Can the market alone fix the economy?

[WhoWee]

This is a quick peek inside the banking industry in August 2006
http://www.veros.com/images/downloads/Basel_II_IA_Opportunity.pdf
on the subject of risk and regulations

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An hour with Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury Secretary
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10278

A conversation with Neel Kashkari, Former Assistant Treasury Secretary
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10280

 

[WhoWee]

An hour with Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury Secretary
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10278

A conversation with Neel Kashkari, Former Assistant Treasury Secretary
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10280

(side note - I like your Sarah Palin banner)

The stress test seem to point to a very obvious remedy...convert the preferred to common shares...correct?

A more obvious solution is in conjunction with the conversion of the government owned shares...the common should be sold to the public...in any quantity to expand distribution...with the proceeds going directly back to the government.

Hence, both problems solved (capital requirements met and taxpayer funds recovered). Plus, the US government would be out of the banking industry and a few investment Wall Street firms could earn a profit on the trading.

 

[WhoWee]

I have been hearing encouraging anecdotes suggesting that the worst is over. I know one person whose family owns a local restaurant. They say that business is suddenly WAY up. Also, a local organic food grower has seen significantly increased activity from the high-end restaurants [nationally]. Earlier this year, he wasn't sure if he would even plant any crops.

A couple of local building contractors are seeing significantly increased activity. One told me that the phone has rang more in the last month than during the previous year.

Jobs report is out...good news for Obama?

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busi.../april-jobs-report-what-you-need-to-know.html

"April Jobs Report: What You Need to Know
Another month of big job losses in most sectors, but with a couple of potential bright spots
By Liz Wolgemuth
Posted May 8, 2009

In an economy that seems to be moving out of the bell jar and into an early recovery, the lagging jobs market makes this notion a bit harder to nail down. Employers shed 539,000 jobs in April, the smallest chasm in six months of deep gouges, the Labor Department reported this morning. Still, job losses were steep, and the unemployment rate
made another leap to 8.9 percent from 8.5 percent in March.

What's the good news? The number of jobs lost in April came in at a bit less than economists had expected. The size of the labor force jumped 683,000 in April, which economist Richard Moody of Forward Capital says is entirely responsible for pushing the unemployment rate up. Also, the average workweek was stable, if still low, at 33.2 hours, and the manufacturing workweek increased by 0.2 hour.

The government added 72,000 jobs last month, largely temporary jobs that were related to the Census 2010. Keep in mind, however, that economists tend to discount those jobs. "There is no indication of how long these workers will be needed," Morgan Stanley economists Ted Wieseman and David Greenlaw wrote in a morning note. "In any case, this is an important distortion that should be excluded from the payroll tally. Thus, the census-adjusted payroll result for April was -602,000."

What does the report tell us about the job market? For one, many job seekers are finding it very difficult to become re-employed. The number of unemployed workers who have been out of work from 27 weeks or more—otherwise known as the long-term unemployed—jumped by 498,000 and now stands at 3.7 million, or nearly triple since the start of the recession.

The report also indicates that the job cutting continues to be widespread across all major private sector industries except healthcare, which continued to add jobs, but at a slower rate than it did last year."

 

[Astronuc]

It's a tough time for the nation's millionaires. Perhaps we can take up a collection and help them out.

Millionaires can't buy a break from economy
The moneyed join the club of financial insecurity and woe

CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Money can't buy love, happiness, or, as it turns out, financial freedom, according to millionaires who no longer feel like they're rich.
What's more, the wealthy are reaching record-high levels of pessimism and are becoming more risk-averse and "confused" as they reconfigure their portfolios, according to two recent surveys of the well-heeled. And at a time when consumer spending couldn't be more important to rebuilding a broken economy, those with means are tightening their purse strings.
. . . .
An average household wealth of $3.5 million in investable assets and $306,000 in annual income was not enough for some 46% of the more than 1,000 millionaires Fidelity polled to be comfortable with their financial positions. As a result, they're spending less and there's a lot of "recalibration" going on, Durbin said -- of their lifestyles and investment decisions.
. . . .

 

[WhoWee]

It's a tough time for the nation's millionaires. Perhaps we can take up a collection and help them out.

