Should we bailout the auto makers?

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:28 pm

mr. poopyhead wrote:at one time, the US was the biggest manufacturer of TVs... now there are only japanese and korean TV makers... no one misses american made TVs...

i don't think anyone will miss american made cars in the future...
I think if you look closely, Japan is offshoring the manufacture of TV components (such as LCD panels) or entire sets to China, Tiwain, and Korea.

There are a number of US companies that sell TV's made by contract manufacturers in Asia. The most notable is Vizio, which is at or near the top in flat panel TV sales in North America.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Remember this bailout will only enable the 'lame 3' to stay in business till spring 09. Then they'll be back in their $5,000 suits asking for more..

Do we shell out 36 billion now just to stave off the inevitable ,or just cut off the gangrene now and get on with the rehab?

Is it my fault Detroit built substandard cars, so a bloated infrastructure of repair shops and auto parts grew to support it?

Is it my problem that every town has 15+ car dealerships, that are now going to fail cause they chose to go into business selling shinny shit at a discount with great terms.

I'd have a better time swallowing it if it was a bailout of the big two.

GM deserves to hang in the wind given there gestapo like destruction of the beloved EV1. Their answer to the EV was what ? The Hummer?

The only thing that kept Detroit selling cars, other than blind patriotism, was the discounts and amazing low low financing.

It funny to hear the same crowd that might call Obama a socialist be gung-ho for bailing out failing corporations. So if its cooperate socialism its ok?

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:44 am

Government, and repubs in general, don't seem to have any qualms about corporate welfare. Is that because individual people don't each have a team of lobbyists?

Reachable
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:55 am
Location: Western Mass.

Post by Reachable » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:04 am

Yes, the Big 3 automakers at least produce a useful good -- cars -- and whatever hand they have in the cars' maintainance is a useful service.

A similar amount of money to what the automakers asked for was used to bail out the Bear Stearns investment bank. An investment bank's sole function is to channel funds from investor to enterprise. They do not produce goods, nor do they provide a service (such as auto mechanics, nursing, etc.) that make the hands-on real world go round. In the process they siphon off money -- large amounts of it. All the salaries and other operating costs of an investment bank is funds that don't go into building new factories, etc. It was all too easy for Bear Stearns to get its non-recourse loan, and it's very easy to suspect that the reason is because the people in the federal bureaucracy who make these decisions are people who slide in and out of the finance sector themselves.

I suppose that until we outgrow the lunacy of stock speculating these kinds of investment banks are necessary, but if one of them should fail, the rest (or somebody new) can take up the slack. The rationale for saving this particular entity was so shallow, but it happened with so relatively little opposition.

It seems unthikable that the Big 3 carmakers, or at least their functional capabilities under the same or other names, would be allowed to disappear. They're just too big a part of the economy. The question is with how much wisdom and foresight the rescue is done.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:49 am

Car manufacturers do not make good products.

They make rolling toxic waste dumps, that poison our planet.

At every crossroad to energy independence and environmental concern, they went the complete opposite way.

At least bear & sterns don't pollute.

No failing corporate machine should ever be bailed out with taxpayers money. Especially one with no regard for the planet we all live on.

Detroit has been blowing it since the 70's oil embargo, I for one don't want to keep a brain dead patient needing every organ transplanted on life support until the health care runs out this spring. (which is how far the 36 billion welfare check will get them)

Conservative have no problem taking welfare checks form single mothers and giving them to billionaires that stand on the corner in 5 thousand dollar suits asking for gas money for their private jets.

the 'lame 3' would have sent a much more positive message if they had arrived to capitol hill on bikes or via public transit to beg for my money..instead they show up in cars just like the ones GM stole back from enthusiastic consumers and crushed out of existence 10 years ago .

Lame. Lame. Lame. Flush the lame 3.

bonestonne
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Post by bonestonne » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:54 pm

funny you say the 3 that fail...just earlier i was reading some articles about how Ford should be able to scrape through. decisions like selling the company jet, and cutting exec bonuses at the year's end is what they should be doing. in fact, it should have been practice if the end even of the year looked bleak. the move Ford is making could get them nearly 40 million, which is said to be able to let them at least break near even before taxes next year.

meanwhile there's still Daimler-Benz and GM begging for more and more. well, I love the new Challenger, I've loved Corvettes since i could say the word Corvette, and I still do love them, but if the companies can't manage their own financial issues, they need to figure out how before they go off and start putting more cars on the road.

as for the environmental crap, i'm all for green energy, and reducing carbon emissions, but in all honesty, Hybrid cars aren't where they should be, and they cost far too much money to make (not to mention the effects of manufacturing them). I don't necessarily blame anyone in particular for the current state of affairs in terms of environmental concern, but California took a step in the right direction, but they got kicked back on. and looking at the current state of air, smog and pollution in California alone, maybe that shouldn't have been ignored.

Europe is getting it right, small cars with small engines (2-4 cylinder) that might not have triple digit HP numbers, but for my guess of 75% of the drivers in the world (and maybe that's a low estimate), what do you need more than that for? we keep seeing V-6, V-8 and even more ridiculous cars with unnecessary engines, and can you wonder about the state of gas prices? Where i live, gas hasn't really dropped significantly below $4 per gallon, so for all the average drivers, it bites. Europe also has the Blue-Motion cars, which get amazing mileage, while we have these useless hybrid cars that are getting on average about the same gas mileage as a well driven 4 cylinder car.

