't think the federal government (ultimately taxpayers) needs to be spending on home upgrades.

The other thing that bothered me is that the federal government is going to subsidize internet connectivity in rural areas (Welch talked about an analogy with rural electrification, as in the internet is a necessity). OK fine, what if people don't have computers or can't afford software? Does the government subsidize that too?

I think Obama needs to start reining in congress - or the democrats in congress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #617
I just heard Obama too.
Here is what I interpret what he said.
Solution
1. Stabilize the banks
2. Stop the economic depression
3. Governments offer zero interest loans
4. Reform the financial system by getting rid of the systematic fault (compound interest)
5. Make banking a public utility
Let's wait and see how point #4 and #5 actually come out after the regulators have done their work.
jal
 
  • #618
Where’s the Plan, Wall Street?
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/wheres-the-plan-wall-street/#more-42745
by ANDREW ROSS SORKIN
FOR the last several months, Americans have looked to Washington to lead them. But where’s the leadership on Wall Street?

There is an enormous opportunity for a C.E.O. to come forward with a plan to reform the financial system and pledge a change from business as usual. Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, has been the most outspoken of his peers during the crisis — and has done an admirable job addressing the issues — but he has been more focused on helping instill confidence in the economy and the health of his own firm. John Mack, the chief executive of Morgan Stanley, has shown glimpses of public leadership, at one point apologizing for the crisis by saying, “We are sorry for it.”

But the public could particularly benefit today from a forceful voice of reason and change within the industry, proposing how to remake the world of finance in a sensible way, driven not by populism but by practicality and a sense of fairness.

It’s worth noting that most Wall Street C.E.O.’s are being advised by their legal and public relations teams to keep their heads down or risk provoking more public outrage. But there is the flip side to that coin: reasoned leadership may generate a reasonable response, helping the industry pre-empt what it fears most — additional government regulation.
. . . .
I agree that we could do with "forceful voices of reason and change within the industry."
 
  • #619
I was listening to this interview last night, and I liked the idea proposed.

Why people cheat on their taxes
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/14/pm_cheating_taxes/

ARIELY: I think so. I think people would be happier. And the other interesting thing about it is that I like the American tax system in principle. Once a year, you sit, you look at your income, you look at your taxes, you think you're participating in some civic engagement in which you are part of society, and you're contributing your share. But the way we're doing it, it's not helpful at all. You don't feel more part of American society, you just feel annoyed. It would be a good, interesting exercise to try to say, how would we create a civil-engagement exercise out of this. Imagine, I would say, you know what, 10 percent of your taxes you can decide how it goes. You can decide if you want to spend it on education, roads, military, transportation, whatever you decide, alternative energy. And the question is would that actually create more civil engagement, people would care more, think more, and actually maybe contribute more.
What if taxpayers had the opportunity to indicate how their tax dollars were spent? Why not?

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions [ROUGHCUT] (Hardcover)
https://www.amazon.com/dp/006135323X/?tag=pfamazon01-20


Dan Ariely's website -
Will Rogers once said that “The income tax has made liars out of more Americans than golf” and I worry that he was correct.
http://www.predictablyirrational.com/

Interesting guy - http://www.predictablyirrational.com/?page_id=5
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #620
Astronuc said:
What if taxpayers had the opportunity to indicate how their tax dollars were spent? Why not?

It is an interesting albeit old idea. I think it would bring unpredictable dynamics to the tax rate, because it would make planning very difficult. Of course uncertainty is the beautiful salt of life and thus good. Anyway you can adjust the tax rate on the basis of future spending, but how to do it if you don't know how much you are about to spend? This might be a nice simulation topic.
 
  • #621
Given the attendance at "TEA Parties" on tax day...I expect a large turnout for the next round of Congressional re-elections.
 
  • #622
WhoWee said:
Given the attendance at "TEA Parties" on tax day...I expect a large turnout for the next round of Congressional re-elections.
Where were the "tea party" "conservatives" when these deficits were being racked up in the past couple of presidential terms? The "tea parties" were political theater staged by losers who now want to blame the sorry state of our economy on the new president and try to protect the tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthiest Americans. We can't afford that kind of bottom-up shift in wealth for another 8 years. The people who benefit disproportionately from our economic system should pay a fair (progressive) tax instead of whining.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
 
  • #623
turbo-1 said:
Where were the "tea party" "conservatives" when these deficits were being racked up in the past couple of presidential terms? The "tea parties" were political theater staged by losers who now want to blame the sorry state of our economy on the new president and try to protect the tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthiest Americans. We can't afford that kind of bottom-up shift in wealth for another 8 years. The people who benefit disproportionately from our economic system should pay a fair (progressive) tax instead of whining.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

I don't see it that way Turbo-1.

