- #51
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
coal powers the nation. it's going nowhere anytime soon. more regulation just means higher power bills.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
News Can the market alone fix the economy?
- Thread starter DrClapeyron
- Start date
-
- 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.
Physics news on Phys.org
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Proton Soup said:coal powers the nation. it's going nowhere anytime soon. more regulation just means higher power bills.
Coal is like gasoline...hard core environmentalists would like to see the price of gas go to $10 a gallon...to force us to switch to alternative energies.
So the real question is how much will more regulation cost...and what is the breaking point?
Don't get me wrong, I'm for wind and solar and hydro and (the gravity/wave thing), etc. I'd love to own an electric vehicle that (I could afford and) would have a 300 to 400 mile daily range...which I often drive...but not if the price of electric increases 300 to 400%.
WheelsRCool
The economy will likely depend greatly upon the policies this government passes. The stock market is finicky now because they aren't sure what policies will be passed, but the market seems to be guessing they will be anti-growth.
If they go into a tax and spend mode, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will remove the workers's right to a secret ballot vote and make it a lot easier to unionize, and enact a carbon cap-and-trade system, the economy will likely be hamstringed. Take a look at what has happened to the state of California for an example. California is like the government equivalent of the Big Three right now. The state is on the fiscal cliff and is in a deadly spiral because to fund the public pension systems and employees keeps requiring higher and higher taxes and more debt (California already has the most debt of all the states). Taxes may have to double or triple in California. But this is having the nasty effect of sending businesses and high-earning individuals fleeing the state already, which decreases the tax base further, requiring higher taxes, etc...meanwhile entitlements are insane in the state. California punishes harshly hard work and financial success with high taxes, and their high regulation, unions, environmental groups, etc...make it very unfriendly for business as well. But they reward laziness with generous welfare policies. Which is very bad from fiscal standpoint.
Senator Obama has not once ever bucked organized labor from what I can see, and this is shown more by his choice for Labor Secretary. And the unions want payback for all that money they spent getting him elected. Senator Obama also expressed support for the Employee Free Choice Act during the campaign, so, time will tell. But if passed, it could add a burden to the economy for a generation.
The United States may well be becoming one of the most harsh countries for business. Once the Bush tax cuts expire, the top marginal income tax rate goes back up to 39.6%, which will hit many small businesses taxed at that rate, the tax on capital will return to 20%, which is a 33% increase from where it is now (15%), and Barack Obama may raise it even higher, and the tax on dividends will return to 39.6%, an over 100% increase from where it is now (15%).
The current tax on capital is already rather high, at 15% (Switzerland and Germany don't tax capital at all, and Australia and the UK have a graduated tax on capital that ultimately amounts to less than the U.S. rate I believe).
Increasing the tax on capital will devalue the stock market and also slow down venture capital investment, thus slowing down new business growth, and wage growth, which is tied to capital, further (wages are tied to productivity and productivity is increased through capital, i.e. computers, plants, equipment, etc...a worker with a forklift is far more productive than one carrying boxes on their back). Businesses that would expand will not do so or not do so to the extent they would have previously, and startups that might otherwise have received funding will not get it. Venture capital firms only make money from one out of multiple businesses they fund; the less capital is taxed, the more businesses they will risk money on. The more it is taxed, the less.
Also, historically cutting capital gains tax rates always has increased revenues, and increasing the tax has cut revenues. Some economists argue that revenues only increase initially, than decrease in the long run, but this view seems to forget that cheaper capital means more business expansion and new business, and thus job, creation.
But it probably isn't wise to enact a tax increase (or allow one to occur) that will cut revenues to the Treasury right now, meanwhile strain businesses more, all in the name of "fairness."
The Left like to claim that the capital gains tax cuts only benefit the rich and wealthy, because the wealthy own the majority of the stock, and thus raising it is only sticking it to the wealthy. But capital gains is a tax on capital period, whether it's stocks, a car, home, business, whatever, and whether owned by middle-class, wealthy, well-off, whatever (and many middle-class own stock too). Also, as shown above, capital is what affects wages and job growth. So taxing it more can inadverdently hurt the middle-class a good deal.
Senator Obama talked about wages supposedly being stagnant, well you don't increase the tax on capital if you want wages to increase.
We have one of the highest corporate income tax rates, which incentivizes businesses to go overseas to take advantage of cheaper rates and to use our incredibly convulted and complex tax code to loophole their way out of the corporate tax rate.
Europe is advertising itself as a "Sarbannes-Oxley-free zone," a piece of regulation that has made it very costly to startups wanting to go IPO.
Throw in giving the unions the biggest piece of pro-union legislation in decades possibly, and carbon cap-and-trade (powerful unions and carbon regulations, along with high taxes and out-of-control spending are destroying the California economy), and you have a recipe to make the U.S. highly anti-business.
The only way the U.S. may handle this is if the U.S. economy is rich and strong enough to take all of these measures if passed. If not, we may see a repeat of the high inflation, high uemployment, recessionary 1970s.
California itself has a large influence on the U.S. economy because it is the world's 7th largest economy alone. Just as when America sneezes and the rest of the world catches a cold (or maybe it's when America catches a cold, the rest of the world sneezes?), well when California gets sick, it affects the whole country.
Barack Obama may govern as a moderate, I mean he has chosen moderate economists, and he said recently that we don't want to enact heavy, burdensome regulations and ultra-high taxes, so I am hoping he will hold to this. But as said the unions want their payback and the unions, trial lawyers, environmental lobbyists, etc...will push for all of their policies, and the current Democrats in Congress are led by some very Left-leaning folk, i.e. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Jimmy Carter originally wanted to govern more to the center, but the Democrat Congress at the time pulled him more to the Left.
The economy performed okay with a tax increase in the 1990s, but the thing is that this was before many of the other countries had enacted their flat tax rates they have now and also under Clinton the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28% to 20% in 1997; this was when the economy really went into hyperdrive and the budget went into surplus. The Republican Congress at the time also kept Clinton more fiscally conservative, and because it was peaceful times, military spending was able to be kept to a minimum.
Had the Republicans not spent so much money like they did, we likely would have had a $100 billion plus surplus in 2007, so the deficit would be lower.
The traditional idea was that deficits are bad, but now the government seems to have the attitude that deficits don't matter, which isn't good.
The dollar will likely stay weak and grow weaker if foreign investment begins fleeing the country fast.
Since healthcare is about 16% of the economy, the economy will also likely depend somewhat upon how Senator Obama's universal healthcare plan works. Healthcare costs currently are exploding because 50% of healthcare is government-provided, the other 50% so heavily regulated it can't really be called a free-market, and without competition, costs are shooting up. This is bankrupting businesses and individuals.
Also infrastructure spending may lengthen the economic recovery period, because the money spent on public works is money that instead could be in the private sector creating new businesses and creating jobs.
A danger here is that Senator Obama is likely hoping the economy will be recovered by the time the Bush tax cuts expire, so that it can withstand these tax increases and no legislation is needed to actually "raise taxes," as it happens automatically. But if other policies, such as massive infrastructure spending, lengthen the time it takes for the economy to recover, the economy may still be rather stalled come the time the tax rates increase.
Also is the concern over free trade. Senator Obama spoke much against free trade during the election, and said he wanted to make free trade more "fair" (which there is no such thing; either it's free or "fair" (whatever that means); certain people will always lose their jobs from free trade, just as certain people will always lose their jobs from technological change). But on net, free trade creates millions more new jobs.
If free trade is infringed upon through say high tariffs, that could be big trouble. Time will tell though.
Also of great concern is the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation as Senator Obama wants to (he wants to raise it to $9.50) will artificially increase the cost of labor to a business, which means they will higher fewer workers.
This especially hits hard the inner-city areas, the very areas it is meant to help. It also has other adverse effects, such as a business may take full-time jobs with benefits and divide them each into two part-time jobs that have no benefits, or employees will get less pay, or worse working conditions, etc...it greatly helps big monster firms like Wal-Mart though, which can easily afford a minimum wage increase and thus benefit from the increased stuggle of the small businesses, which may have to raise their prices, or offer less benefits, or whatnot. Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage increase as well (probably precisely for this reason).
