Sad.......when will it end?

[ChrizJen]

This has been happening all across the country for months now. We've got an entire community near St. Louis that has faced disaster with the massive layoffs at Chrysler. What about Detroit? The whole state of Michigan, really. It's sad and it's scary. And it's gonna to get worse before it gets better.

I thought when the bailouts happened that there was probably a better way. I was disappointed in the decision to just throw money at failing corporations with no one to monitor how it was used. But now I'm just MAD. I'm mad that AIG has been given upwards of $150 billion. Some of this is AFTER they squandered $440,000 on a spa vacation! I sure wish I could afford a spa vacation!!!
All the while, cities like Detroit are BEGGING the government for a bailout to help its millions who are struggling just to make ends meet. But they have no money for that.
That really pisses me off!

 

[eliza61]

Exactly.


Translation: to keep up with the year-over-year profit margin increases that the investing public demands, companies must find new ways to cut their costs and keep their margin growth steady. At some point, the law of diminishing returns sets in, and you really have nowhere else to go. So you start shipping jobs and production where it's cheaper. Problem solved - margins can once again increase, b/c you've cut costs. But what we've NEVER focused on is the COST of doing that - the long-term damage to our own economy, caused by our increasing demand for better returns in our economy!



Exactly right - and what we need to realize is there's only 2 basic solutions to the problem. Either be willing to accept higher prices, if it means a better economy with our own stuff produced here, or pay lower prices but be willing to accept that our economy will lose jobs to other countries. Given where we've let our economy get, it's easy to see which choice we - and that means all of us - have made. It's not just the government's fault - none of us were complaining when the economy was booming.



Exactly. Our problems are a result, and a natural derivative of, a capitalist economy. We say we want that, yet when it gives us results we don't like, we complain that it's the government's fault. Then, when the government attempts to fix it, we complain b/c we don't like what they're doing. We're really a bunch of whiny, greedy Americans, when it comes down to it.

.

Excellent closing points.[/QUOTE]

I vote option 1.

 

[vt_disney_fan]

so, starving children are ok with you? Because THAT'S what you are talking about if we went through another Great Depression.

Wake up, Jodifla. You're missing the point.

Nobody wants starving kids - to imply that makes YOU look foolish. Nobody wants starving ANYONE!

The point you're failing to see is that this problem can't just "go away", it will take some doing to fix it. And that doing will cost us all. We - not just the government, but WE - got ourselves into this mess, b/c of our collective greed and desire for more, more, more. Now, we have to get ourselves out of it, which will most likely mean less, less, less.

 

[jodifla]

Wake up, Jodifla. You're missing the point.

Nobody wants starving kids - to imply that makes YOU look foolish. Nobody wants starving ANYONE!

The point you're failing to see is that this problem can't just "go away", it will take some doing to fix it. And that doing will cost us all. We - not just the government, but WE - got ourselves into this mess, b/c of our collective greed and desire for more, more, more. Now, we have to get ourselves out of it, which will most likely mean less, less, less.

I just want to be clear that's what we're talking about when we talk about the country going through another Great Depression.

There have been several posters (not you) who've said they don't care if we go through another Depression, serves everybody right, screw 'em if they were too stupid and bought a big house, or lost their job, etc. etc. The market will correct itself eventually.

Everybody needs to be clear on what an economic crisis on the level of a Great Depression would be. It's not taking fewer trips to Disney World. It's not even skipping Christmas or wearing clothes from the Salvation Army.

It's trying to explain to your 6-year-old why he won't be eating today, and perhaps tomorrow as well.

All the other governments are pitching in and doing what they can to keep the world economy stable. The U.S. needs to do the same. (I agree with the part where we will have to do with less!)

 

[vt_disney_fan]

I just want to be clear that's what we're talking about when we talk about the country going through another Great Depression.

There have been several posters (not you) who've said they don't care if we go through another Depression, serves everybody right, screw 'em if they were too stupid and bought a big house, or lost their job, etc. etc. The market will correct itself eventually.

Everybody needs to be clear on what an economic crisis on the level of a Great Depression would be. It's not taking fewer trips to Disney World. It's not even skipping Christmas or wearing clothes from the Salvation Army.