This movement is a sign that people who actually pay taxes are starting to wake up and take notice. It's time for major change in Congress...Democrats and Republicans.

I believe the straw that broke the camels back was the Stimulus Bill not even being read by members before the vote...why are they even there...let's just all vote on line.
 
  • #624
WhoWee said:
I don't see it that way Turbo-1.

This movement is a sign that people who actually pay taxes are starting to wake up and take notice. It's time for major change in Congress...Democrats and Republicans.

I believe the straw that broke the camels back was the Stimulus Bill not even being read by members before the vote...why are they even there...let's just all vote on line.
There are people on both sides who claim to be fiscally conservative that never raised a peep between 2000 and 2008 while revenues were slashed and spending soared. Conveniently, on Tax Day, some wing-nuts come out wearing outlandish costumes and bearing signs and posters that proclaim that Obama is Fascist AND a Socialist. Let's catch a clue. These dopes are not too in touch with the nuances of "economy", "finance", etc, nor of the government's ability (sometimes limited) to effect them. On the local news, it seemed like a small, loud cluster of ditto-heads and FOX-buddies spewing negativism without a single constructive idea among them.
 
  • #625
has this video been played yet in this thread?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/87yq372R4Ts&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/87yq372R4Ts&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #628
turbo-1 said:
There are people on both sides who claim to be fiscally conservative that never raised a peep between 2000 and 2008 while revenues were slashed and spending soared. Conveniently, on Tax Day, some wing-nuts come out wearing outlandish costumes and bearing signs and posters that proclaim that Obama is Fascist AND a Socialist. Let's catch a clue. These dopes are not too in touch with the nuances of "economy", "finance", etc, nor of the government's ability (sometimes limited) to effect them. On the local news, it seemed like a small, loud cluster of ditto-heads and FOX-buddies spewing negativism without a single constructive idea among them.

Turbo-1

I don't disagree with you...EVERYONE went on this ride. Bush and Congress spent in the name of anti-terror and military support. , States expanded government/services. Consumers and businesses lived on credit. The mantra of the 2000's became spend, borrow and refinance...and those re-financings were bundled and sold.

Now, after a decade, MUCH more of the same is not the answer...the government needs to control spending...stop printing money and STOP relying on China to buy our debt...the banksjust raised their credit card interest rates to 25% ...what are we going to do if the Chinese and oil countries require a 10% or 15% rate...how much money can we print before we fall into hyper-inflation...there is a limit.

Our government leaders need to read Economics 101.

I'll give an example of the extent of the problem.

My wife and I have both been watching our spending very closely. We're strictly on cash...no credit purchases. However, I spent about 5 hours Monday evening, as I worked on my taxes, explaining to my 16 year old son why he doesn't need his own credit card (he was mailed an application) and why he needs to save up enough cash to buy his first car ( I won't take out a car loan - even if he pays - but have extended an offer to match his savings). His argument was well prepared and organized but based entirely upon "the easiest way" and "buying the highest value/best quality with the smallest down payment". He even argued that it wasn't a problem to make monthly car insurance payments...which doesn't provide any value unless you have an accident (not building equity...just an expense). My ill-prepared response was that if he didn't have insurance, the State of Ohio would take away his drivers license...and, I don't care what everyone else is doing.
 
  • #629
WhoWee said:
Turbo-1

I don't disagree with you...EVERYONE went on this ride. Bush and Congress spent in the name of anti-terror and military support. , States expanded government/services. Consumers and businesses lived on credit. The mantra of the 2000's became spend, borrow and refinance...and those re-financings were bundled and sold.

Now, after a decade, MUCH more of the same is not the answer...the government needs to control spending...stop printing money and STOP relying on China to buy our debt...the banksjust raised their credit card interest rates to 25% ...what are we going to do if the Chinese and oil countries require a 10% or 15% rate...how much money can we print before we fall into hyper-inflation...there is a limit.
There is a limit. And there is a limit to how much we can expect average working taxpayers to cough up to finance that reckless behavior. Unfortunately, the Tea-baggers and their enablers want to turn this whole situation into a political vendetta (thanks, FOX!).