Mom-and-Pop stores can't handle a minimum wage increase like a Wal-Mart can. A guy who say owns a small chain of stores, say five big Wal-Mart/K-Mart type stores, suffers more as well because he can't offer the prices like Wal-Mart can.
But right now, it's all speculation. I hope Senator Obama and the Democrats will govern as economic moderates, not overspending or overtaxing or regulating or anything like that.
If they go into a tax and spend mode, and pass the Employee Free Choice Act, which will remove the workers's right to a secret ballot vote and make it a lot easier to unionize, and enact a carbon cap-and-trade system, the economy will likely be hamstringed. Take a look at what has happened to the state of California for an example. California is like the government equivalent of the Big Three right now. The state is on the fiscal cliff and is in a deadly spiral because to fund the public pension systems and employees keeps requiring higher and higher taxes and more debt (California already has the most debt of all the states). Taxes may have to double or triple in California. But this is having the nasty effect of sending businesses and high-earning individuals fleeing the state already, which decreases the tax base further, requiring higher taxes, etc...meanwhile entitlements are insane in the state. California punishes harshly hard work and financial success with high taxes, and their high regulation, unions, environmental groups, etc...make it very unfriendly for business as well. But they reward laziness with generous welfare policies. Which is very bad from fiscal standpoint.
Senator Obama has not once ever bucked organized labor from what I can see, and this is shown more by his choice for Labor Secretary. And the unions want payback for all that money they spent getting him elected. Senator Obama also expressed support for the Employee Free Choice Act during the campaign, so, time will tell. But if passed, it could add a burden to the economy for a generation.
The United States may well be becoming one of the most harsh countries for business. Once the Bush tax cuts expire, the top marginal income tax rate goes back up to 39.6%, which will hit many small businesses taxed at that rate, the tax on capital will return to 20%, which is a 33% increase from where it is now (15%), and Barack Obama may raise it even higher, and the tax on dividends will return to 39.6%, an over 100% increase from where it is now (15%).
The current tax on capital is already rather high, at 15% (Switzerland and Germany don't tax capital at all, and Australia and the UK have a graduated tax on capital that ultimately amounts to less than the U.S. rate I believe).
Increasing the tax on capital will devalue the stock market and also slow down venture capital investment, thus slowing down new business growth, and wage growth, which is tied to capital, further (wages are tied to productivity and productivity is increased through capital, i.e. computers, plants, equipment, etc...a worker with a forklift is far more productive than one carrying boxes on their back). Businesses that would expand will not do so or not do so to the extent they would have previously, and startups that might otherwise have received funding will not get it. Venture capital firms only make money from one out of multiple businesses they fund; the less capital is taxed, the more businesses they will risk money on. The more it is taxed, the less.
Also, historically cutting capital gains tax rates always has increased revenues, and increasing the tax has cut revenues. Some economists argue that revenues only increase initially, than decrease in the long run, but this view seems to forget that cheaper capital means more business expansion and new business, and thus job, creation.
But it probably isn't wise to enact a tax increase (or allow one to occur) that will cut revenues to the Treasury right now, meanwhile strain businesses more, all in the name of "fairness."
The Left like to claim that the capital gains tax cuts only benefit the rich and wealthy, because the wealthy own the majority of the stock, and thus raising it is only sticking it to the wealthy. But capital gains is a tax on capital period, whether it's stocks, a car, home, business, whatever, and whether owned by middle-class, wealthy, well-off, whatever (and many middle-class own stock too). Also, as shown above, capital is what affects wages and job growth. So taxing it more can inadverdently hurt the middle-class a good deal.
Senator Obama talked about wages supposedly being stagnant, well you don't increase the tax on capital if you want wages to increase.
We have one of the highest corporate income tax rates, which incentivizes businesses to go overseas to take advantage of cheaper rates and to use our incredibly convulted and complex tax code to loophole their way out of the corporate tax rate.
Europe is advertising itself as a "Sarbannes-Oxley-free zone," a piece of regulation that has made it very costly to startups wanting to go IPO.
Throw in giving the unions the biggest piece of pro-union legislation in decades possibly, and carbon cap-and-trade (powerful unions and carbon regulations, along with high taxes and out-of-control spending are destroying the California economy), and you have a recipe to make the U.S. highly anti-business.
The only way the U.S. may handle this is if the U.S. economy is rich and strong enough to take all of these measures if passed. If not, we may see a repeat of the high inflation, high uemployment, recessionary 1970s.
California itself has a large influence on the U.S. economy because it is the world's 7th largest economy alone. Just as when America sneezes and the rest of the world catches a cold (or maybe it's when America catches a cold, the rest of the world sneezes?), well when California gets sick, it affects the whole country.
Barack Obama may govern as a moderate, I mean he has chosen moderate economists, and he said recently that we don't want to enact heavy, burdensome regulations and ultra-high taxes, so I am hoping he will hold to this. But as said the unions want their payback and the unions, trial lawyers, environmental lobbyists, etc...will push for all of their policies, and the current Democrats in Congress are led by some very Left-leaning folk, i.e. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Jimmy Carter originally wanted to govern more to the center, but the Democrat Congress at the time pulled him more to the Left.
The economy performed okay with a tax increase in the 1990s, but the thing is that this was before many of the other countries had enacted their flat tax rates they have now and also under Clinton the capital gains tax rate was cut from 28% to 20% in 1997; this was when the economy really went into hyperdrive and the budget went into surplus. The Republican Congress at the time also kept Clinton more fiscally conservative, and because it was peaceful times, military spending was able to be kept to a minimum.
Had the Republicans not spent so much money like they did, we likely would have had a $100 billion plus surplus in 2007, so the deficit would be lower.
The traditional idea was that deficits are bad, but now the government seems to have the attitude that deficits don't matter, which isn't good.
The dollar will likely stay weak and grow weaker if foreign investment begins fleeing the country fast.
Since healthcare is about 16% of the economy, the economy will also likely depend somewhat upon how Senator Obama's universal healthcare plan works. Healthcare costs currently are exploding because 50% of healthcare is government-provided, the other 50% so heavily regulated it can't really be called a free-market, and without competition, costs are shooting up. This is bankrupting businesses and individuals.
Also infrastructure spending may lengthen the economic recovery period, because the money spent on public works is money that instead could be in the private sector creating new businesses and creating jobs.
A danger here is that Senator Obama is likely hoping the economy will be recovered by the time the Bush tax cuts expire, so that it can withstand these tax increases and no legislation is needed to actually "raise taxes," as it happens automatically. But if other policies, such as massive infrastructure spending, lengthen the time it takes for the economy to recover, the economy may still be rather stalled come the time the tax rates increase.
Also is the concern over free trade. Senator Obama spoke much against free trade during the election, and said he wanted to make free trade more "fair" (which there is no such thing; either it's free or "fair" (whatever that means); certain people will always lose their jobs from free trade, just as certain people will always lose their jobs from technological change). But on net, free trade creates millions more new jobs.
If free trade is infringed upon through say high tariffs, that could be big trouble. Time will tell though.
Also of great concern is the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation as Senator Obama wants to (he wants to raise it to $9.50) will artificially increase the cost of labor to a business, which means they will higher fewer workers.
This especially hits hard the inner-city areas, the very areas it is meant to help. It also has other adverse effects, such as a business may take full-time jobs with benefits and divide them each into two part-time jobs that have no benefits, or employees will get less pay, or worse working conditions, etc...it greatly helps big monster firms like Wal-Mart though, which can easily afford a minimum wage increase and thus benefit from the increased stuggle of the small businesses, which may have to raise their prices, or offer less benefits, or whatnot. Wal-Mart supports a minimum wage increase as well (probably precisely for this reason).