Toyota got it right when it came to getting money though. Release a hybrid when there's a scare about the environment, and all the idiots will buy it, bring in massive revenue, and we'll work out the kinks later. I'm not sure everyone remembers all the issues with the original Prius, you know, the one that had all the electrical cables running in the same bundle down the side of the car. When a fire department came to a potentially fatal accident and had to break out the jaws of life, they ran the risk of being electrocuted by the high voltage running through that bundle. But that wasn't on Toyota's agenda when they released the Prius, they got a fair amount of money to send to development to fix that later. Let's not go into the way the batteries are made again either, because that might send the environmentalist nuts to the hospital in cardiac arrest.
--

I almost forgot your mention of Bear & Stearns...

Here's some numbers about their not polluting:

Each server produces 8 tons of CO2 per year.
PCs and Laptops, 4 tons each.
Printers and Photocopiers, 10 tons.
Routers, 20 tons.
Ethernet Switches, 5 tons.

Here we are in 2008, and UPS is just beginning to develop paperless lables.

Check out Information Week magazine, the November 2008 issue has plenty of stuff for people to think about. A paperless company doesn't pollute any less unless their servers are consolidated, and they actually fully utilize the servers they use. We can even look at old articles from here, about how a Sun Microsystems server used 1/10 the electricity of a similar spec'ed Intel Xeon server.

Imagine if we all turned our computers off at night.

L2GX
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:36 am
Location: brussels

Post by L2GX » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:20 am

No.

In Belgium we have a dense agglomeration of car manufacturers: Volvo, Ford, Opel, Volkswagen... We produce about 80 cars per 1000 inhabitants. Needless to say that, in a country of 11 million inhabitants, politicians bend to every whim of the car manufacturers. They will keep pumping money into the industry to keep it here.
The industry could not care less, it will gladly accept money and benefits, then turn around the next year and break the deals they made. The opposition makes a stand, and the government makes a point about the jobs that remain.
Meanwhile the heavy car-lobby is stiffling true innovation, by limiting reasonable legislation. And in the factories unions limit automatisation, which again stiffles innovation. The economic value of the car industry is it's biggest burden.
And that economic value is hollow: cars are actually worth far less than what we are forced to pay now.

And the result is a product with a limited response to market needs. The only reason we buy the cars sold today is because of the gigantic marketing involved. No-one is happy with the cars on the market, least of all the dealers. How do you sell a 1.5 ton car to a green minded public? And the same car the next year to a economy minded public? And you better hope they don't know their physics when the focus comes to safety again. Marketing makes that problem go away.
But marketing again stiffles innovation.

Rentability disfavors the innovators. The lack of true innovation over the last decades (since the oil crisis in the seventies at the very least) has produced a reliable product that ultimately has little intrinsic value. And for the last decade it has been clear that customers are not getting what they need. They're being told what they want. Frankly, the difference between those two is where the car industrie goes wrong.

Target the middle class, which is disappearing in all western countries.
Sell cars so expensive buyers need loans, when the loan economy is getting suicidal.
Design cars that use too much gas, after the exposition of climate change, after the U.S. goes to war in the middle east.

Would you have made the same mistakes? woudl you expect to get rewarded for them?

So, no, don't reward the current business leaders for their sloppy work. There's plenty of people inside and outside the industry ready to innovate.

L2GX
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:36 am
Location: brussels

Post by L2GX » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:28 am

bonestonne wrote:
Each server produces 8 tons of CO2 per year.
PCs and Laptops, 4 tons each.
Printers and Photocopiers, 10 tons.
Routers, 20 tons.
Ethernet Switches, 5 tons.
Where do you get those numbers from?
a: They look very high, unlikely so.
b: They obviously depend on the nature of the energy used.

andyb
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: Essex, England

Post by andyb » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:53 am

L2GX wrote:
bonestonne wrote:
Each server produces 8 tons of CO2 per year.
PCs and Laptops, 4 tons each.
Printers and Photocopiers, 10 tons.
Routers, 20 tons.
Ethernet Switches, 5 tons.
Where do you get those numbers from?
a: They look very high, unlikely so.
b: They obviously depend on the nature of the energy used.
I am also rather dubious about those numbers. I doubt routers use 4x the electricity of Network switches. I accept that they will individually use far more than switches in large organisations due to the fact that high end routers are serious pieces of kit, but there will be far more switches than routers. Likewise I find it hard to believe that Printers and photocopiers use over twice the amount of electricity as PC's and laptops. Yes the use far more energy individually whilst printing, but no more than a PC when idle, and there are far fewer of them.

Could these numbers be per item perhaps.??? And not as it would appear to be averaged throughout a large organization.


Andy

QuietOC
Posts: 1407
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by QuietOC » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:34 pm

bonestonne wrote:Imagine if we all turned our computers off at night.
Why?

A good computer should sleep at 1W (that could be improved.) There is energy needed to cold boot that is not needed to wake from sleep.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:28 pm

how much c02 does running a PC from solar/wind put in the atmosphere?

bonestonne
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Post by bonestonne » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:30 pm

until the majority of energy is produced through renewable resources, i don't feel like those numbers will change much.

if you read, you'd see where the information was gotten from.

but my case still stands, 1W vs 0W times how many millions of computers adds up....but that 1W is also assuming it's even in sleep, many people just lock their computer and walk away from it, it never goes into a sleep state.

i don't want to call it a rash generalization here, but it exists when you look at the whole picture, not just the community that thrives of minimizing power usage.