I have never been beholden to a political party, but tended to vote for the most fiscally conservative candidates available, regardless of party. After Reagan's first term, I have been unable to vote for a single Republican presidential candidate. When the GOP embraced neo-conservatism (radical pro-business agenda and tax-cuts for the wealthy) and abandoned fiscal conservatism, they abandoned me. Both of the major parties have sold out to business interests instead of representing you and me - the big difference is that the GOP still claims to be "conservative" while borrowing and spending us into ruin. If the GOP wants to regain power, they should start walking the walk right now, and field some truly conservative candidates.

I have never begrudged the federal and state governments the income taxes that they levied on me. It's part of maintaining a system under which I could operate and make a decent living. The people at the very top who benefited the most from Reagan's tax cuts and W's tax cuts should not complain if those cuts are rolled back and they are expected to pay a fair share to maintain the system under which they became wealthy. One need only read Warren Buffet's editorials and watch his interviews to understand the "rightness" of this view. He's not a dummy.
 
  • #630
turbo-1 said:
...Unfortunately, the Tea-baggers and their enablers want to turn this whole situation into a political vendetta (thanks, FOX!).
That's baloney, associating the sought out and cherry picked nut job with thousands of others (Thanks CNN, Puffington Host!)

...Both of the major parties have sold out to business interests instead of representing you and me
Agreed, adding in unions and other special interests as well
- the big difference is that the GOP still claims to be "conservative" while borrowing and spending us into ruin. If the GOP wants to regain power, they should start walking the walk right now, and field some truly conservative candidates.
They had some, they just didn't win - Fred Thompson, and certainly Paul qualifies on the economic front.
 
  • #631
I repeat: Where were the tea-baggers while Bush doubled our national debt? If they were fiscally conservative (instead of hard-line ideologues), they should have raised a bit of a fuss earlier. Now that they have a new president who is tasked with fixing this mess, they seem quite eager to try to hang Bush's debt on him and try to prevent raising the revenues necessary to balance the budget.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

BTW, the local FOX affiliate covered the local tea-baggers but seemed unable to provide any more intelligent participants than you claim that the liberal media "cherry-picked". If you want to see "cherry-picking" in action, ask the ditto-heads what they thought of Bush's bail-out package (no strings attached) and then ask what they thought about Obama's second installment of that package. Somehow, Obama always manages to come off as the villain, and not infrequently, the words "socialist" and "fascist" get tossed in there, too. Not a real bright crowd. Good for ratings but critical thinking... not so much.
 
  • #632
turbo-1 said:
I repeat: Where were the tea-baggers while Bush doubled our national debt? If they were fiscally conservative (instead of hard-line ideologues), they should have raised a bit of a fuss earlier. Now that they have a new president who is tasked with fixing this mess, they seem quite eager to try to hang Bush's debt on him and try to prevent raising the revenues necessary to balance the budget.
It is a matter of scale. The figures under Bush: the debt went from 57% of GDP to 70% of GDP (noting that it touched 67% under Clinton). CBO says Obama/Congress will http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820_pf.html" of an optimistically much greater GDP, making Bush spending look like child's play. So I am not buying that is about saddling Obama with Bush's debt, he(&Congress) are making their own at high speed.

I didn't like the spending levels under Bush, and I heard frequent criticism of Republican spending excesses from pundits. If it didn't rise to the level of protests in the streets, then perhaps it was because the spending on the wars and Katrina were seen as one shot deals and somewhat unpredictable. But the offer by the fed to help pay off other people mortgages has touched a nerve, as paying off high risk behaviour is a game changer and not a one time thing - it can go on and on. (The bank bailouts are different - I don't like those either but at least banks have to pay that money back, with interest, except for the government controlled Fannie/Freddie)

I don't believe the tax increase on incomes over $250k (the bump on the top bracket) is the problem here. Obama was clear about that in the campaign, and despite some grumbling the voters approved, for one thing because he also promised to go through budget 'line by line' and to kill earmarks. He's done neither, but the tax increases are still coming. The problem here is where and how much money is being spent. People know full well that the 5% tax bump from the campaign is not going to pay for this colossal spending increase. Now we have effective additional taxes of $650B coming through carbon cap and trade, which everybody will have to pay.