Mom-and-Pop stores can't handle a minimum wage increase like a Wal-Mart can. A guy who say owns a small chain of stores, say five big Wal-Mart/K-Mart type stores, suffers more as well because he can't offer the prices like Wal-Mart can.
But right now, it's all speculation. I hope Senator Obama and the Democrats will govern as economic moderates, not overspending or overtaxing or regulating or anything like that.
Last edited by a moderator:
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Give Obama a chance...he said 2.5 million new jobs by 2011 (by the way...it's the normal amount of new jobs generated) and he'll probably deliver...Bush did...it's a safe number.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09charts.html
As for tax and spend...are you serious? The latest 2009 Stimulus Package is estimated at $1.2 TRILLION.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2832513
At the end of the day, Obama may be our only hope to keep Congress from really spending.
Last, SOX was conceived with good intentions...but let's face it...compared to the latest Madoff Ponzi scheme and the derivatives market, ENRON was small potatoes.
http://www.lieffcabrasersecurities.com/cases/madoff.htm?gclid=COPPvNDH55cCFRNOagod7nd_Cw
http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.2475566.0.Royal_Madoff_hit_may_overshadow_loss_from_Enron.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09charts.html
As for tax and spend...are you serious? The latest 2009 Stimulus Package is estimated at $1.2 TRILLION.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle/articleid/2832513
At the end of the day, Obama may be our only hope to keep Congress from really spending.
Last, SOX was conceived with good intentions...but let's face it...compared to the latest Madoff Ponzi scheme and the derivatives market, ENRON was small potatoes.
http://www.lieffcabrasersecurities.com/cases/madoff.htm?gclid=COPPvNDH55cCFRNOagod7nd_Cw
http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.2475566.0.Royal_Madoff_hit_may_overshadow_loss_from_Enron.php
Last edited by a moderator:
WheelsRCool
WhoWee said:Give Obama a chance...he said 2.5 million new jobs by 2011 (by the way...it's the normal amount of new jobs generated) and he'll probably deliver...Bush did...it's a safe number.
I am; all that stuff I posted is stuff Senator Obama said he intends to do. He himself said in an interview, for example, that he intended to make it where creating a new coal plant would be so expensive it would bankrupt the person/company creating it. President Bush benefited from the housing boom, plus he cut taxes, and under him we did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty which would have imposed costly carbon regulations on the economy.
As for tax and spend...are you serious? The latest 2009 Stimulus Package is estimated at $1.2 TRILLION.
That's a lot of spending...
At the end of the day, Obama may be our only hope to keep Congress from really spending.
He is the one who proposed so much new spending in the first place. But I hope you are right. If he turns out to be fiscally conservative, it will 1) Drive the hardcore socialist Leftists nuts, and 2) Be great for America.
Last, SOX was conceived with good intentions...but let's face it...compared to the latest Madoff Ponzi scheme and the derivatives market, ENRON was small potatoes.
Good intentions or not, it is too constricting.
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
I feel your pain...but I think Obama will need to be a moderate and at least appear to be in charge if he wants to be re-elected in 4 years.
He has to keep Pelosi and Reid in check and substantial tax increases would be insane.
He has to keep Pelosi and Reid in check and substantial tax increases would be insane.
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
As for the economy...we have to fix the parts that are fixable and will yield the greatest returns.
Unfortunately, short term need will take priority over long term growth...with one possible exception in the area of Green power.
As usual, smoke and mirrors will be part of the act...expect a portion of defense spending to be re-labeled as R&D of some type for Green programs...and marketed as defense cuts.
Unfortunately, short term need will take priority over long term growth...with one possible exception in the area of Green power.
As usual, smoke and mirrors will be part of the act...expect a portion of defense spending to be re-labeled as R&D of some type for Green programs...and marketed as defense cuts.
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
I don't have time to run this down now, but last I looked the highways generally do pay for themselves via gas taxes (and property/state taxes for maintenance). Light intercity transit rail does not, though ~20% of the gas tax is siphoned off for mass transit projects.Astronuc said:The airlines killed the passenger service by rail.
The highway system killed the freight rail service, in addition to the fact that the national rail system was run down by heavy usage during the war, and the major railroads, particularly the NY Central and Pennsylvania, and their neighbors in the NE, deferred maintenance. Union work rules didn't help.
Both airlines and road transport were heavily subsidized, something the railroads didn't get.
Eh? Did you mean that in terms of relatvie scale?We certainly live in different times.
Tom Friedman expresses his ideas in Hot, Flat and Crowded and the need for a Green revolution
Book Passage - Hot, Flat & Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution -- And How It Can Renew America.
http://fora.tv/2008/10/30/Thomas_Friedman_Why_We_Need_a_Green_Revolution
Alternative presentation
http://fora.tv/2008/09/23/Tom_Friedman_Hot_Flat_and_Crowded
He incorrectly states that the government invested in the railroads. They didn't after World War II. The government invested in airports and traffic control, and highways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_Passenger_Service_Act" of 1970. Creates Amtrak at ~$1B/year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Revitalization_and_Regulatory_Reform_Act" t of 1976, creating Conrail with billions from the government.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Annotated_laws_relating_to_Conrail#Northeast_Rail_Service_Act_of_1981" of 1981.
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 22,341
- 7,139
I was referring to the late 40's, 50' and 60's. The US railroads ran themselves into the ground, litterally in some cases. Conrail was basically a government take-over of the bankrupt PennCentral (which was a failed merger between Pennsylvania and NY Central RR, with the bankrupt New Haven thrown in), along with the Erie Lackawanna, Lehigh Valley, Reading, Central of New Jersey, Lehigh & Hudson River, and Ann Arbor Railroad. Prior to Conrail, there was essentially no rail subsidy.
With Staggers Act of 1980, Conrail was able to start turning a profit.
Amtrak was created to take over the money loosing passenger rail service. It basically nationalized passenger rail service.
I believe that historically the taxes paid by trucking companies did not cover the wear and tear on the highway system, and the US government has spent more on highways than the taxes collected.
The light rail or transit taxes are relatively recent.
With Staggers Act of 1980, Conrail was able to start turning a profit.
Amtrak was created to take over the money loosing passenger rail service. It basically nationalized passenger rail service.
I believe that historically the taxes paid by trucking companies did not cover the wear and tear on the highway system, and the US government has spent more on highways than the taxes collected.
The light rail or transit taxes are relatively recent.
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,901
- 15
I'm guessing that NY's property taxes pay for the subway?the highways generally do pay for themselves via gas taxes (and property/state taxes for maintenance). Light intercity transit rail does not
I don't imagine much property tax would be collected if the alternative was for everyone to drive into Manhattan.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 22,341
- 7,139
Financing for the subway system is complicated. The subway system collects tolls, but there are various taxes, and someone (preferably who owns real estate) from NYC would have to answer the question. I believe NYCity residents pay an income tax, in addition to property and excise (sales) tax.mgb_phys said:I'm guessing that NY's property taxes pay for the subway?
I don't imagine much property tax would be collected if the alternative was for everyone to drive into Manhattan.
In my area, there are state taxes (surtax on capital) on transportation and utility companies, and the proceeds ostensibly are used to support mass transit. I found this out when I looked into starting a short line railroad. The taxes and regulations were a huge impediment. There is a 'transportation' company in Connecticut that did buy the rail service I was interested in, but they were very clever. They formed a holding company which owned the right-of-way and equipment. They are not a 'transportation' or utility company, but essentially a real estate or holding company. They control the railroad that uses the right of way, but the railroad simply leases the ROW and equipment from the holding company, and that means they do not pay taxes that a railroad ('transportation') company has to pay. It's unnecessarily complicated because of stupid government regulations.
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,901
- 15
My point was that rather than the subway being a socialist drain on NY's finances - it subsidizes NY since the city wouldn't be viable without it and then there wouldn't be any city tax to collect.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 22,341
- 7,139
The subway is definitely a necessity. The issue for many is - who pays for it.mgb_phys said:My point was that rather than the subway being a socialist drain on NY's finances - it subsidizes NY since the city wouldn't be viable without it and then there wouldn't be any city tax to collect.