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:55 pm

bonestonne wrote:Imagine if we all turned our computers off at night.
you do realize that the power is being produced weither you use it or not right? Power consumption is at its lowest at night.

The reason people say to conserve power is so that at its peak you dont consume so much that it requires the building of additional power plants.

So turning off things at night does nothing. NOTHING to help anything.

Turning things off around 11am-1pm actually does help though.

peerke
Posts: 186
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 7:17 am
Location: Leiden, The Netherlands

Post by peerke » Thu Dec 11, 2008 3:33 pm

Aris wrote:
bonestonne wrote:Imagine if we all turned our computers off at night.
you do realize that the power is being produced weither you use it or not right? Power consumption is at its lowest at night.

The reason people say to conserve power is so that at its peak you dont consume so much that it requires the building of additional power plants.

So turning off things at night does nothing. NOTHING to help anything.

Turning things off around 11am-1pm actually does help though.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

This must be another instance of something you mentioned in a different thread:
" It was late, i was bored, and i figured why the hell not, its not like it would hurt anything."

I seriously hope it is. Can't bare to think of another explanation.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:47 pm

Hi,

This is getting off-topic, but: the power company only produces as much power as needed. So, if everyone turned off everything, then they stop producing power. They never just produce power for the heck of it -- all the power they produced gets used, essentially.

To put it another way, if they produce it and no one used it -- where would it go? If I'm not misunderstanding you, I think you have an erroneous understanding of how the electrical power grid functions.

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Emma Coleman Jordan

Post by NeilBlanchard » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:10 pm

Back on topic: I found this segment of the Bill Moyer's Journal to be spot on.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12122008/watch2.html
ILL MOYERS: You have to feel, in more ways than one, for those workers who staged a sit-in at that factory in Chicago. Just as their heroic cry for justice was capturing the attention of the country, the press got swept up in a saga of corruption worthy of a banana republic. The feds' 76-page indictment of Illinois Governor Blagojevich would make Al Capone blush.

The late bard of Chicago, Studs Terkel, used to say, if Chicago isn't the most corrupt city in America, it's certainly the most theatrically corrupt. No wonder Obama wants to get out of town. But while corruption is a tale oft told, even in the land of Lincoln, what those workers did is an act of uncommon courage.

It was only a week ago that the company they work for, Republic Windows and Doors, told them their plant was being shut down for good. The employees were stunned. By law, they were entitled to 60 days notice and some parting benefits. Instead, they got just three days notice, and their health insurance was terminated.

The owners said the company's cash flow was suffering because of declining sales in home construction, and that Bank of America had canceled their line of credit, making it impossible to pay the bills. But at the same time, Bank of America was drawing down $25 billion in bailout money from taxpayers, including taxes paid by the workers being laid off. This is money, you'll remember, intended to open the spigots of credit so banks could do the very kind of lending so desperately needed by companies like the one in Chicago.

And that's not all. It turns out the company's owners are shutting down this union factory at the exact moment they're starting an operation in Iowa, where they can use non-union labor at lower wages.

More than 200 workers then launched what they called "a peaceful occupation" of the plant. We shall not be moved, they sang. President-elect Obama - once a community organizer in Chicago - joined the chorus and endorsed the rebels, saying they represent millions of workers who are losing their jobs, their health insurance, even their homes.

WORKERS: Yes we did! Yes we did! Yes we did!

BILL MOYERS: Wednesday night, the sit-in ended. Public pressure forced Bank of America to relent and come up with a cash loan to pay the fired workers what they're owed.

Which brings us to what was happening this week in Washington, where Congress was asking the Bush administration, 'What ever happened to the 700 billion dollars we gave to bailout the economy?' That's what those workers in Chicago wanted to know as well. So to connect the dots I'm joined by Emma Coleman Jordan. She's the editor of a book due to appear early next year, the title of which says it all: THE SHORT END OF THE STICK.

Professor Jordan teaches commercial law and economic justice at Georgetown University. She's a former White House Fellow and Assistant to the Attorney General. She's been tracking the hearings in Congress trying to nail down what has happened to the 700 billion dollars. Welcome back to the JOURNAL.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: It's good to be here.

BILL MOYERS: Why did it take a workers' revolt and public outrage to get a huge financial institution like Bank of America to do the right thing?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Well, I think these large institutions think they're beyond accountability. It appears there were no management structures in place in the Treasury Department to keep track of exactly what these banks were doing with the money. The money was given. The top banks were given $25 billion each, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, banks that protested they didn't need the money. They were asked to take this money anyway It was expected that they would convert these capital infusions into lending.

BILL MOYERS: But they didn't. They got-

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: They didn't.

BILL MOYERS: -the money but they didn't lend it. Bank of America was not lending the money-

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: They weren't lending the money. They were busily making tactical acquisitions.

BILL MOYERS: What do you mean?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Buying other companies, Merrill Lynch, a very formidable former investment bank, just on the eve on its failure, was acquired by Bank of America.

BILL MOYERS: I read that of the first big wad of cash, something like $160 million or so, that the government handed out for lending, the banks paid more than half of it to shareholders. Which means those workers losing their jobs in Chicago, while investors are getting taxpayer funds for dividends, right? Is that your understanding of what's been happening?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: It's an economic cruelty, is one of the ways of thinking about it. Where taxpayers, or people who are at the bottom on an income spectrum are asked to pay taxes into a fund that is used to rescue failed financial management strategies and practices.