Millionaires can't buy a break from economy
The moneyed join the club of financial insecurity and woe

While I won't be making any donations...unless our government decides to help out...the Ing retirement calculator shows they're greatly underfunded to maintain the existing income levels...about $10,000,000 will be required.
http://www.ingyournumber.com/your_number_results.html?disp=MTAzOTY2OTQ=

 

[OmCheeto]

A good read:

Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all

Ah ha! They should have included this factor into the equation:

Do I get a nobel prize now?

An hour with Timothy Geithner, U.S. Treasury Secretary
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10278

A conversation with Neel Kashkari, Former Assistant Treasury Secretary
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10280

Excellent interviews. Neel seemed to mirror Fuzzy's hubby's analysis of what everyone should be doing right now. Spend! Spend! Spend!

It's a tough time for the nation's millionaires. Perhaps we can take up a collection and help them out.

Millionaires can't buy a break from economy
The moneyed join the club of financial insecurity and woe

And how do many of them plan on making up for their lack of funds? Invest in housing?

While many are either sitting on the money as a rainy-day fund or are paying off debts, a growing number, 19%, said they are targeting the money toward property or home investment compared with a mere 2% acknowledging that last year.

Perhaps no one told them that home values are still 10-60% higher now than they were 5 years ago[http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomebuyingGuide/HomePricesByCity.aspx" ]. I don't think the housing bubble has completely burst yet. Except in those super bubble mini-bubble markets of course. I might be wrong. I saw another graph which made it look like prices were where they should be now.

While I won't be making any donations...unless our government decides to help out...the Ing retirement calculator shows they're greatly underfunded to maintain the existing income levels...about $10,000,000 will be required.
http://www.ingyournumber.com/your_number_results.html?disp=MTAzOTY2OTQ=

hmmmm... My number is only $120,000.
Hey! That's what's in my retirement account. Phew!

But maybe I should buy an AK-47 to protect myself from all the starving millionaires during the impending societal meltdown. We do have a black president. And Rush is the leader of the Republican party. And I noticed I was gnashing my teeth the other day.

 

[WhoWee]

hmmmm... My number is only $120,000.
Hey! That's what's in my retirement account. Phew!

But maybe I should buy an AK-47 to protect myself from all the starving millionaires during the impending societal meltdown. We do have a black president. And Rush is the leader of the Republican party. And I noticed I was gnashing my teeth the other day.

Are you suggesting people live within their means?

Don't forget to adjust for "Obamaflation"?

The AK might be a little extreme...maybe a solar powered taser...just saying.

 

[OmCheeto]

Don't forget to adjust for "Obamaflation"?

Thank god I seldom watch TV. This is actually the first time I've hear the term.

Interesting how Bush inflated the national debt by 86% and Obama has increased it by 5.6%, and it's all Obama's fault. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np" (I know. It's not adjusted for inflation... So shoot me.)

But the thought of hyperinflation might scare some of the fraidy cat money mongers into spending some of their cash. The idea of a million dollars being worth 1 dollar would sure get me back to the mall. If I had any money to spend that is.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The report also indicates that the job cutting continues to be widespread across all major private sector industries except healthcare, which continued to add jobs, but at a slower rate than it did last year."

The key is that the job losses are tapering, so we seem to be reaching the lower limit for employment. Now we just have to ride the curve and wait for the jobs market to catch-up.

Also, Obama's team is well aware of the risk of inflation. It always amazes me that everyone talks about it as if it isn't recognized by people far more qualified.

 

[WhoWee]

Thank god I seldom watch TV. This is actually the first time I've hear the term.

That's because "Obamaflation" is a WhoWee original...you heard it here first.

 

[WhoWee]

The key is that the job losses are tapering, so we seem to be reaching the lower limit for employment. Now we just have to ride the curve and wait for the jobs market to catch-up.

Also, Obama's team is well aware of the risk of inflation. It always amazes me that everyone talks about it as if it isn't recognized by people far more qualified.

Again, the losses ARE tapering...but a loss of 602,000 and cumulative (on the books) of 3,700,000 is not recovery.