NY City, like London, has looked into charging surcharges on automobiles and trucks in areas of the city, simply because the traffic congestion is so bad at times (in some cases to the point of paralysis). I believe there are even restrictions on trucks, i.e. what routes/streets they can use and so on.
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,901
- 15
The congestion charge appears to be working in London it's reduced the traffic by about 1/3. It's only mon-fri during the day so hasn't had a bad effect on tourismAstronuc said:NY City, like London, has looked into charging surcharges on automobiles and trucks in areas of the city, simply because the traffic congestion is so bad at times
There are some political rows about extending it into certain suburbs (particular low traffic but rich areas) since people living inside the zone still have to pay. There are also demands to charge SUVs more to punish the owners.
All the money raised is supposed to go to public transport but like all government accounting it's a bit opaque.
The Us government thinks the congestion charge is a good idea - but the US embassy in London refuses to pay (claiming it is a tax rather than a toll), it owes about $2M.
There have been time restrictions on trucks in London for years - so that deliveries to shops were all made before the rush hour.I believe there are even restrictions on trucks, i.e. what routes/streets they can use and so on.
Then they introduced a scheme so that individual trucks had to be licenced to go into London - this didn't work because the trucking companies only licenced a few vehicles (it was expensive) and so there were many more journeys as particular trucks had to be repositioned to depots.
The biggest effect was probably the M25 - the orbital freeway. Without this the direct route for traffic from the channel to the rest of the country was through the middle of London (as it had been for 2000years).
Last edited:
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,157
- 57
Most cities here in Maine have truck routes clearly labeled and commercial vehicles (with the exception of road-maintenance, trash removal, etc are restricted from driving in residential areas. The road I live on is a lightly-paved 2-lane on an inadequate gravel base. The road is posted to bar commercial vehicles over 60,000 lb GVW, but I routinely see fully-loaded log trucks heaped to the stakes with hardwood - easily hitting 120,000. There is a state trooper living on the other end of this road, but the scofflaws continue to wreck the road.
Al68
gravenewworld said:FYI, new legislation that was passed in 2005 makes is much much more difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy.
FYI, those changes only apply to people making above medium income, and even for them it's only slightly more difficult. This issue was grossly misrepresented in the media.
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 7,901
- 15
There is a bridge in cambridge labeled "weak bridge, weight limit 5tons - except for deliveries", I always wondered how that worked?
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
I remember a bridge in Philly/New Jersey area that said something to the effect of...stay in your car...keep moving...unsafe for pedestrians.
I guess you could fall through the holes if on foot and maybe your tires could touch both sides?
I guess you could fall through the holes if on foot and maybe your tires could touch both sides?
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
More likely to be the spending behavior of the public, which depends somewhat on the perceived state of the economy in spite of the actual effects on individuals.WheelsRCool said:The economy will likely depend greatly upon the policies this government passes.
I don't understand this or why it would make it easier to unionize. In Texas there's right to work law that prevents unions from requiring all employees of a company to be in the union. Would this change?Employee Free Choice Act, which will remove the workers's right to a secret ballot vote and make it a lot easier to unionize
Businesses yes, high earning individuals probably like the lifestyle, and can afford to stay in California, despite the taxes. Then again, the desirability of living in California means that some business will need to have facilities there to attract the tech industry workers that prefer to live in California.Taxes may have to double or triple in California. But this is having the nasty effect of sending businesses and high-earning individuals fleeing the state already
Seldomly is financial success related to hard work. In most cases, it's the result of reaping the benefits of the labor of others. The vast majority of "hard workers" are not financially successful if you mean above upper middle class.California punishes harshly hard work and financial success
You mean the tax on capital income. Why should any form of income (other than government bonds) get preferred tax treatment over other forms of income?The United States may well be becoming one of the most harsh countries for business. Once the Bush tax cuts expire, the top marginal income tax rate goes back up to 39.6%, which will hit many small businesses taxed at that rate, the tax on capital will return to 20%, which is a 33% increase from where it is now (15%), and Barack Obama may raise it even higher, and the tax on dividends will return to 39.6%, an over 100% increase from where it is now (15%).
Or return the stock market to a truer valuation. Why should investment income be treated differently than other forms of income? If it's a level playing field, investments will continue to follow where the investors feel there's money to be made.Increasing the tax on capital will devalue the stock market and also slow down venture capital investment
Sounds like a reasonable assessment of the situation.The left like to claim that the capital gains tax cuts only benefit the rich and wealthy, because the wealthy own the majority of the stock
Few cars experience an increase in value over time. Home owners get a one time exemption. The rest has little effect on the vast majority of the midde class. Do the 401K plans that most people have get a capital gains tax rate on the capital gains portion of their 401K plans when they start withdrawing their retirement money?But capital gains is a tax on capital period, whether it's stocks, a car, home, business, whatever, and whether owned by middle-class, wealthy.
Wouldn't that result in USA products becoming relatively cheaper than "foreign" products?The dollar will likely stay weak and grow weaker if foreign investment begins fleeing the country fast.
My opinion is that the greed aspect of healthcare crept into the system starting in the late 1950's. Take a look at incomes of the medical community versus the rate of inflation over the last 40 years.Healthcare costs currently are exploding because 50% of healthcare is government-provided.
Probably, but few of the unemployed in the USA will care that millions of people in China now have more new jobs.But on net, free trade creates millions more new jobs.
I don't see an issue here as long as it's a level playing field.Increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation as Senator Obama wants to (he wants to raise it to $9.50) will artificially increase the cost of labor to a business, which means they will higher fewer workers.
Isn't that the point of a free economy, the non-competive business are free to fail?Mom-and-Pop stores can't handle a minimum wage increase like a Wal-Mart can.
Last edited:
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Jeff Reid said:Isn't that the point of a free economy, the non-competive business are free to fail?
Do you mean companies with labor agreements that are so expensive they need a bailout to fund operations for the next 3 months?
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
Jeff Reid said:Isn't that the point of a free economy, the non-competive business are free to fail?
A lot of republicans in congress feel that way. Considering that the labor related costs represent 7% to 8% of the price of USA cars, I doubt that extra 2% or so on the price of USA cars versus "foreign" cars explains why the USA car companies got into so much trouble. Ford seems to be doing ok compared to the other 2, mostly because they targeted a wider market segment than GM and Chrysler. If you want to blame someone, blame the oil companies for raising gas prices a great amount in a short period of time; which they did back in the 1970's with a similar effect on the USA auto makers. ... or blame who ever thought it was a good idea to let corporate America police themselves and deregulate, such as legalizing gambling in the stock market via derivatives and letting the money lender brokers decide the parameters required to qualify for home loans.WhoWee said:Do you mean companies with labor agreements that are so expensive they need a bailout to fund operations for the next 3 months?
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
I am responding to your comment that non-competitive businesses should be allowed to fail...and I agree.
Anyone that agrees to compensate production employees at $70 per hour is not being competitive. If you want employees to share in the profits...pay minimum wage to start, cap at $12 per hour and ISSUE THEM STOCK.
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm
http://www.knowyourpension.org/pensions/UAWpensions/UAW_pension_updates.aspx
http://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/12/21/uaw-pensions-retirement-the-black-swan-reveals-the-sacred-cow/
http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php
http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg05.cfm
http://www.uaw.org/about/itpays/pays05.html
When a company backs itself into a corner the way GM has...it can only mean that they were hoping for some big and special event to happen in the future (maybe a bailout?) to solve their problems...or maybe they were watching government and decided to just keep rolling the big debt ball forward. It really doesn't matter WHY they've shot themselves in the foot.
If a small business selects a location because it is the very best location...everyone says OHHH location, location, location...what a smart operator...but if the small business is under-capitalized (can't pay the rent or mortgage) or sells an unwanted or unacceptable product, or pays the manager and employees too much...the business fails and everyone says...too bad...next?