BILL MOYERS: So help me understand why it is that institutions that take so much of your, my, and everyone else's money is spending it - are spending it on dividends.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Well, because there's no accountability. We have a leadership at the Treasury Department that has decided we'll just trust them.

BILL MOYERS: Trust who?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: The financial institutions that produced this global crisis.

BILL MOYERS: That's not trust. That's gamble. Right?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Well, you make a point that I think is a good point. But more importantly as the belief system that Secretary Paulson brought to the decision making. And what was that belief system?

BILL MOYERS: Yeah.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: The belief system was one in which he believed that by fixing the problem at the top, by giving the money with trust to his peer institutions on Wall Street, the money would trickle down in the form of lending to consumers and businesses. And the economy would be restored. And so that way of thinking dominated his decision making, slowed things down.

The facts that were clearly on display were simply ignored. And I'm giving Secretary Paulson credit for being a very smart man. I believe that the delays were caused by pre-commitments to an economic belief system that has been turned on its head by this crisis.

BILL MOYERS: The ideology is that trickle-down economics will work and that the market will eventually correct the excesses? Is that what you think that ideology is? That's the bubble they live in on Wall Street, right?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: It's that confluence of belief, the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and the White House, all believing that the markets would correct. So that in the year between August of 2007 and September of 2008, we had a natural experiment. And the natural experiment was the markets did not correct. They crashed and burned. And as a result, the government had to come in to rescue with the taxpayers' dollars.

BILL MOYERS: Just this week, the House Financial Services Committee berated the Assistant Secretary of Treasury, Neel Kashkari, who's supposed to be running the bailout, for not tracking the money. Look at this.

REP. BRAD MILLER: You going to tell us ever who got the money that we paid under AIG's derivative contracts? And if not, why not?

NEEL KASHKARI: This is a tough question, because it's hard to know, did this dollar that the taxpayers go in go to this use? Did it go to paying expenses? So I'm-

REP. BRAD MILLER: That's really not a credible response.

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH: What are we doing? What are we doing to address that piece of it, the lack of transparency? We've got to get this thing going again, and as long as people don't trust each other, folks are going to be afraid to lend.

REP. DONALD MANZULLO: Mr. Kashkari-

NEEL KASHKARI: Yes, sir.

REP. DONALD MANZULLO: An executive at AIG just got a bonus of $3 million. The three executives from the Big Three said they would work for $1 a year. I'm asking you, if that's the case, is TARP going to ask for the money back?

NEEL KASHKARI: There have been some press reports about AIG that are referred to bonus schemes. When I've looked into it and had our people look into it, there have been some cases where they had deferred compensation that was already earned by people, not the CEOs.

REP. DONALD MANZULLO: Well, deferred compensation of $3 million?

NEEL KASHKARI: Remember, Congressman, we got rid of the management team of AIG.

REP. DONALD MANZULLO: Well, who are these new clowns getting that money?

NEEL KASHKARI: Again, Congressman-

REP. DONALD MANZULLO: Why can't you just give a simple answer so the people I represent can have confidence in you? I don't think you understand. I don't think you understand at all the pain and the hurting that's going on in this country or that people were on the verge of losing their jobs and you can sit there and not come to a decision as to whether or not a $3 million bonus is too much? If you even have to ask that question whether it's too much, Mr. Kashkari, you're not the man for the job.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think this Congressional reaction is representing the frustration at the grass roots? Of people who are finally saying as Howard Beale said in that famous movie, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore"? You think that's happening? Is that what the Chicago sit-in represents? A Rosa Parks moment?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: I do. I do. It is an opportunity that these workers took to stand up directly. And it's interesting because they targeted not just their employer, Republic Windows and Doors, but they targeted Bank of America. If you saw those signs, they explicitly understood the connection-

BILL MOYERS: Yes.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: -between finance and the closing of the plant. And the workers simply said, "This is not fair. We're," like you said, "mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." And they took direct action. I think that's a healthy thing for our democracy.

BILL MOYERS: Let me take it one step deeper because workers and ordinary people were getting the shaft, as you say in your upcoming book, long before this meltdown. And here's the question that goes to whether or not we have a fair economic system. Some of the financial corporations and individuals at the center of this crisis over the years contributed big sums of money to both parties.

AIG alone gave $1.5 million to the politicians just before it got $85 billion in loans from the government. Freddie Mac was already receiving federal funds as it was giving out in political contributions half a million dollars. Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties for their conventions this summer. Banks, hedge funds, investment companies gave millions. I mean, look, you spent your life exploring economic justice in this country. Would you say that the system is rigged so that advantage is always taken by the people at the top of our financial system of those who are paying the bills?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: I agree with you that our campaign financing and political financing system and the lobbying that takes place is a scandal, a shame. And it is a breach of the deepest trust of our democracy. Anyone who believes in the Jeffersonian ideal of a democracy in which we have transparency and we have accountability, the flood of money coming in has meant that we can't trust decisions. This has been an indictment of the way business and politics are done. And it is a cause for a serious consideration of deep finance reform for our political activities.

BILL MOYERS: "Time" magazine this week says that while no one is looking, Congress and the IRS have been quietly changing the tax code to lower corporate taxes for years to come. Are they receiving bailout money through the front door while they're getting tax breaks and other privileges through the backdoor?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: That's a change which was done at the Department of Treasury without statutory authorization to do it.