"What's the good news? The number of jobs lost in April came in at a bit less than economists had expected. The size of the labor force jumped 683,000 in April, which economist Richard Moody of Forward Capital says is entirely responsible for pushing the unemployment rate up. Also, the average workweek was stable, if still low, at 33.2 hours, and the manufacturing workweek increased by 0.2 hour.

The government added 72,000 jobs last month, largely temporary jobs that were related to the Census 2010. Keep in mind, however, that economists tend to discount those jobs. "There is no indication of how long these workers will be needed," Morgan Stanley economists Ted Wieseman and David Greenlaw wrote in a morning note. "In any case, this is an important distortion that should be excluded from the payroll tally. Thus, the census-adjusted payroll result for April was -602,000."

What does the report tell us about the job market? For one, many job seekers are finding it very difficult to become re-employed. The number of unemployed workers who have been out of work from 27 weeks or more—otherwise known as the long-term unemployed—jumped by 498,000 and now stands at 3.7 million, or nearly triple since the start of the recession."

 

[WhoWee]

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?

New estimates regarding the Obama budget/plan (borrow half of what you spend, spend, spend)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-Budget-deficit-to-apf-15200534.html
White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion
White House: Budget deficit to top $1.8 trillion, 4 times 2008's record

* Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
* On Monday May 11, 2009, 11:09 am EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits, with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year.

The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion -- about four times the record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in.

As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps.

For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In one of the few positive signs, the actual 2009 deficit is likely to be $250 billion less than predicted because Congress is unlikely to provide another $250 billion in financial bailout money.

The developments come as the White House completes the official release of its $3.6 trillion budget for 2010, adding detail to some of its tax proposals and ideas for producing health care savings. The White House budget is a recommendation to Congress that represents Obama's fiscal and policy vision for the next decade.

Annual deficits would never dip below $500 billion and would total $7.1 trillion over 2010-2019. Even those dismal figures rely on economic projections that are significantly more optimistic -- just a 1.2 percent decline in gross domestic product this year and a 3.2 percent growth rate for 2010 -- than those forecast by private sector economists and the Congressional Budget Office.

For the most part, Obama's updated budget tracks the 134-page outline he submitted to lawmakers in February. His budget remains a bold but contentious document that proposes higher taxes for the wealthy, a hotly contested effort to combat global warming and the first steps toward guaranteed health care for all.

Obama's Democratic allies controlling Congress have already made it clear that they will reject key elements of his plan. Already apparently dead is a plan to raise $267 billion over the next decade to pay for his health care initiative by curbing the ability of wealthier people to reduce their tax bills through deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.

And the congressional budget plan approved last month would not extend Obama's signature $400 tax credit for most workers -- $800 for couples -- after it expires at the end of next year.

Obama's remarkably controversial "cap-and-trade" proposal to curb heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions is also reeling from opposition from Capitol Hill Democrats from coal-producing regions and states with concentrations of heavy industry. Under cap-and-trade, the government would auction permits to emit heat-trapping gases, with the costs being passed on to consumers via higher gasoline and electric bills.

Among the new proposals is a plan -- already on its way through Congress -- that would increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's borrowing authority from $30 billion to $100 billion in order to grant a two-year reprieve from higher deposit insurance premiums while the industry is struggling.

Also new are several tax "loophole" closures and increased IRS tax compliance efforts to raise $58 billion over the next decade to help finance Obama's health care measure. The money makes up for revenue losses stemming from lower-than-hoped estimates of his proposal to limit wealthier people's ability to maximize their itemized deductions.

The updated budget also would repeal an unintended tax windfall taken by paper companies that use a byproduct in the paper-making process as fuel to power their mills. The tax credits were never intended for paper companies, but now they could be worth more than $3 billion a year, according to a congressional estimate.

The budget would make permanent the expanded $2,500 tax credit for college expenses that was provided for two years in the just-passed economic stimulus bill. It also would renew most of the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and would permanently update the alternative minimum tax so that it would hit fewer middle- to upper-income taxpayers.

 

[WhoWee]

The new GM plan includes selling the viable assets to a new corporation owned 39% to the UAW, 50% to the government and only 1% to existing shareholders. The Treasury Department says the bond holders can't get more than 10%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-says-it-could-sell-assets-apf-15252266.html

Shouldn't they let a Federal Judge make these determinations?