It's trying to explain to your 6-year-old why he won't be eating today, and perhaps tomorrow as well.

All the other governments are pitching in and doing what they can to keep the world economy stable. The U.S. needs to do the same. (I agree with the part where we will have to do with less!)

I personally don't see it ever getting fixed right with the American greed and our ultra-capitalist economy. We always want more, better returns on our money, better performing investments, better healthcare, better retirement. We also want cheaper costs, cheaper insurance premiums.

We can't have both. We COULD get there, but the American public in general will never let it happen. Too many changes would be necessary, and too many people would perceive themselves as harmed, for it to happen.

All comes down to the almighty $, and people worship it too much for this to ever be fixed, unfortunately.

 

[Quiksilvr]

All the other governments are pitching in and doing what they can to keep the world economy stable. The U.S. needs to do the same. (I agree with the part where we will have to do with less!)

I think the US is spearheading the whole "bailout" concept. If I recall correctly, we were the first to do anything to try to stem this tide. We are also spending more money on the bailout than any other country. I think its disingenuous to imply that the US is doing less than other governments.

What I keep seeing is that people think that this mess entitles them to handouts. I sympathize with people who have lost their jobs and need a handout, but I think the government realizes that doing that isn't going to solve anything and it won't keep the economy stable. The only real way to fix the economy is to let it fail and then let capitalism arise again. Nobody likes that idea (including me), so instead we're trying to wipe the slate clean and start over again without having to go through the "failure" part. Like I said before, interesting solution, don't know if it will work.

It's funny... so many people on here rail against the "big corporations" like they've just gotten done with a freshman political science course, and these same people are arguing that the government should provide "help" to "Main Street" (which, as far as I can tell, involves welfare checks). As part of the argument in support of that idea, they say that it will keep people spending money and thus keep people employed. Even though this is the equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I can see why this idea is attractive to people (they get to keep spending money).

But, I think what people are ignoring is that all government "stimulus" will do is continue to transfer money to the "big corporations" (and by extension their executives) that you hate so much. Think about it: US Treasury sends John the Anti-corporate Protester a check for $500. John needs to buy some food so he goes and gets some cereal from the store (transfering money to General Mills). Then John decides he needs to get some gas (transfering money to ExxonMobil). Then John decides to go pick up some CDs from Best Buy (transferring money to Best Buy and to Universal Music Group). The CEO of ExxonMobil gets to report higher quarterly earnings to Wall Street and he gets his $40M bonus. John, once he has run out of money, goes back to the government well and asks for some more, since spending money is what our economy is all about. Ridiculous.

Where exactly do you think your "bailout" money would go? It just goes to feed the corporate machine that you rail against. I guess in this instance, you are also a winner, since you got something out of the deal (cereal, CDs, and gas). But at the end of the day, a lot of the money is going to the same companies who are trying to participate in the current bailout program.

John has essentially used the federal government like a credit card. That doesn't fix anything! It just puts off the problem for someone else to deal with. Americans have become so adept at passing the buck I think we've forgotten how to do things any differently.

 

[jodifla]

I think we can go through a market correction without a Depression.

The autos companies are asking for LOANS, not a bailout.

They have (very belatedly) put together a lot of good plans and have a new contract that should have put them on the road to recovery in 2009, but then EVERYBODY stopped buying cars.

And like I've said, it's all a moot point. Can't let the auto companies go out of business for Homeland Security's sake.

 

[vt_disney_fan]

I think we can go through a market correction without a Depression.

The autos companies are asking for LOANS, not a bailout.

They have (very belatedly) put together a lot of good plans and have a new contract that should have put them on the road to recovery in 2009, but then EVERYBODY stopped buying cars.

And like I've said, it's all a moot point. Can't let the auto companies go out of business for Homeland Security's sake.

What? Where do the auto companies get the money to pay the loans back? If you think it's from the people who will be buying cars (American made cars at that, which look less and less attractive to buyers, due to quality and price), how will people be able to afford to buy the cars, given the current economy? You've skipped ahead in the equation, Jodi, but still haven't dealt with the root problem.

Why do you think EVERYBODY stopped buying cars, exactly?

What does a Big 3 auto collapse have to do with Homeland Security? Curious to your reasoning on this...