BILL MOYERS: They did it arbitrarily?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: They did it on their own, with no consultation with Congress to get permission for this change, since it was absolutely antithetical to the statutory requirement. And I've looked at the comments of tax specialists. I'm not a tax specialist. But the tax specialists say this is unheard of and clearly in violation of the statute which protects the Treasury by not allowing banks that acquire failing banks to get the benefit of the losses of the failed bank and carry those losses over for the benefit of the acquiring bank.

That's a big set of tax reductions. If you can acquire a Merrill Lynch and get their tax losses, that's going to mean that Bank of America pays less. If you can acquire Countrywide and get their tax losses, that is going to improve your position.

BILL MOYERS: Are we chumps?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Well, you know, that is a word I shrink from. But if I had to answer: in the colloquial, you betcha.

BILL MOYERS: Watch this.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Mr. Kashkari, in the neighborhood I grew up in, in the inner city of Baltimore, one of the things that you tried to do was to make sure that you were not considered a chump. And what "chump" meant was that you didn't want people to see you as just somebody they could get over on.

And I'm just wondering how you feel about an AIG giving $503 million worth of bonuses out of one hand, and accepting $154 billion from hardworking taxpayers. You know, because I'm trying to make sure you get it, you know? I mean, and you know what really bothers me is because - all these other people who are lined up. They say, well, is Kashkari a chump?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Those are harsh words, but in this case I do believe advantage has been taken. And I'll leave it at that.

BILL MOYERS: Don't leave it at that because here's-

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: -no controls, no compliance requirements for the financial services industry for $350 billion. And so the fact, this chump term suggests that we are being taken advantage of. We're being taken advantage of because even as taxpayers are being asked to pay more and more, and more importantly, not this currently alive group of taxpayers but our children and our grandchildren are being asked to commit to repaying ever-larger amounts of money even as our foreign creditors are closing in on us and saying, "Hold up. You're gonna have to change your habits. We are not going to allow this to continue. We will not continue to subsidize this kind of profligate debt management."

BILL MOYERS: What about this cover story on this current issue of "The Atlantic"? "After the Crash: China to the U.S., 'Shape Up or Else.'" What's going on there?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: What's going on is a change in the power relations, and we're seeing that the countries who have savings like China are now asserting themselves to tell us to reform our debt dependent ways, both in the public sector and the private sector. They have been financing this. China is the largest purchaser of U.S. Treasuries and other securities, government-related and securities.

BILL MOYERS: They're saying live within your means, right?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Live within your means. Your credit line has been reduced.

BILL MOYERS: You've been watching these hearings all fall about what's happening to that $700 billion in bailout. What's the picture that's emerging? What are you learning?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: What I'm learning is that the highest officials in our land have proven to be less than capable in making decisions that affect the lives of so many Americans, that we've seen about faces, changes of strategy, no clear coherent strategy for fixing a world-shattering crisis.

BILL MOYERS: Are you saying they don't know what they're doing?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: I'm saying if they know what they're doing, they're keeping it secret. In other words, for those of us looking from the outside, there is no coherent explanation. And the actions that have been taken are incoherent.

BILL MOYERS: One of the surprises I've learned in watching the hearings is that even the agencies that gauged the credit ratings of these loans were in on the fix, right? I mean, they were being paid by the companies whose risks they were supposed to evaluate. And it turns out they let us down, right?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Oh, my god. That is the most critical - they're just a series of disasters. Let me just say, Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor, I saw that testimony. It made my heart ache to hear the head of these companies being confronted with internal memoranda and e-mails saying, "We'll rate a cow." And they have no explanation for it.

REP. JOHN YARMUTH: This is not an email this is an instant message, or a series of instant messages between two S&P officials who are chatting back and forth. As I show you these you'll see that what they're talking about - they're talking about rating a certain deal. Here's what they said: Official #1: "By the way that deal is ridiculous." Official #2: "I know, right. Model definitely does not capture have the risk." Official #1: "We should not be rating it." Official #2: "We rate every deal. It could be structured by cows and we would rate it."

Now the Committee went back to investigate whether S&P had in fact rated this particular deal, the one the instant message discusses, and yesterday the SEC informed the Committee, the Committee staff that it indeed had rated it.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: And then it turns out that the ratings were based upon home price data that was taken from the middle of the bubble. So there was no data in these models from any period when housing prices fell. That goes into the category that most accountants call GIGO.

BILL MOYERS: GIGO?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Do you know what GIGO is?

BILL MOYERS: No, I don't.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Garbage in, garbage out.

BILL MOYERS: Right. Well, you make me think of Enron. Remember all of those scandals at the turn of the century, when the accountants were in on the fraud?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Who can we trust now?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: The raters were rating things that clearly did not warrant A ratings. In one of the hearings, I think it was Congresswoman Watson from Los Angeles who said, on the same day as one of the ratings agency gave a triple A rating to the city of Los Angeles, they gave a triple A rating to Lehman Brothers four days before they failed.

REP. DIANE WATSON: How could any rational person believe that a long-term investment in Lehman Brothers was as safe as a long-term investment in California? That's kind of quirky because we're in a little trouble. But something is amiss if a credit rating agency can give the same assessment.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: That is an indictment of the process. And, more importantly, those hearings revealed ratings shopping. That if I thought you were going to give me a bad rating, you're not hired. I'll go to somebody who'll give me a good rating. Well, that was characteristic of the Enron era as well, where accountants, they were shopping for accountants. And the business would be given to accountants who were more flexible.