I think the UAW membership (including retirees) along with the dealers and suppliers and parts companies and trucking companies and everyone else with a vested interest should BUY INTO GM, acquire Chrysler...hire new management and restructure their own agreements...don't expect Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or even President Obama to solve your problems.
Anyone that agrees to compensate production employees at $70 per hour is not being competitive. If you want employees to share in the profits...pay minimum wage to start, cap at $12 per hour and ISSUE THEM STOCK.
http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm
http://www.knowyourpension.org/pensions/UAWpensions/UAW_pension_updates.aspx
http://briansullivan.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/12/21/uaw-pensions-retirement-the-black-swan-reveals-the-sacred-cow/
http://www.uaw.org/barg/07fact/fact02.php
http://www.uaw.org/barg/03/barg05.cfm
http://www.uaw.org/about/itpays/pays05.html
When a company backs itself into a corner the way GM has...it can only mean that they were hoping for some big and special event to happen in the future (maybe a bailout?) to solve their problems...or maybe they were watching government and decided to just keep rolling the big debt ball forward. It really doesn't matter WHY they've shot themselves in the foot.
If a small business selects a location because it is the very best location...everyone says OHHH location, location, location...what a smart operator...but if the small business is under-capitalized (can't pay the rent or mortgage) or sells an unwanted or unacceptable product, or pays the manager and employees too much...the business fails and everyone says...too bad...next?
I think the UAW membership (including retirees) along with the dealers and suppliers and parts companies and trucking companies and everyone else with a vested interest should BUY INTO GM, acquire Chrysler...hire new management and restructure their own agreements...don't expect Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or even President Obama to solve your problems.
Last edited by a moderator:
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
Why not pay the CEO's in the same manner then? Is a CEO really worth more to a company than 100 or more employees that actually do the labor? I would assume the $70 per hour would attract the best possible workers. Also again note that labor related costs represent 7% to 8% of the price of a USA made car.WhoWee said:Anyone that agrees to compensate production employees at $70 per hour is not being competitive. If you want employees to share in the profits...pay minimum wage to start, cap at $12 per hour and ISSUE THEM STOCK.
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Somehow I don't think the the CEO would be guaranteed $millions if the vested parties owned the company...I agree that executive pay should be tied to profitability (and I don't mean smoke and mirrors profitability).
Only government and health care live in the world where cost doesn't matter.
Only government and health care live in the world where cost doesn't matter.
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
Given the recent highly visible evidence that the decisions of a single executive can create or destroy billions of dollars, create or destroy thousands and thousands of jobs, then such a person that can correctly analyze a complex business and its market, and then lead an organization is worth more than any 100 other line employees, at least at moments.Jeff Reid said:Why not pay the CEO's in the same manner then? Is a CEO really worth more to a company than 100 or more employees that actually do the labor? I would assume the $70 per hour would attract the best possible workers. Also again note that labor related costs represent 7% to 8% of the price of a USA made car.
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
Except those people seem to be the exception when it comes to the quality of CEO's. The track record for startups in the USA is about 1 in 10 succeeds, and a significant part of the sucesses are dumb luck in cases of having the right product at the right time. I've seen a significant number of high level managers move from job to job, and their success or failure has little to do with the decisions they've made. Most of the time, they've simply inherited a situation, and/or it's a few key employees or staff that have more impact on how a company does.mheslep said:Given the recent highly visible evidence that the decisions of a single executive can create or destroy billions of dollars, create or destroy thousands and thousands of jobs, then such a person that can correctly analyze a complex business and its market, and then lead an organization is worth more than any 100 other line employees, at least at moments.
update - The other issue with CEO's is that there's little personal risk. They get paid the same regardless if their decisions are good or bad, and sometimes get rewarded with huge severances if their bad decisions result in them getting fired. One issue with corporations is that the interests of the individuals often conflict with the interests of the company itself, its stock holders, its employees, or its customers.
Getting back to the earlier point, wouldn't the big 3 be attracting better line workers because of the better pay and benefits, noting that it has a small overall affect to the price of the cars they sell? If relatively high pay is good for the CEO's, then why not the line workers?
Last edited:
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
I've always thought we should make some changes to the terms and pay of our elected officials.
First, limit House terms to 10 or 12 years total...then they would be eligible for the Senate...where they could stay as long as re-elected. If the President only had 1 term...say 6 to 8 years...he/she wouldn't need any time off to campaign for re-election and might be less distracted.
Then, because we're hiring the best possible candidates, pay the President about $150 Million for their term (then they wouldn't need to do "side work" when they leave office), Senators $5 to 10Million per year and House Reps at least $1Million per year. They would of course need to be docked the appropriate amount of pay for the days they didn't show up to (work) vote.
I think 2 things would happen as a result...1.) people MIGHT take elections more seriously, and 2.) we MIGHT hold the politicians more accountable.
First, limit House terms to 10 or 12 years total...then they would be eligible for the Senate...where they could stay as long as re-elected. If the President only had 1 term...say 6 to 8 years...he/she wouldn't need any time off to campaign for re-election and might be less distracted.
Then, because we're hiring the best possible candidates, pay the President about $150 Million for their term (then they wouldn't need to do "side work" when they leave office), Senators $5 to 10Million per year and House Reps at least $1Million per year. They would of course need to be docked the appropriate amount of pay for the days they didn't show up to (work) vote.
I think 2 things would happen as a result...1.) people MIGHT take elections more seriously, and 2.) we MIGHT hold the politicians more accountable.
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
As for CEO's and other "HIRED" managers...they don't share the risk.
When was the last time a CEO bought his way into a company...invested his own money to buy the company or lead a group of investors?
I'm not suggesting we need Robber Barrons or anything, but look at our most successful people...Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for instance. I doubt they could have relied on other people to outperform their accomplishments.
When was the last time a CEO bought his way into a company...invested his own money to buy the company or lead a group of investors?
I'm not suggesting we need Robber Barrons or anything, but look at our most successful people...Bill Gates and Warren Buffet for instance. I doubt they could have relied on other people to outperform their accomplishments.
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
Well we are bouncing around a bit here. We were discussing highly paid CEOs, who make something like 100x more than a line employee? That rules out the vast majority of startups, and rather makes the point, that part of the reason for success in business is professional management. In most cases, the founders of a startup that lives long enough and grow enough to warrant more investors in most cases face demands that the founders step aside for professional management to take the reins.Jeff Reid said:Except those people seem to be the exception when it comes to the quality of CEO's. The track record for startups in the USA is about 1 in 10 succeeds, and a significant part of the sucesses are dumb luck in cases of having the right product at the right time. I've seen a significant number of high level managers move from job to job, and their success or failure has little to do with the decisions they've made. Most of the time, they've simply inherited a situation, and/or it's a few key employees or staff that have more impact on how a company does.
As a matter of degree that might be arguable, but as an absolute statement that is certainly not true, as many CEOs have stock in a company or performance related bonuses, which in the case they tank the company they lose money too. Also, I am not aware that many high level CEOs of failed companies enjoy great job prospects. And though they won't starve or even sell the yacht, I think most often it is off to the consulting circuit for that crowd. As a general statement, I'd agree that more CEOs should be forced to take more of an equity stake in their firms. (Edit: but forced by their boards, not the government) For instance, I believe the Detroit CEO's have stated they are 'all in' on company stock now?update - The other issue with CEO's is that there's little personal risk. They get paid the same regardless if their decisions are good or bad, and sometimes get rewarded with huge severances if their bad decisions result in them getting fired.
? What individuals?One issue with corporations is that the interests of the individuals often conflict with the interests of the company itself, its stock holders, its employees, or its customers.
Well it might, but clearly the problem is not that Detroit needs better line workers, AFAIK they're no better or worse than the line people working in Tennessee Toyota plants. What Detroit needs is better management.Getting back to the earlier point, wouldn't the big 3 be attracting better line workers because of the better pay and benefits, noting that it has a small overall affect to the price of the cars they sell? If relatively high pay is good for the CEO's, then why not the line workers?