Edit: Or, as Jonah Goldberg better put it http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MThlN2I5NTc4OWIwMTVmZTBjYjE3MzRiNjQzOGJmOGQ=" , replying to common criticisms from the left:
4. Republicans are hypocrites for suddenly caring about deficits.

Well, maybe. But then so are liberals for suddenly not caring about deficits. (That part always gets left out.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #633
TEA parties: What it comes down to is a bunch of Fox watchers and Limbaughvians who don't understand that according to virtually every serious economist, we have no choice. The most basic argument is that with a flat GDP, or negative growth, for a decade or more, which is the greatest fear, we will end up with a larger debt as a percentage of GDP than if we borrow and spend now. So the most responsible course of action is to borrow and spend our way out of this. And it's not like Obama is starting a needless trillion dollar war and giving Haliburton billions and billions in no-bid contracts. He is trying to target the spending in such a way that we will emerge a nation renewed - one capable of paying off the debt.

Unfortunately, it has/will cost another trillion just to clean up the mess left by the Republican mantra of deregulation, which in turn led to the crash of the economy. So really all of this gets tagged to Republican policies. Yet the Republicans protest!
 
Last edited:
  • #634
  • #635
mheslep said:
It is a matter of scale. The figures under Bush: the debt went from 57% of GDP to 70% of GDP (noting that it touched 67% under Clinton). CBO says Obama/Congress will http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820_pf.html" of an optimistically much greater GDP, making Bush spending look like child's play. So I am not buying that is about saddling Obama with Bush's debt, he(&Congress) are making their own at high speed.

Bush administration led us to the worst collapse of (western) world economy for decades. Don't you see this significant in any way?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #636
Ivan Seeking said:
TEA parties: What it comes down to is a bunch of Fox watchers and Limbaughvians who don't understand that according to virtually every serious economist, we have no choice. The most basic argument is that with a flat GDP, or negative growth, for a decade or more, which is the greatest fear, we will end up with a larger debt as a percentage of GDP than if we borrow and spend now. So the most responsible course of action is to borrow and spend our way out of this. And it's not like Obama is starting a needless trillion dollar war and giving Haliburton billions and billions in no-bid contracts. He is trying to target the spending in such a way that we will emerge a nation renewed - one capable of paying off the debt.

Unfortunately, it has/will cost another trillion just to clean up the mess left by the Republican mantra of deregulation, which in turn led to the crash of the economy. So really all of this gets tagged to Republican policies. Yet the Republicans protest!

Again, more unsupported claims Ivan. You claim "virtually every serious economist"...who are they and why aren't the ones who disagree "serious"?

Nearly tripling Bush's deficit by borrowing from the Chinese and printing $Trillions will cause inflation...maybe hyper-inflation.

Read this...look at the formula and description for money supply.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Inflation.html

Based on historical levels (we're at the bottom), interest rates WILL rise and we ARE increasing the money supply.

the dollar shrinks—to the extent that the nominal supply of dollars grows faster than the real demand to hold dollars. A standard approach to analyzing the connection between the money supply (M) and the general price level (P) uses an accounting identity called the “equation of exchange”:

MV = Py

where V denotes the income-velocity of money (the number of times per year the average dollar turns over in transactions for final goods and services), and y denotes the economy’s real income (as measured, e.g., by real GDP). Because V is defined as Py/M, the ratio of nominal income to money balances, the equation follows. The quantity theory of money (a better name would be “the quantity-of-money theory of the price level”) says that a higher or lower level of M does not cause any permanent change in y or desired V—or, in other words, does not permanently affect the real demand to hold money. It follows that, in the long run, a larger M means a proportionally higher P. In less formal terms, putting more dollars in circulation dilutes the purchasing power of each dollar; or: prices rise when there are more dollars chasing the same amount of goods.

Thought experiments can help to illustrate the thinking behind the quantity theory. Consider an economy in which all prices are in equilibrium. Now, imagine doubling the stock of money by magically doubling the numbers on all pieces of currency and all bank account balances. All price tags must be simultaneously doubled to keep relative prices and the purchasing power of each person’s (nominally doubled) money balances the same, and thus to keep the economy in equilibrium. Prices must rise in proportion to the quantity of money. For a slightly less magical case, imagine that a Federal Reserve helicopter flies across the country and drops enough currency to double the money supply. If the people who get the new cash want to buy the same basket of goods as the population in general, a doubling of all prices is once again called for.