 

[Astronuc]

The new GM plan includes selling the viable assets to a new corporation owned 39% to the UAW, 50% to the government and only 1% to existing shareholders. The Treasury Department says the bond holders can't get more than 10%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-says-it-could-sell-assets-apf-15252266.html

Shouldn't they let a Federal Judge make these determinations?

Um, what country are we talking about here?

 

[WhoWee]

More bad news for auto dealers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-starts-terminating-about-apf-15259979.html

This brings the 2 day total to nearly 1,900 dealerships that are being forced out of business by the manufacturers...and apparently with the BLESSING of Obama?

At 40+ employees per dealership...that's about 80,000 direct jobs lost...plus the companies that supply (non-auto) and service these dealers. I thought the government was taking control of GM and Chrysler to prevent the ripple effect?

It looks like only ONE group is being protected...THE UAW.

 

[Astronuc]

More bad news for auto dealers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-starts-terminating-about-apf-15259979.html

This brings the 2 day total to nearly 1,900 dealerships that are being forced out of business by the manufacturers...and apparently with the BLESSING of Obama?

At 40+ employees per dealership...that's about 80,000 direct jobs lost...plus the companies that supply (non-auto) and service these dealers. I thought the government was taking control of GM and Chrysler to prevent the ripple effect?

It looks like only ONE group is being protected...THE UAW.

I heard that the loss of 789 of Chrysler's roughly 3,200 dealerships will impact about 150,000 jobs, including the thousands employed at the dealearships.

With GM cutting nearly 1100 delearships, I suppose that number could double or be slightly higher.

 

[WhoWee]

Has Obama been listening to Hannity?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide

"Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ (Update2)

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending."

Is he concerned about his own policies?

 

[OmCheeto]

I decided today to buy a new car, as the 2 cars I am trying to keep running, are not.

I told my boss that I'd heard that new Chrysler's were selling for $8000.

He told me to buy a Kia.

hmmm... Should I go national, or simply, earth?

Though a person just told me that Chrysler's are made in Mexico now so it doesn't really matter unless you are a hemispherophobe...

Ok... time to go home.

 

[lisab]

I decided today to buy a new car, as the 2 cars I am trying to keep running, are not.

I told my boss that I'd heard that new Chrysler's were selling for $8000.

He told me to buy a Kia.

hmmm... Should I go national, or simply, earth?

Though a person just told me that Chrysler's are made in Mexico now so it doesn't really matter unless you are a hemispherophobe...

Ok... time to go home.

I think I would go for the Kia. Or maybe a Hyundai, if you really want to go crazy .

 

[Astronuc]

Since corporations have outsourced their services and manufacturing, is it time to apply the same principles and outsource/offshore the management. In theory, management costs must less overseas.

Perhaps we could outsource/offshore the government too.


I've seen a lot less activity in the community lately. It's very noticeable with rows of stores closed, parking lots more empty, a lot less traffic on certain main roads, many more houses for sale - but not selling. Several people I know have been laid off.

AMEX just announced about layoffs for 4000 people, or 6% of its workforce. The decline maybe slowing down, but it's still catching up with many people, and it has not turned around.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending."

The $17 billion is a paltry sum. It should be more like $170 billion, or $1.7 trillion. Why the White House made a big deal about it - I don't know.


The question is How to reduce the deficit/debt? Who is going to pay it back? That's what taxes are supposed to be used for.

How is the stimulus money going to be repaid?

. . . .

 

[turbo]

How is the stimulus money going to be repaid?

. . . .

Apart from money that was loaned with conditions, should we expect any of it to be repaid? It was, after all, put in the hands of the same entities (run by the same bands of greedy managers) that caused the melt-down. Money that ended up purchasing the US a share in some entities MIGHT show some returns, though I suspect that we are going to end up owning the most worthless "assets".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Since corporations have outsourced their services and manufacturing, is it time to apply the same principles and outsource/offshore the management. In theory, management costs must less overseas.

"In theory"?