Last edited:
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
i get the impression that to get your payscale up as a CEO, the goal is not to be more profitable. the goal is to make the company bigger. so you merge and acquire. and every time you knock out another CEO, your pay jumps a few million.
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
The key for the CEO is the share price. Most acquisition attempts are structured with an exchange of stock. Growth, whether through market share (sales) increases or acquisitions, along with (often times projected future) profitability help determine share price.
It's all relative.
It's all relative.
Skyhunter
gravenewworld said:The era of unfettered capitalism is over. It is obvious now that the corporate world can not police themselves. We are now seeing the true social cost of what happens when you let capitalism run wild with no restrictions.
That is what Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress October 23, 2008. He was no longer the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time.
In the words of Henry David Thoreau; "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government"
This latest disaster of unregulated capitalism will likely be a death blow.
People are looking for and expecting big changes. Mitch McConnell was sounding almost bi-partisan yesterday. Even though he claimed the Republican Senate represents 50% of America, he knows better and is worried about that number shrinking in 2010. I think Obama will get bi-partisan support. He won 53% of the vote and has a very good approval rate. It is even difficult for Sean Hannity to spin that into "not a mandate".
Immediately what needs to happen is to keep people in their homes to stabilize housing prices. Put some teeth in the oversight board and get tough with the banks. Use the other $350 of the $700 billion to find a 3-way solution to as many of these foreclosures and distressed mortgages as you can. $700 billion is enough money to give 15 million homeowners, which is ~4 times the foreclosure rate, about $50,000 each. Not suggesting we do that just making the point that solving the mortgage problem from the bottom would be at least as effective a solution as giving it to bankers has been. A three way solution includes interest rate and principal reduction.
Put people to work immediately by fixing existing roads and bridges, not by building new ones unless it is replacement infrastructure.
For the longer term a strategy of rebuilding our cities for efficiency by increasing public transit and dedicated bicycle thruways. Install a new smart underground electric grid in the cities and encourage renewable home energy as well as other local generation sources nearby. Increase density and neighborhood planning so that services are blocks away not miles away. And make the streets safe by lowering the speed limits to 15mph in most neighborhoods. And most importantly, plant living roofs. Cover our rooftops with plants. It is fantastic insulation and membrane protection. I helped work on an assessment of a neighborhood's rooftops. The study concluded that 1/3 to 1/2 of the neighborhoods food could be grown on the roofs of existing buildings, although with some major retrofitting due to the seismic codes. Producing food locally reduces transportation costs. Reducing transportation costs is key to sustainability. And in the short term is essential.
Someday when Tesla's dream of free power from the air to power our personal transporters then transportation will not be such an issue. Until then I would like to encourage people not to drag around an 8000lb SUV everywhere they go.
With solar panels just now reaching $1.00 a watt retail, a big investment in manufacturing facilities to produce these panels will pay off in the long run. http://www.nanosolar.com/" is producing 1 gigawatt a year of solar panels. If we built 1000 of these factories it would still take 1000 years to meet the worlds energy demand. So there is plenty of opportunity for mining companies to shift from oil and coal to finding and extracting the raw materials these factories will need.
Aggressive recycling. Everything has value. This concept has been lost to a generation. Those old enough to remember the "Great Depression" have not forgotten. Instead of demolishing we deconstruct, recycle, or abate. Less and biodegradable packaging. Bring your own bag and cup etc. Zero waste is the goal and it is possible.
The scope and scale of rebuilding the worlds infrastructure to be sustainable will provide a better economic stimulus than a world war ever could. We can rebuild the cities without blowing them up first.
Last edited by a moderator:
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
Jeff Reid said:Except those people seem to be the exception when it comes to the quality of CEO's. The track record for startups in the USA is about 1 in 10 succeeds, and a significant part of the sucesses are dumb luck in cases of having the right product at the right time. I've seen a significant number of high level managers move from job to job, and their success or failure has little to do with the decisions they've made. Most of the time, they've simply inherited a situation, and/or it's a few key employees or staff that have more impact on how a company does.
Professional managers for day to day activities, such as accounting, genereally do good jobs. The track records of CEO's in many cases seem be inconsistent, but perhaps I have a squewed view being in a tech industry (firmware programmer, mostly computer peripherals), where success or failure seems to be independent of the decisions made by the CEO's. Quite often, a fey key employees are responsible for the success or failure of a company.mheslep said:Well we are bouncing around a bit here. We were discussing highly paid CEOs, who make something like 100x more than a line employee? That rules out the vast majority of startups, and rather makes the point, that part of the reason for success in business is professional management. In most cases, the founders of a startup that lives long enough and grow enough to warrant more investors in most cases face demands that the founders step aside for professional management to take the reins.
The other issue with CEO's is that there's little personal risk. They get paid the same regardless if their decisions are good or bad, and sometimes get rewarded with huge severances if their bad decisions result in them getting fired.
For the big 3, that's unsual. Most CEO's stand to make a lot of money regardless of how the stock does. If the stock does well, it's a big bonus, but when you're making an 8 figure salary, does it really matter? I haven't seen a lot of CEO's in action, but I've personally witnessed a high rate of turnover of of both good and bad upper management at many tech companies, their success or failure often based on circumstances they inherited or were beyond their control or simply wrongly perceived. Even the truly bad ones usually find jobs, and continue to work until their poor decision making ends up having a perceived negative impact on a company and then they move on.As a matter of degree that might be arguable, but as an absolute statement that is certainly not true, as many CEOs have stock in a company or performance related bonuses, which in the case they tank the company they lose money too. Also, I'm not aware that many high level CEOs of failed companies enjoy great job prospects. And though they won't starve or even sell the yacht, I think most often it is off to the consulting circuit for that crowd. As a general statement, I'd agree that more CEOs should be forced to take more of an equity stake in their firms. For instance, I believe the Detroit CEO's have stated they are 'all in' on company stock now?
One issue with corporations is that the interests of the individuals often conflict with the interests of the company itself, its stock holders, its employees, or its customers.
At all levels. Call it hidden agendas. For example, individuals often have a stake in a particular product or process of a company and often defend that product, and attack competing products, even when it's clear that the continuing development of the current product or process as opposed to the new product or process is an overall detriment to the company, and only a benefit to the group involved with the particular product or process.What individuals
Another example are the lies and coverups that occur between layers of managment (common in many tech companies). New product or process programs are often "sold" to upper management with unrealistically short schedules and man power requirements, counting on the fact that once committed, the process will be allowed to continue. It seems that only a few upper management types are able to see through these lies, it's rare that upper managment will covertly interview the actual workers on a project to get a true picture of the "cost" of implementation of a product or process.
Another issue is that short term profits are often sought at the expense of long term profits in a coportation, because the incomes of individuals are more closely tied to the short term profits, even when these decisions represent a long term detriment to the company. There have been cases where personal gain came at the expense or the demise of a company.
Individual interests often conflict with corporate interests, but it's the individual interests influencing the decision making process.
Getting back to the earlier point, wouldn't the big 3 be attracting better line workers because of the better pay and benefits, noting that it has a small overall affect to the price of the cars they sell? If relatively high pay is good for the CEO's, then why not the line workers?
In fact, it would appear that the higher paid CEO's of the big 3 are doing a worse job than the lower paid CEO's of "foreign" coporations. Part of this has to do with consumer behavior beyond the control of the corporations (the general economy and gas price spiked changed consumer behavior). Sales of "foreign" autos in the USA are also way down, but those corporations aren't as dependent on the USA market. Somehow, Ford seems to be doing the best of the big 3. As a small example, the Mustang has been very successful compared to competing products.Well it might, but clearly the problem is not that Detroit needs better line workers, AFAIK they're no better or worse than the line people working in Tennessee Toyota plants. What Detroit needs is better management.
Last edited:
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
That is misinformation. I saw the testimony, and he said nothing even approximately describing the current situation as 'unfettered capitalism' or 'run wild with no restrictions'.Skyhunter said:That is what Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress October 23, 2008. He was no longer the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time.