 

[minnie61650]

......What does a Big 3 auto collapse have to do with Homeland Security? Curious to your reasoning on this...

Maybe because during World War II the car factories were converted & were used to build military equipment. The tanks were built at the Chrysler factories for example

How soon the world forgets.

 

[Colleen27]

What does a Big 3 auto collapse have to do with Homeland Security? Curious to your reasoning on this...

What sort of position are we in if we continue to allow the destruction of our manufacturing capacity? Do you think that Toyota or Mitsubishi will step up to help our government in the event of wartime, the way the Big 3 did during WWII? And even without a war, is it really in our best interests to be completely dependent upon producing nations to sustain us as we shift to a service economy that creates nothing?

 

[eliza61]

Maybe because during World War II the car factories were converted & were used to build military equipment. The tanks were built at the Chrysler factories for example

How soon the world forgets.

Psst, Linda
We're old a couple of weeks back I posted how I remember having nuclear attack drills in school (remember under the desk?). No one knew what the heck they were.

 

[Purseval]

It's funny... so many people on here rail against the "big corporations" like they've just gotten done with a freshman political science course, and these same people are arguing that the government should provide "help" to "Main Street" (which, as far as I can tell, involves welfare checks). As part of the argument in support of that idea, they say that it will keep people spending money and thus keep people employed. Even though this is the equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I can see why this idea is attractive to people (they get to keep spending money).

It's part of the dumbing down of America, along with punishing the "rich". These people are so envious they don't even realize the implications of what happens when you take away someone's money so they can't go to their Posh Rich Man's Spa, as one earlier poster mentioned. They just think they are punishing mean old Mr. Rich Man when in fact what they are doing is taking away the paychecks of the very opressed people they claim to be so compassionate about: the housekeepers who make the beds, the man cutting the grass, the carpenter who istalled the roof, the baker who sends bread to the kitchens every morning, tight on down the line. All of those people are also living paycheck to paycheck and now they are screwed, all because some jealous twit wanted to punish the rich.

Wait until they find out that corporations don't pay taxes, ever But then again that concept is utterly above them.

 

[minnie61650]

Psst, Linda
We're old a couple of weeks back I posted how I remember having nuclear attack drills in school (remember under the desk?). No one knew what the heck they were.

I guess at 58 I must be old since I still remember learning about World War II in school.

I also remember the drill attacks we had in school during the 1950's.

----------------------------------------------
More info on how Chrysler helped our military and space program:


Chrysler military and space projects

Military Jeeps
B-29 Superfortress
Radar and radar-guided guns
M3, Sherman, and Pershing tanks
Chrysler and the atomic bomb
Military production, 1940-1942
Jeep and Bantam Reconnaissance Vehicle (BRC)
Chrysler Missile Division and the Redstone Missiles
Chrysler lifts NASA
Chrysler on the Moon
Humber and its military vehicles

Link:

http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html

 

[vt_disney_fan]

Maybe because during World War II the car factories were converted & were used to build military equipment. The tanks were built at the Chrysler factories for example

How soon the world forgets.

During WWII, a lot of things were different. The biggest problem in school was gum-chewing.

A lot of things are different now. The collapse of the Big 3 doesn't mean we can't produce tanks, if that's the inference.

 

[vt_disney_fan]

What sort of position are we in if we continue to allow the destruction of our manufacturing capacity? Do you think that Toyota or Mitsubishi will step up to help our government in the event of wartime, the way the Big 3 did during WWII? And even without a war, is it really in our best interests to be completely dependent upon producing nations to sustain us as we shift to a service economy that creates nothing?

I'm not ADVOCATING it, Colleen, I'm just saying that's where we're headed, and I'm saying that the American public in general is too greedy to have it any other way, and it will end up hurting us more.

Should manufacturing be here? Yes, I think it should. But IF that's going to be the case, then the American public (which includes the investing public, Wall Street, investment banks and the NYSE) MUST be willing to accept lower profits, if our prices will stay the same. If we insist on the continuing margin increases, then WE must be willing to accept much higher prices.

Neither is currently happening, and I don't see either happening in the future. We're too greedy, and want to have our cake and eat it too. Eventually, everything crumbles. Welcome to 2008.