The real-world process by which the Fed injects new money—typically by purchasing bonds in the open market with newly created Fed liabilities—differs from these thought experiments. Among other differences, the first-round spending of the new money is on bonds, not on consumer goods in representative proportions. In the second round, the bond sellers’ banks, into which the Fed has wired newly created reserves, will themselves buy additional securities (or make additional loans), expanding the banking system’s deposits as they do so. The actions of the Fed (and the subsequent actions of the commercial banks) expand the supply of loanable funds and therefore may lower the real interest rate. The commercial banks’ borrowers (predominantly business firms) may, at least temporarily, raise the relative prices of the assets they buy (business plant and equipment). Many economists assume that such relative-price effects are negligible, but others (e.g., the austrian school) assign them a key role in their theories of the business cycle.
 
  • #637
Mortgage Fraud Crackdown Is Gathering Steam in Florida
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090419/us_time/08599189223000

By TIM PADGETT / MIAMI AND WENDY MALLOY / TAMPA Tim Padgett / Miami And Wendy Malloy / Tampa – Sun Apr 19, 1:15 am ET
Florida's Gulf Coast was crawling with shady real estate investors like Neil Husani during this decade's housing boom. According to the U.S. Attorney's office in Tampa, Husani and three co-conspirators working with his Sarasota-based Capital Force, Inc., bilked seven area banks out of $83 million in a mortgage fraud scheme. Between 2003 and 2006, they bought up dozens of properties, used false information to secure mortgages far in excess of the actual property values, then pocketed the difference, which amounted to more than $40 million. The properties went into foreclosure and the banks, as well as the surrounding communities, were left holding the bag. Two of Husani's partners recently pleaded guilty to the conspiracy; another was convicted, and Husani, whose trial is pending in the U.S., has been arrested in Jordan, where he awaits extradition.

The Capital Force case is one of the largest mortgage frauds to date in Florida, but it's just the tip of an iceberg of scams that have wrecked broad swaths of the state's reeling housing and commercial real estate market. The situation is worst along the I-4 Corridor between the Tampa and Orlando areas, where almost 30,000 homes are in foreclosure. (Lee County, in fact, has one of the nation's highest foreclosure rates, at about 12%.) In recent years, fraud - involving either property purchases like Capital Force's, or schemes that falsely promise to help desperate homeowners hang on to their houses and then take the money and run - has mushroomed. Now, the U.S. Attorney's office in the Middle District of Florida tells TIME, federal agents and prosecutors have embarked on a "surge" of mortgage and loan-modification fraud investigations that could result in more than 200 indictments this year in the Tampa region alone. "The idea is to do as many cases as we can at once," says Tampa U.S. Attorney Brian Albritton, "to clearly send a message that this is not going to be tolerated."

For too long in Florida and the U.S., however, it seemed as though the swindlers were indeed getting away with it. As early as 2004, at the height of the housing frenzy, FBI officials were warning Congress of a mortgage fraud catastrophe: firms like Capital Force were illegally "flipping" properties, often using bogus "straw buyers"; unscrupulous appraisers were inflating their values; sub-prime borrowers lied about their assets; and predatory lenders duped customers into adjustable-rate loans that turned out to be financial time bombs. But according to the Justice Department, prosecutions of cases like those actually dropped between 2000 and 2007. Because so many law enforcement resources were thrown at terrorism during the Bush Administration, federal real estate fraud cases often took a back seat. Last year, even as the crisis became apparent, the Bush Justice Department still rejected a congressional recommendation to create a mortgage fraud task force.

. . . .
Hmmmm. So what was going on there?

Now that digging the country out of its economic sinkhole has become an issue of national security, the feds are straining to play catch-up. FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress last month that his agents are currently working more than 2,000 mortgage fraud investigations, compared to only 295 in 2003.
. . . .

A big problem the feds face is that the housing crash has created a whole new slew of cases. The first stage of fraud, which helped bring about the crisis, is now being followed by a second as people scheme to buy up foreclosed homes and other properties whose prices have plummeted, or as desperate homeowners hurry to refinance exorbitant mortgages or get their interest rates and principals reduced. . . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #638
Chrysler Bankruptcy Looms as Debt Talks Falter
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/chrysler-bankruptcy-looms-as-deal-on-debt-falters/

AP sources: Chrysler to file for bankruptcy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chrysler


Perhaps this will pave the way for GM, if GM cannot restructure itself satisfactorily.