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
Agreed.Jeff Reid said:...In fact, it would appear that the higher paid CEO's of the big 3 are doing a worse job than the lower paid CEO's of "foreign" coporations.
The US market is not the main issue; auto sales are down world wide. The problem is that, in the US, the domestic companies spend more to make comparable cars than their foreign owned domestic competitors. Also, the foreign owned seem to have a more flexible production process and have very nimbly turned to making, say, fewer SUVs and more small cars in a short time.Part of this has to do with consumer behavior beyond the control of the corporations (the general economy and gas price spiked changed consumer behavior). Sales of "foreign" autos in the USA are also way down, but those corporations aren't as dependent on the USA market. ...
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
Can you please provide a source? Just one?Skyhunter said:...
With solar panels just now reaching $1.00 a watt retail, ...
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
gravenewworld said:The era of unfettered capitalism is over. It is obvious now that the corporate world can not police themselves. We are now seeing the true social cost of what happens when you let capitalism run wild with no restrictions.
Skyhunter said:That is what Alan Greenspan admitted to Congress October 23, 2008. He was no longer the Federal Reserve Chairman at the time.
I think this subject, but not that exact wording, was brought up in an interview with Greenspan on a show like 60 minutes. I also seem to recall it was the interviewer making a similar statement (about deregulation, specifically derivatives) and Greenspan simply agreeing.mheslep said:That is misinformation. I saw the testimony, and he said nothing even approximately describing the current situation as 'unfettered capitalism' or 'run wild with no restrictions'.
Regardless of who made the statement, in hindsight, it's apparent that self policing of the corporate world doesn't work. I still wonder who thought that allowing derivatives, essentially legalized gambling without any true investment, was a good idea. It was clear to the legislature that created the derivative laws, since it specifically excluded states from being able to treat derivatives as an illegal gambling activity.
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Skyhunter,
NanoSolar has made a breakthrough with their new technology. They have achieved 1 GW production at the test speeds of 100 ft/min. However, the equipment is rated at 2,000 ft/min and they claim the process works better at the higher rate...very exciting!
I borrowed this from their web site: Nanosolar Achieves 1GW CIGS Deposition Throughput
June 18, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO
As we are busy ramping our operation, we want to recognize achieving a major milestone in solar technology: The solar industry’s first 1 gigawatt (GW) production tool. Here it is:
[Also: Higher-resolution download of video (6.5MBytes)]
Most production tools in the solar industry tend to have a 10-30 megawatt (MW) annual production capacity. How is it possible to have a single tool with gigawatt throughput?
This feat is fundamentally enabled through the proprietary nanoparticle ink we have spent so many years developing. It allows us to deliver efficient solar cells (presently up to more than 14%) that are simply printed.
Printing is a simple, fast, and robust coating process that eliminates the need for expensive high-vacuum chambers and the kinds of high-vacuum based deposition techniques sometimes used in industries where there are a lot more $/sqm available for competitive manufacturing cost.
Our 1GW CIGS coater cost $1.65 million. At the 100 feet-per-minute speed shown in the video, that’s an astonishing two orders of magnitude more capital efficient than a high-vacuum process: a twenty times slower high-vacuum tool would have cost about ten times as much.
Plus if we cared to run it even faster, we could. (The same coating technique works in principle for speeds up to 2000 feet-per-minute too. In fact, it turns out the faster we run, the better the coating!)
NanoSolar has made a breakthrough with their new technology. They have achieved 1 GW production at the test speeds of 100 ft/min. However, the equipment is rated at 2,000 ft/min and they claim the process works better at the higher rate...very exciting!
I borrowed this from their web site: Nanosolar Achieves 1GW CIGS Deposition Throughput
June 18, 2008
By Martin Roscheisen, CEO
As we are busy ramping our operation, we want to recognize achieving a major milestone in solar technology: The solar industry’s first 1 gigawatt (GW) production tool. Here it is:
[Also: Higher-resolution download of video (6.5MBytes)]
Most production tools in the solar industry tend to have a 10-30 megawatt (MW) annual production capacity. How is it possible to have a single tool with gigawatt throughput?
This feat is fundamentally enabled through the proprietary nanoparticle ink we have spent so many years developing. It allows us to deliver efficient solar cells (presently up to more than 14%) that are simply printed.
Printing is a simple, fast, and robust coating process that eliminates the need for expensive high-vacuum chambers and the kinds of high-vacuum based deposition techniques sometimes used in industries where there are a lot more $/sqm available for competitive manufacturing cost.
Our 1GW CIGS coater cost $1.65 million. At the 100 feet-per-minute speed shown in the video, that’s an astonishing two orders of magnitude more capital efficient than a high-vacuum process: a twenty times slower high-vacuum tool would have cost about ten times as much.
Plus if we cared to run it even faster, we could. (The same coating technique works in principle for speeds up to 2000 feet-per-minute too. In fact, it turns out the faster we run, the better the coating!)
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
No. It is wrong to attribute the '...unfettered' statement to Greenspan, or to call it 'similar'. Argue that view yourself if you like but do not attribute it to people who said nothing of the kind. Greenspan has made statements that 'mistakes' were made, and that the current regulation framework was flawed. That in no way is the equivalent of saying capitalism has been running around 'unfettered' or 'unregulated'.Jeff Reid said:I think this subject, but not that exact wording, was brought up in an interview with Greenspan on a show like 60 minutes. I also seem to recall it was the interviewer making a similar statement (about deregulation, specifically derivatives) and Greenspan simply agreeing.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20081023100438.pdf
There are http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg2116.cfm#_ftn14" page of federal regulations, and that is just federal. How does this qualify as unfettered or self-policing?Regardless of who made the statement, in hindsight, it's apparent that self policing of the corporate world doesn't work. ...
Last edited by a moderator:
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
Good news for Big 3?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090105/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090105/ap_on_bi_ge/auto_sales
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
That's misleading. It is made on the throughput basis of the printer, if it could be run 24/7 for a year, and then that the film be attached continuously to mechanical supports and electric power cabling. They can do this in bursts; there's no evidence that they can do this continuously for a year.WhoWee said:Skyhunter,
NanoSolar has made a breakthrough with their new technology. They have achieved 1 GW production at the test speeds of 100 ft/min.
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
Jeff Reid said:I think this subject, but not that exact wording, was brought up in an interview with Greenspan on a show like 60 minutes. I also seem to recall it was the interviewer making a similar statement (about deregulation, specifically derivatives) and Greenspan simply agreeing.
I was only trying to point out that it was the interviewer making a similar statement, not Greenspan. The only thing I do recall is what you mentioned, that Greenspan stated mistakes were made.mheslep said:No. It is wrong to attribute the '...unfettered' statement to Greenspan, or to call it 'similar'.
self policing of the corporate world doesn't work. ... derivatives
It doesn't. I was pointing out that legalizing derivatives was an example of self-policing gone bad. So was the relaxation for home loan qualifications. In both cases, individuals personally benefitted from these activities without assuming any of the risks. This is why we have 72,00 pages of regulations, and it's still not enough.There are 72,000 pages of federal regulations, and that is just federal. How does this qualify as unfettered or self-policing?
WhoWee
- 219
- 0
mheslep said:That's misleading. It is made on the throughput basis of the printer, if it could be run 24/7 for a year, and then that the film be attached continuously to mechanical supports and electric power cabling. They can do this in bursts; there's no evidence that they can do this continuously for a year.
I see your point, but I'm not sure the manufacturing process is continuous. I thought they spooled the printed material and completed the process on another line(?)...really not sure. Otherwise, they're going to need quite a few lines to meet demand...good thing they have the funding in place.
Also, as you stated they can run in bursts and the printer is rated at a much higher speed...again, who knows what they can ACTUALLY achieve?
I just wanted to make a positive statement regarding advances that are being achieved.