So these gatekeepers, the lawyers, the accountants, the credit rating agencies are crucial to the fair operation of markets. And it was the failure of the credit rating agencies that Alan Greenspan found surprising and disappointing that they didn't use self-interest to monitor risk.

BILL MOYERS: It's as if the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, which was the standard when I was growing up, was applied to a brothel or a casino, right? Take a look at this.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY: You were just gambling billions, possibly trillions of dollars.

MARTIN SULLIVAN: Well, I wouldn't refer to it as gambling.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Well, clearly, do you believe there was greed?

REP. NYDIA VELAZQUEZ: The people that are watching this debate here or this discussion - they're still waiting to hear an answer as to how this is benefiting them.

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH: I have a lot of people in my district who feel that they've been defrauded and they're mad as hell.

REP. MARK SOUDER: It's clear that greed led to not only 'see no evil, hear no evil,' but 'report no evil.' It's clear that there was fraud here, but there's also, to me, incredible, gross incompetence.

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH: And they think that in light of what has happened to them that someone ought to go to jail. Someone ought to go to jail. And the more I hear in these hearings, the more I read, I am inclined to agree with them. I am inclined to agree.

BILL MOYERS: So does it come down to the basics of ethical behavior, fairness, and justice?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: It does. But, you know, as I hear those Congress people expressing the outrage of their constituents, I have to ask a question of accountability for our elected officials. You've got to step up and do more to make sure that there is proper oversight before you let the money go out the door.

BILL MOYERS: You're saying there's a lot of grandstanding there?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: The theatrical component is very high.

BILL MOYERS: The other big story this week is the bailout of the automobile industry in Detroit. Your whole focus is economic justice.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Yes, it is.

BILL MOYERS: Is it just to bail out these incompetent, poorly managed, irresponsible magnates who run the automobile industry into the ground?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: One out of ten jobs in the U.S. Think about it that way. Don't think about the managers. Think about those jobs, the jobs of people who are working in dealerships. The jobs of people who are working in parts manufacturing. The jobs of people who are working for creditors of these auto companies. There is a web of connection to these three companies that extends deep into the American economy.

BILL MOYERS: So the answer is yes. You think we should do it?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: We should. But-

BILL MOYERS: And should we fire these incompetent managers?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Well, I think clearly the managers who produced this disaster in the middle of this economic storm ought to be given the opportunity to retire.

BILL MOYERS: Well, now that's being just to a fault, it seems to me. No, I'm serious about this.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: We're at a fragile moment in the global economy. And if this industry is allowed to fail, it would create a death spiral of consequences that are so interlinked that we can't properly calculate what the full impact would be.

BILL MOYERS: You have described a private sector in disarray and a public sector that's incompetent and out of touch. How do we not leave people feeling despair?

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Well, the despair is going to be dissipated by action by citizens, like those people who went into the plant - Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago. People have got to stand up. They've got to demand accountability. And I believe frankly that this past election was the beginning of a process of standing up by citizens who were tired of being disappointed in what they were told about the reasons for going to war, who were tired of getting stagnant wages when the highest paid people in our economy were getting windfall compensation packages for failure. And they decided that… enough. They wanted a different way of political leadership.

And I believe that this era of accountability is not over. And our new president-elect will see from this nearly energized democratic, small "d," Republicans and Democrats and Independents, all insisting on his accountability. So he's unleashed a set of energies in the country that will hold him accountable as well.

BILL MOYERS: Emma Coleman Jordan, thank you very much for being with me again on the JOURNAL.

EMMA COLEMAN JORDAN: Thank you so much, Bill, this has been wonderful as always.

Aris
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:29 am
Location: Bellevue, Nebraska
Contact:

Post by Aris » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:47 pm

NeilBlanchard wrote:Hi,

This is getting off-topic, but: the power company only produces as much power as needed. So, if everyone turned off everything, then they stop producing power. They never just produce power for the heck of it -- all the power they produced gets used, essentially.

To put it another way, if they produce it and no one used it -- where would it go? If I'm not misunderstanding you, I think you have an erroneous understanding of how the electrical power grid functions.
EH WRONG.

The generators are constantly moving. the power is constantly going out. If its not used its waisted. the generators MUST spin a specified speed to produce a 60hz 120v signal. You cannot have them spin slower to produce less power or faster to produce more. It doesnt work like that, and they are not shut off when not needed. they dont turn off power plants at night, and then turn them back on in the morning when demand raises.

While they have models to predict general power usage at specified dates and times, if they did turn off generators at low power usage dates/times and if for whatever reason something happened and everyone suddenly woke up at 2am and turned all their gadgets on then the entire grid would suddenly fail. They cant risk this catastrophy, it would take hours if not days to get the entire grid back up. Mass panic would transpire and thousands would die. The grid is just not built to dynamically adjust to power usage. It should be, but its not.

There is no capacitance in the current elecrical grid. theres no storage of power whatsoever. If the power plants arnt on, theres no power.

All the power does not get used. A lot gets waisted. If you do not know how electricity works then dont post your opinions about how you think it works. It doesnt "go" anywhere. The power is on the lines, reguardless of if you use it or not. The only limiting factor is if you attempt to use more than it is capable of supplying, at which point the grid fails and everyone loses power.