Meanwhile - BofA Shareholders Oust Lewis as Chairman
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/bank-chiefs-future-at-issue-as-shareholders-meet/

and

Sweating Over the Stress Tests
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/stress-tests-no-big-deal-after-all/
After labeling its plan to “stress test” the nation’s top 19 banks an important part of instilling confidence in the market, the government is now playing down the importance of the results, which are expected to be released next week.

What gives? Writing in his latest DealBook column, Andrew Ross Sorkin says there are increasing worries that this latest effort to bolster confidence may undermine it instead.
. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #639
A few weeks ago, it looked like Saturn would be sold to a group inclusive of the dealers...now it's not so clear
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hzJ6l3NJeV0Fmp6mjz25GNJ89AagD97RNB9O1

When GM made the Pontiac announcement, they also specified a large number of Saturn and Hummer dealerships would be closed.
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2009/04/gm-officially-announces-pontiac-death.html

The sad part is the Hummer and Saturn dealerships are the newest and nicest out there...translation...big loss of investment for the dealers.

On a positive note, I guess this is an opportunity for someone to pick up a lot of great sites to sell something that would "connect" with a large metal half barrel corrugated roof (?)...lots of parking...maybe a hot air balloon franchise?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #640
Astronuc said:
Chrysler Bankruptcy Looms as Debt Talks Falter
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/chrysler-bankruptcy-looms-as-deal-on-debt-falters/

AP sources: Chrysler to file for bankruptcy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chrysler


Perhaps this will pave the way for GM, if GM cannot restructure itself satisfactorily.


Meanwhile - BofA Shareholders Oust Lewis as Chairman
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/bank-chiefs-future-at-issue-as-shareholders-meet/

and

Sweating Over the Stress Tests
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/stress-tests-no-big-deal-after-all/

I think we should anticipate a wild ride on the Dow over the Chrysler announcement. Given a 30 day window for a pre-packaged Chapter 11...the market will need to react quickly as the veil of secrecy is peeled back on the next chapter of the credit default swap story.

Some of the largest banks and institutional investors are principal. This combined with the stress tests means the next quarter will bare all...a highly unusual scenario.

I don't want to give anyone too much credit (to Obama...I'm thinking out loud)...but US ownership of a large percentage of common shares in the banks MIGHT actually help support the share prices. (However, I still think the bottom is 5,000 before we move out of this recession in about 18 to 20 months.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #641
Astronuc said:
Chrysler Bankruptcy Looms as Debt Talks Falter
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/30/chrysler-bankruptcy-looms-as-deal-on-debt-falters/

AP sources: Chrysler to file for bankruptcy
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_chrysler
...
Some of the Chrysler investors have had enough of the Gov running over the legalities:
What created this much-publicized impasse? Under long recognized legal and business principles, junior creditors are ordinarily not entitled to anything until senior secured creditors like our investors are repaid in full. Nevertheless, to facilitate Chrysler’s rehabilitation, we offered to take a 40% haircut even though some groups lower down in the legal priority chain in Chrysler debt were being given recoveries of up to 50% or more and being allowed to take out billions of dollars. In contrast, over at General Motors, senior secured lenders are being left unimpaired with 100% recoveries, while even GM’s unsecured bondholders are receiving a far better recovery than we are as Chrysler's first lien secured lenders.
http://www.businessinsider.com/senior-chrysler-creditors-revolt-2009-4
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #642
WhoWee said:
A few weeks ago, it looked like Saturn would be sold to a group inclusive of the dealers...now it's not so clear
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hzJ6l3NJeV0Fmp6mjz25GNJ89AagD97RNB9O1

When GM made the Pontiac announcement, they also specified a large number of Saturn and Hummer dealerships would be closed.
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2009/04/gm-officially-announces-pontiac-death.html

The sad part is the Hummer and Saturn dealerships are the newest and nicest out there...translation...big loss of investment for the dealers.
In addition to closing Pontiac, GM disclosed they are cutting more than 2000 dealerships across the country.