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
Ok, I am closer to your view in this narrow case, though saying 'derivatives' is still too broad. As Greenspan said on Oct 23, derivatives in general are doing just fine - the majority of them are used in currency trading. The specific problem seems to be credit default swaps; they need some rules.Jeff Reid said:I was only trying to point out that it was the interviewer making a similar statement, not Greenspan. The only thing I do recall is what you mentioned, that Greenspan stated mistakes were made.
It doesn't. I was pointing out that legalizing derivatives was an example of self-policing gone bad.
A common view, but I think a fools errand to simply add more pages, as the same thing will just happen again after doubling the regs (I submit) and exploding the costs. The question to ask here is how did some of these loan resellers assume they could get away with making a reckless loan and then resell it, again and again, as if they had a game of musical chairs where the music never stops? Normally self preservation and not regulations would prevent them, you, me or anyone else from doing so. In this case I assert that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on behalf of the government, were acting as the both the last chair in the game and the never ending music player.So was the relaxation for home loan qualifications. In both cases, individuals personally benefitted from these activities without assuming any of the risks. This is why we have 72,00 pages of regulations, and it's still not enough.
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
I'm not so sure about this, GM has been able to make cheap cars under the Saturn name. As I mentioned before, labor related costs only account for about 8% of the price of a car. I don't know about the level of technology used in manufacturing, because the USA companies have a mix of older and newer plants.mheslep said:The US market is not the main issue; auto sales are down world wide. The problem is that, in the US, the domestic companies spend more to make comparable cars than their foreign owned domestic competitors.
I'm not so sure about this. I'm going a bit off topic here with a sub-segment of the auto market.The foreign owned seem to have a more flexible production process and have very nimbly turned to making, say, fewer SUVs and more small cars in a short time.
The Japanese car makers floundered in the higher end sports car market. For example, the Toyota Supra and Nissan NSX stagnanted somewhat compared to the USA Corvette and the European cars like the "low end" Porsche 911's. The Supra eventually got overpriced, and the price dropped from about $55,000 to $46,000 in a single year, the largest percentage decrease in price for any car. In the meantime, GM kept evolving the Corvette, and by 1997 with the C5 version, it was cheaper, more powerful (345 hp versus 320 hp for the turbo Supra) and lighter (3250 lbs versus 3480 lbs for the turbo Supra) and had a better perceived image in the USA market. 1998 was the last year Supras were sold in the USA, and 2002 was the last year of production, because of issues meeting ever tightening emmisions requirements (I'm not sure why Toyota didn't try a newer technology engine in the Supra).
The NSX was stuck at 290hp apparently because of a Japanese gentlemans agreement not to exceed 300hp during its years. Few other improvments were made, while the rest of the car makers continued to improve their sports cars. The NSX was expensive, about $80,000, (USA), a price hard to justify for what was considered antiquated technology. Then again Harley Davidson manages to extract high prices on motorcycles based on antiquated technology with it's "mystique", an example of perceived value.
The new Nissan GTR is the first new sports car to come out of Japan in a long time. I'm not sure why sports car are so difficult for the Japanese automakers. Perhaps Japan's automakers feel that the sports car market is too volatile.
Getting back to your post, I'm not sure how long it takes USA or foreign companies to retool a line to make a different type of car, or what issues are involved in retooling.
Getting back on topic, in the current situation, it's a drastic reduction in overall sales because fear factor has dramatically changed the behavior of consumers world wide. I'm not sure if the mind set of current generations is ever going change back to what it was 2 years ago. I think that conservatism of consumers is going to be around for quite a while, with an associated impact on any consumer based economy. I don't know if there's any real fix for this.
rcgldr
Homework Helper
- 8,921
- 674
Jeff Reid said:derivatives.
Maybe I'm not understanding how derivatives interact with currency exchanges, but what is the point in derivatives for currency trading? The exchange banks seem to be doing a good job with currency trading, so why allow people to place the equivalent of side bets on currrency instead of dealing directly or indirectly (via investment funds) with the exchange banks?mheslep said:Ok, I am closer to your view in this narrow case, though saying 'derivatives' is still too broad. As Greenspan said on Oct 23, derivatives in general are doing just fine - the majority of them are used in currency trading. The specific problem seems to be credit default swaps; they need some rules.
relaxing home loan regulations was bad
I think this gets back to my point about personal gain for individuals at the expense or risks of others. Consider the fact that the ideal behind corporations is to shield the founders from corporate debt. I don't know of a good way to fix this. It seems that policing of the economy will just continue to grow, to stop the corporate equivalent of looters in a disaster when the police are absent.A common view, but I think a fools errand to simply add more pages, as the same thing will just happen again after doubling the regs (I submit) and exploding the costs. The question to ask here is how did some of these loan resellers assume they could get away with making a reckless loan and then resell it, again and again, as if they had a game of musical chairs where the music never stops? Normally self preservation and not regulations would prevent them, you, me or anyone else from doing so. In this case I assert that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on behalf of the government, were acting as the both the last chair in the game and the never ending music player.
Last edited:
Skyhunter
mheslep said:Can you please provide a source? Just one?
I did provide the Nanosolar link.
Their production cost is about 30 cents a watt. and the panel is 14% efficient.
Nanosolar sold out the entire 2008 production before they even produced a single panel. This is the only company currently manufacturing panels for sale but http://www.sunrgi.com/index.html" also looks very promising and they are claiming 5 cents per kWh.
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 719
Your previous post said $1.00/W retail. I'm familiar with Nanosolar and other thin film vendors. Please, where does Nanosolar say they are NOW producing $1/W panels, much less $0.30? The industry site Solarbuzz says as of December the lowest price on the market is over $3/W (peak).Skyhunter said:I did provide the Nanosolar link.
Their production cost is about 30 cents a watt. and the panel is 14% efficient.
Nanosolar sold out the entire 2008 production before they even produced a single panel. This is the only company currently manufacturing panels for sale but http://www.sunrgi.com/index.html" also looks very promising and they are claiming 5 cents per kWh.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skyhunter
mheslep said:That is misinformation. I saw the testimony, and he said nothing even approximately describing the current situation as 'unfettered capitalism' or 'run wild with no restrictions'.
I would not characterize it in those terms either. I was quoting someone else and making the point that Greenspan's tacit admission is a testament to failed Reaganomics.
He admitted he made a mistake in believing that that that the market could regulate itself. That those in charge of the financial institutions understood their business. Like most Ayn Rand protege's he believed that capitalists, motivated by greed, would somehow regulate themselves and their greed so as not to kill the host economy.
Why they believe this is beyond me since it has never been demonstrated. In fact the opposite seems to be the norm.
Skyhunter
mheslep said:Your previous post said $1.00/W retail. I'm familiar with Nanosolar and other thin film vendors. Please, where does Nanosolar say they are NOW producing $1/W panels, much less $0.30? The industry site Solarbuzz says as of December the lowest price on the market is over $3/W (peak).
Sorry mheslep,
If you want to play childish gotcha games I don't have time.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 204
- Views
- 28K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 134
- Views
- 18K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 4K
Hot Threads
-
Publishing Physics Without Institution: Any Tips?
- Started by axiom
- Replies: 40
- General Discussion
-
Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?
- Started by erobz
- Replies: 98
- General Discussion
-
-
Have you seen my glasses? [Found]
- Started by DaveC426913
- Replies: 34
- General Discussion
Recent Insights
-
Insights Quantum Entanglement is a Kinematic Fact, not a Dynamical Effect
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 7
- Quantum Physics
-
Insights What Exactly is Dirac’s Delta Function? - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 0
- General Math
-
Insights Relativator (Circular Slide-Rule): Simulated with Desmos - Insight
- Started by Greg Bernhardt
- Replies: 1
- Special and General Relativity
-
Insights Fixing Things Which Can Go Wrong With Complex Numbers
- Started by PAllen
- Replies: 7
- General Math
-
Insights Fermat's Last Theorem
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 91
- General Math
-
Insights Why Vector Spaces Explain The World: A Historical Perspective
- Started by fresh_42
- Replies: 0
- General Math