The american power grid is a piece of crap in the way its been designed and constructed. It is VERY susceptible to terrorist attacks. One small explosion at some random relay station in the middle of nowhere could bring down power to 10-40% of the american population. You use a coordinated attack like most terrorist organizations are capable of now a days, and you can EASILY bring down the entire US power grid for days.

frenchie
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: CT

Post by frenchie » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:08 am

@Aris :
I don't know how it is in the US, but here in France, the main electricity producers DO make sure no power is produced when not needed. And no, the french grid doesn't collapse when we don't produce enough electricity. We just buy what we don't have from other countries. And when we have more, we sell it to other countries. It's true that some electricity does get waisted though.
Also, don't forget there are ways to produce electricity that are adjutable, like dams, or fossile fuel plants for instance. Most of those plants are used only when needed : very low remperatures, peak consumptions...
What you're saying is true about nuclear power plants for instance. They need some time to get running.
But in general, once a power plant is on, it can modulate the amount of energy it produces. One plant is more than one turbine ; the more turbines you have on, the more power you produce. Easy.

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Sat Dec 13, 2008 3:04 am

What you're saying is true about nuclear power plants for instance. They need some time to get running.
most countries' electrical grids have a combination of baseload generators (usually nuclear) and "spinning/topping reserve" generators (usually gas-fired, ie CCGT).

nuclear is good at providing a steady, large amount of power, but not good with dealing with spikes in demand.

gas-fired can be started up quickly, and can be easily adjusted to produce the exact amount of power required (as frenchie said, just bring more turbines online).

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:39 am

Hello Aris,

You are correct that the generators are always working -- because there is always some electricity being used. But if by some miracle, all uses of power stopped, then the generators would shut down. It cannot be wasted, per se, because if there was no user, then the circuit would not be closed, and no electricity would flow -- even if the generators were working.

I am not wrong on this. So, running your computer at night does not use "free" energy. Look it up.

Your other comments about the quality (or lack thereof) of the US grid, are probably correct. It is quite inefficient, and will need to be upgraded for when we move to renewable energy sources, which require a better grid system.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:28 pm

If you look at a car with an alternator there is very little electrical usage with everything shut off, but turn on the high beams, the electric rear window defroster, and the cigarette lighter and note how the engine drops in speed and works harder to meet demand.

At the other end of the spectrum when the only thing on is the engine you could disconnect the alternator and have the car run exclusively off the battery for some period of time.

The amount of energy used to spin the alternator is going to vary with load, and you need to spin it to produce a 12V potential even without a load to use it. The amount of horsepower required under those conditions, well it should be small and you probably won't be altering the laws of physics in the near future anyway.

My recollection of an audio amp was that if an input signal caused the output to reach full wattage capacity, full power, a load had better be present to use it, else the output devices need to dissipate their own heat and the heat caused by the power reflected back and not used. Audiophile amps usually survive such abuse, everything else not so.

aristide1
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US

Post by aristide1 » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:39 pm

QuietOC wrote:A good computer should sleep at 1W (that could be improved.) There is energy needed to cold boot that is not needed to wake from sleep.
I've seen power supplies specified as being able to supply up to 3 amps now on the full time 5 volt rail, so some could conceivably use as much as 15 watts, though mine seem to hover around 5 watts.
xan_user wrote:how much c02 does running a PC from solar/wind put in the atmosphere?
It depends on which blowhard is talking about it. :wink:

NeilBlanchard
Moderator
Posts: 7681
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Contact:

Post by NeilBlanchard » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:43 pm

Hi,

When the engine is running, it is consuming some electrical power (to run the computer, fuel pump, and spark plugs, etc.). The whole hydrogen-generator-scam-thing goes along with people thinking that there is "extra" electricity just going to waste in your car -- there is not.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:33 pm

Here is what I think should happen (and is apparently being discussed by the Bush Administration):

There will be an "orderly" chapter 11 bankruptcy where the government will provide loans and other guarantees to the automakers after the bankruptcy.

This will allow the automakers to discharge most of their debts (and wipe out the stockholder equity, and a percentage of the bondholder debt), and enable them to renegotiate their union contracts. The US government will provide whatever assistance is necessary after they go into bankruptcy to ensure their survival and to guarantee vehicle warrantees, etc. There will be no interruption in the operation of the companies (other than plant shutdowns that need to be made due to lower demand for cars).

This is the only thing that makes sense. Any other bailout is like throwing money into a bottomless pit. The automakers cannot survive with the current financial structure they now have. They need to be completely recapitalized so they can compete on a par with the Japanese companies.

Ironically, I don’t think Obama can do this because of the labor fallout. I think Bush will have to do it before he leaves office. But it will be a tough sell in Congress if they have to approve it. It will also be a very gutsy move because there is concern that the markets may react negatively (in the extreme) if companies like GM go bankrupt. In truth, the markets may applaud it if it is done correctly.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:05 pm

Trouble is if we want to be competitive globally, health care must be fixed first.

Even if Detroit made a viable product they still couldn't afford the ever mushrooming cost of health care for their past, present and possible future employees.

******

Should we also bail out the oil companies after the last drop is sucked from the earth?



:roll:

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:37 pm

I haven't read this thread yet, sorry about that, but...

I've been thinking, what if it it might be a good compromise to only bail them out a little, perhaps only bail out some of them? And I'd guess a way this could be done would be by giving them some kind of offer that only one of them might accept...

And the idea for that that comes to mind would be requiring them to make electric cars. It wouldn't even be a big handicap to them, it would just require them to swallow their pride and maybe take a bit of damage to their image.