Companies like to purchase things where they're cheap, whether raw materials or worker hours. There's no theory that says that workers in other countries are cheaper: it's just that practically, it often happens. Right now steelworkers are cheaper (per productivity) overseas than domestically in the US, so steel production moves over there. Indian programmers were once cheaper (per productivity) than American programmers; now American programmers are cheaper (per productivity), so overseas as well as local companies invest here.

When cheaper (per productivity) management is available elsewhere companies will tend to use it. Like many other investments (American steel plants, for example) the transition would take time; like many services, there will always be a market for some amount of management here. But I don't know that the implicit premise (that American management is less productive per dollar or more expensive per productivity) holds. If it does, for the sake of our economy, I hope management does move overseas, at least to the extent that it is profitable. Some things can't be managed remotely as easily as others.

 

[WhoWee]

"In theory"?

Companies like to purchase things where they're cheap, whether raw materials or worker hours. There's no theory that says that workers in other countries are cheaper: it's just that practically, it often happens. Right now steelworkers are cheaper (per productivity) overseas than domestically in the US, so steel production moves over there. Indian programmers were once cheaper (per productivity) than American programmers; now American programmers are cheaper (per productivity), so overseas as well as local companies invest here.

When cheaper (per productivity) management is available elsewhere companies will tend to use it. Like many other investments (American steel plants, for example) the transition would take time; like many services, there will always be a market for some amount of management here. But I don't know that the implicit premise (that American management is less productive per dollar or more expensive per productivity) holds. If it does, for the sake of our economy, I hope management does move overseas, at least to the extent that it is profitable. Some things can't be managed remotely as easily as others.

Let's not forget about the EPA. The steel industry was chased out of the United States by government regulation.

As for the cost per man hour problem...let's give credit where it is due...UNIONS.

Now, if "management" moves off shore...it will be to evade TAX increases that Obama has all but guaranteed.

But don't worry...we're going to export "clean" energy. I guess that means we're going to construct a power grid across the Atlantic?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Let's not forget about the EPA. The steel industry was chased out of the United States by government regulation.

As for the cost per man hour problem...let's give credit where it is due...UNIONS.

I think that, at least in this case, unions were doing what their members wanted: giving them higher wages. That seems like a valid choice: gambling one's job on the possibility of making more money.

When the EPA moves to tighten regulations regarding what workers can be exposed to the effect is to require a certain wage increase for all employees, paid in cash by companies and received as better health by workers. If the cost is small relative to the benefit, the workers will prefer the situation even if their wages are cut by that amount* (giving up money for health). If the benefit is small compared to the cost and it is taken out of wages* the workers would prefer the older situation (selling health for money). The company will be at a competitive disadvantage in the second case: if other companies (say, overseas) are not required to have these high costs, they can undercut the company's prices.


* The company is not literally charging workers for this. They may simply record a $1 million/year cost for a 1000-worker plant and cut each worker's pay by $1000 a year. The actual amount they would be able to reduce pay is, of course, not directly related to the cost.

 

[Astronuc]

But don't worry...we're going to export "clean" energy. I guess that means we're going to construct a power grid across the Atlantic?

Somehow the Obama administration thinks that the US will develop 'green' technology, and then the US will export. Perhaps he's not aware that the US is somewhat behind several other nations, e.g. China, who have moved ahead and are now starting to export their green technology. In some cases, foreign corporations are selling green technology in the US.

China has an extensive clean coal technology program, as well as aggressive nuclear program. They have managed to buy technology from around the worlds, at a fraction of the cost it would require from scratch.

Vestas (from Denmark) is the apparent leader in wind turbines, although GE has the capability, while other smaller manufacturers have the capability for small units.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Apparently the cost of shipping wind turbines makes domestic production a sure thing. Also, while we might have to catching-up to do, there is no reason why we can't be competitive in green technologies. The biggest problem that I've seen is that US companies have must more restrictive environental laws than does China, for example. You can't compete with companies that don't have to play by the same rules.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has Obama been listening to Hannity?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide

"Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable’ (Update2)

By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Holders of U.S. debt will eventually “get tired” of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. “It will have a dampening effect on our economy.”

Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

Two weeks ago, the president proposed $17 billion in budget cuts, with plans to eliminate or reduce 121 federal programs. Republicans ridiculed the amount, saying that it represented one-half of 1 percent of the entire budget. They noted that Obama is seeking an $81 billion increase in other spending."

Is he concerned about his own policies?

He has said this from the beginning - that we cannot continue on the current fiscal path indefinitely. Again this gets back to people not listening. The legitimate point of contention is how reduce the deficit. Obama is following a plan that seeks to reduce debt by maximizing GDP growth. A flat growth curve with no government spending could be more damaging than massive spending now aimed at ensuring long-term growth.

Anyone who thinks the Obama team is not well aware of the threat of inflation and excessive debt, is living with their head in the sand.

Also, China cannot allow us to fail - we are too big to fail! They need our purchasing power as much as we need their loans.

 

[mheslep]

Somehow the Obama administration thinks that the US will develop 'green' technology, and then the US will export. Perhaps he's not aware that the US is somewhat behind several other nations, e.g. China, who have moved ahead and are now starting to export their green technology. In some cases, foreign corporations are selling green technology in the US.

China has an extensive clean coal technology program, as well as aggressive nuclear program. They have managed to buy technology from around the worlds, at a fraction of the cost it would require from scratch. ...

I don't think these US/China claims are supportable: 'the US is somewhat behind... China, who have moved ahead'. Behind only in annual growth percentage perhaps, not any absolute sense. The US is the largest generator of kWh in the world of both nuclear and wind, and pulling away in wind kWh. Edit: And China's clean coal effort is mostly in terms of coal plant efficiency, newer plants are more efficient, naturally. It does not refer to CO2 sequestration from coal plants, which is what US environmentalists mean when they say 'clean' coal, and which nobody does on a practical basis yet, though there are some demonstration plants here.

 

[edward]

Apparently the cost of shipping wind turbines makes domestic production a sure thing.

The equipment in the link below was made in India.

If you get stuck behind trucks hauling massive cylinders up the interstate over the next few days, relax. It's progress.
Once constructed, the cylinders will become 425-foot-high towers for wind-powered generators at a Northern Arizona wind farm, said Michelle Montague, a spokeswoman for India-based Suzlon Energy Ltd., the manufacturer.
The tower parts arrived at the Port of Tucson earlier this week and were switched from rail to truck. The blades alone on each tower will weigh 7 tons.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/282135.php

 

[CRGreathouse]

Apparently the cost of shipping wind turbines makes domestic production a sure thing.

Not nearly. There's a very large wind farm being constructed in my area (not the one edward mentions), and none of its turbines are manufactured domestically.

 

[turbo]

Not nearly. There's a very large wind farm being constructed in my area (not the one edward mentions), and none of its turbines are manufactured domestically.

Same here. There's a wind-farm going up in Eastern Maine and the turbines came into Eastport (sea-port) by ship. They were manufactured by a foreign division of GE.

 

[mheslep]

Same here. There's a wind-farm going up in Eastern Maine and the turbines came into Eastport (sea-port) by ship. They were manufactured by a foreign division of GE.

No doubt they came in by ship to E. Maine, but are sure they were manufactured outside the US? To my knowledge GE Wind sources nearly all of the major turbine components for US installations collectively out of Tehachapi,Ca; Pensacola, Fa; and Erie, Pa.

 

[turbo]

No doubt they came in by ship to E. Maine, but are sure they were manufactured outside the US? To my knowledge GE Wind sources nearly all of the major turbine components for US installations collectively out of Tehachapi,Ca; Pensacola, Fa; and Erie, Pa.

They were manufactured in Brazil. If US companies and contractors are hoping for subsidies for "green power", it would be nice if the taxpayers that pay for the subsidies are also the ones being employed.

http://www.renewbl.com/2009/05/04/first-turbine-blades-delivered-to-eastport-in-maine.html

 

[Astronuc]

US manfucturing is probably less expensive than European manufacturing, especially when adding international shipping charges, but then US manufacturers have discovered places like Brazil.

We've recently done some work with US suppliers (of energy systems), but the engineering analyses were done in Brazil, Korea, Spain and other countries.