Locally, we've seen several dealerships go under, and that was before the current recession. I think it was more the case of too much redundancy. It hasn't helped that IBM has laid off thousands of workers locally (over the past two decades), but that's the nature of the industry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #643
There are some initiatives that are long-overdue, like directing the military to buy from US manufacturers whenever possible. As a result, my wife's employer (New Balance Athletic Shoe Co.) is in line for some large contracts for athletic shoes. Apparently the military buys and issues athletic shoes (I didn't know that) and until now, they were probably sourcing them from Nike, Reebock, etc, whose shoes are made in factories in China. Details are being worked out, but as of now it looks like NB will be getting some large contracts for either the model 993 or perhaps a slightly different model, perhaps with special stitching, colors, etc for the various branches of the service. In any case, it's nice to see someone in DC who wants to preserve US manufacturing jobs. Good jobs=stronger consumer spending=better economy. Time to try some "trickle up" for a change. BTW, New Balance's motto is "endorsed by no one". The Davises (owners) won't pay celebrities to wear their shoes or athletic clothing. Instead they pay their employees well, with good benefits, and give generously to good causes, like public playgrounds for children, money for breast cancer research, and child-welfare agencies like Maine's Home for Little Wanderers. Good people!

http://www.nicekicks.com/2009/01/new-balance-992-new-balance-993-comparison/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #644
When I worked at a refinery and later at construction sites, we used to get visits from Redwing Shoes and Snap-On Tools.

http://www.rwleatherboots.com/content.aspx?name=lifestyle_heritage
http://www.rwleatherboots.com/footwear.aspx

The refinery management actually approved the shoes because of the quality and requirements for no-slip soles.

http://www.snapon.com/

Individuals sold products out of vans in the parking lot, and the products were good. And apparently, they are still around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #645
turbo-1 said:
There are some initiatives that are long-overdue, like directing the military to buy from US manufacturers whenever possible. ...
Well if used, I hope that this is always the policy of last resort, and that the first instinct is always to have US manufacturers that simply made the best value product, so that US military could simply be directed to buy the best value with tax payer dollars.
 
  • #646
Hedge Funds vs Obama. This should get interesting.

A group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout,” Obama said today in Washington before Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection.

Obama’s team first offered secured lenders $2 billion for $6.9 billion in loans, then raised the offer to $2.25 billion. In a game of chicken, the holdouts asked for $2.5 billion yesterday, and Obama’s patience ran out. Many dissidents paid from 50 cents to 70 cents on the dollar for their Chrysler loans, so they’re sitting on losses, according to people familiar with the matter.

“They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none,” Obama said. “Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=apfauobxP3e0&refer=news
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #647
edward said:
Hedge Funds vs Obama. This should get interesting.





http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=apfauobxP3e0&refer=news

Does Obama have legal precedent in this scenario?

Obama is not a Federal Bankruptcy judge.

At what point do the injured parties (as a result of his "involvement") have recourse against the government?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #648
WhoWee said:
Does Obama have legal precedent in this scenario?

Obama is not a Federal Bankruptcy judge.

At what point do the injured parties (as a result of his "involvement") have recourse against the government?

This is just an opinion. If the debtors hold credit default swaps bankruptcy means they will be paid in full. That was a good incentive to hold out.

The debtors were offered within $250 million of the $2.5 billion they were asking.

That is where the, this should get interesting part comes into play.
 
  • #649
bloomberg said:
Obama’s team first offered secured lenders $2 billion for $6.9 billion in loans, then raised the offer to $2.25 billion. In a game of chicken, the holdouts asked for $2.5 billion yesterday, and Obama’s patience ran out. Many dissidents paid from 50 cents to 70 cents on the dollar for their Chrysler loans, so they’re sitting on losses, according to people familiar with the matter.

“They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices and they would have to make none,” Obama said. “Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting.”
$4.65B gone? How in the heck does agreeing to receive only $2.25 out of every $6.9 the investors loaned Chrysler equate to making no 'sacrifice'.
 
Last edited:
  • #650
edward said:
This is just an opinion. If the debtors hold credit default swaps bankruptcy means they will be paid in full. That was a good incentive to hold out.

The debtors were offered within $250 million of the $2.5 billion they were asking.
...
And $4.4B short or what they are owed by Chrysler. There is motivation all around to negotiate, since if the process degenerated into paying _only_ the senior lenders it would likely greatly reduce the value of what's left - sick but alive body vs dead corpse. Regardless, the law is these guys get paid first, ahead of _everybody_ else including the employees.
 
Back
Top