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:42 pm

xan_user wrote:Trouble is if we want to be competitive globally, health care must be fixed first.

Even if Detroit made a viable product they still couldn't afford the ever mushrooming cost of health care for their past, present and possible future employees.
If they declare bankruptcy, then healthcare for current and future employees (not sure about past employees) is on the table for re-negotiation.

If the Japanese, Korean, and German automakers who build cars on the US can afford to pay employee salaries and benefits, then US automakers can also, but the unions cannot call the shots like they have in the past.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:46 pm

andyb wrote:Ford US has been funded by Ford Europe for years, they make good cars over here, and Junk in the US, I cant comment much on GM.
andyb wrote:The best thing you could possibly do with such a bail-out of these companies is for the US government to buy a heap of shares licence designs from good car manufacturers and build them in the US with the existing US workforce and sell off all of the existing cars to third world countries for as much as you can get for them.
:? Then why not just have the US manufacturers bring in designs from European subsidiaries of US manufacturers?
jessekopelman wrote:No one is going to sell their designs to a competitor unless they are sure they can still produce it cheaper themselves.
If it's a two way competition. But if they only license designs from some of the overseas companies, wouldn't those involved in the deal have a good chance to both profit at the expense of those not involved in such deals?(even more so if not all of the US manufacturers are involved)
jessekopelman wrote: One of the things I learned in business school was that shipping things to major industrialized countries is almost free, because there are always things you want to ship back and the cost of transporting full containers is incrementally not much more than that of transporting empty containers.
Isn't that the other way around?(Hence why Chinese companies repurpose old American computer circuitry?)


PS: for some reason, all the talk about automotive physics in this thread disorients and scares me.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Post by xan_user » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:18 am

m0002a wrote:
xan_user wrote:Trouble is if we want to be competitive globally, health care must be fixed first.

Even if Detroit made a viable product they still couldn't afford the ever mushrooming cost of health care for their past, present and possible future employees.
If they declare bankruptcy, then healthcare for current and future employees (not sure about past employees) is on the table for re-negotiation.

If the Japanese, Korean, and German automakers who build cars on the US can afford to pay employee salaries and benefits, then US automakers can also, but the unions cannot call the shots like they have in the past.


"interweb searches..finds"

The Japanese healthcare system is highly regulated by the government and, as described by the OECD, "combines a mainly private provision of services with mandatory health insurance. Service providers are paid directly by insurers (the third payer system). Payments for outpatient care are predominantly on a fee for service basis, and inpatient care is paid through a mixture of per diem and fee for service. Fees for different medical services are set out in the Fee Schedule announced by the government and revised every two years. Between 20 and 30% of the fees are born by patients as co-payments. But with a ceiling (see below) the effective co-payment rate is about 14%."

Germany = "Only certain groups are allowed to take out private health insurance. The vast majority of people are obliged to use state-regulated plans and, depending on their individual circumstances, choose from one of about 400 options. The government regulates the fees of state-regulated plans. Although some doctors take only private patients, normally every doctor has a sign that says s/he is accredited by all insurance providers."

Korea- "SOUTH KOREA ACHIEVED universal health insurance in 12 years. This remarkable achievement started modestly in 1977 when the government mandated medical insurance for employees and their dependents in large firms with more than 500 employees."

USA-"Accenture's Greg Parston says health care in the U.S. is twice as expensive as it is in the rest of the world. Contributing to the costs: the uninsured often receive care very late--through emergency rooms, for example, rather than receiving preventative care. Litigation costs also are a contributing factor. The United States spends approximately $6000/head on health care; the OECD countries spend less than half that."

m0002a
Posts: 2831
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Location: USA

Post by m0002a » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:16 pm

xan_user wrote:"interweb searches..finds"

The Japanese healthcare system is highly regulated by the government and, as described by the OECD, "combines a mainly private provision of services with mandatory health insurance. Service providers are paid directly by insurers (the third payer system). Payments for outpatient care are predominantly on a fee for service basis, and inpatient care is paid through a mixture of per diem and fee for service. Fees for different medical services are set out in the Fee Schedule announced by the government and revised every two years. Between 20 and 30% of the fees are born by patients as co-payments. But with a ceiling (see below) the effective co-payment rate is about 14%."

Germany = "Only certain groups are allowed to take out private health insurance. The vast majority of people are obliged to use state-regulated plans and, depending on their individual circumstances, choose from one of about 400 options. The government regulates the fees of state-regulated plans. Although some doctors take only private patients, normally every doctor has a sign that says s/he is accredited by all insurance providers."

Korea- "SOUTH KOREA ACHIEVED universal health insurance in 12 years. This remarkable achievement started modestly in 1977 when the government mandated medical insurance for employees and their dependents in large firms with more than 500 employees."

USA-"Accenture's Greg Parston says health care in the U.S. is twice as expensive as it is in the rest of the world. Contributing to the costs: the uninsured often receive care very late--through emergency rooms, for example, rather than receiving preventative care. Litigation costs also are a contributing factor. The United States spends approximately $6000/head on health care; the OECD countries spend less than half that."
I don't think you understood my post. There are Japanese, Korean, and German companies that make cars in the US and have nothing to do with health care in Japan, Korea, or Germany.

This includes the following manufacturers that I know about:

Toyota
Honda
Nissan
Mazda
Suburu
Hyundai
BMW
Mercedes Benz (I am not talking about Chrysler)

Post Reply