 

[vt_disney_fan]

I guess at 58 I must be old since I still remember learning about World War II in school.

I also remember the drill attacks we had in school during the 1950's.

----------------------------------------------
More info on how Chrysler helped our military and space program:


Chrysler military and space projects

Military Jeeps
B-29 Superfortress
Radar and radar-guided guns
M3, Sherman, and Pershing tanks
Chrysler and the atomic bomb
Military production, 1940-1942
Jeep and Bantam Reconnaissance Vehicle (BRC)
Chrysler Missile Division and the Redstone Missiles
Chrysler lifts NASA
Chrysler on the Moon
Humber and its military vehicles

Link:

http://www.allpar.com/history/military/preparing.html

Reminiscing about the past doesn't make it relevant to today. Just b/c we've been helped in the past, doesn't mean it will continue. We're in a completely different era now - referring to "what used to happen" won't exactly solve anything. That is, unless America in general is willing to go back to that sort of time and economics.

Let me know when you get agreement from the public in general.

 

[jodifla]

During WWII, a lot of things were different. The biggest problem in school was gum-chewing.

A lot of things are different now. The collapse of the Big 3 doesn't mean we can't produce tanks, if that's the inference.

And who will be making these tanks and jeeps once the car industry and steel industry are gone? These aren't industries you can whip up from scratch in a jiffy.

 

[jodifla]

What? Where do the auto companies get the money to pay the loans back? If you think it's from the people who will be buying cars (American made cars at that, which look less and less attractive to buyers, due to quality and price), how will people be able to afford to buy the cars, given the current economy? You've skipped ahead in the equation, Jodi, but still haven't dealt with the root problem.

Why do you think EVERYBODY stopped buying cars, exactly?

What does a Big 3 auto collapse have to do with Homeland Security? Curious to your reasoning on this...

Again, the Big 3 were revamping their business plans to get in the black WITHOUT government help when WHAM! the gas price spike came along then WHAM! the bottom dropped out of the economy and people stopped buying cars....ALL cars, including Hondas and Toyotas.

It wasn't the price and the reliability. We have a couple of GM products, and we're quite happy with them.

We might be one of those ones in the market for a new car, BUT not now, with jobs so unsure. THAT'S what's currently hurting the Big 3.

 

[lorax123]

Vt & Quik, plus a few others, I've really enjoyed your posts!
You guys (& or gals) really did nail the problem!

The US has become a country that runs on debt, with no manufacturing base, and dependent on service jobs. Some jobs pay well (skilled) others poorly (low skill).

Can our economy recover and ever provide a sound economic base? That's what I wonder. With out any manufacturing, aren't we severly lacking?

Honestly, I believe China is where it's at and they'll be calling the shots. The best we can hope for is second fiddle.

Don't want to ruffle feathers. But those previously mentioned posters seem to know what's going on.

 

[Quiksilvr]

I'm not ADVOCATING it, Colleen, I'm just saying that's where we're headed, and I'm saying that the American public in general is too greedy to have it any other way, and it will end up hurting us more.

Should manufacturing be here? Yes, I think it should. But IF that's going to be the case, then the American public (which includes the investing public, Wall Street, investment banks and the NYSE) MUST be willing to accept lower profits, if our prices will stay the same. If we insist on the continuing margin increases, then WE must be willing to accept much higher prices.

Neither is currently happening, and I don't see either happening in the future. We're too greedy, and want to have our cake and eat it too. Eventually, everything crumbles. Welcome to 2008.

Agreed. Nobody wants the tradeoff. Everyone wants to keep manufacturing jobs, have the stock in their 401(k)s always go up, and the price of flat screen tvs to always be dropping. It's a great fantasy, but there is no way to sustain that kind of economy.

Also, to those who talk about the great things Chrysler has done for the United States... I think it would be wise to remember that Chrysler got paid for all of that. It's not like they did it out of the goodness of their hearts. It made good financial sense to build tanks for Uncle Sam instead of cars (since they couldn't get the materiel to make many cars anyway). It got them in a position to take advantage of the good markets in the decades after the war.

I personally think that the US auto industry should continue to exist. However, to do that, costs have to come way down. What is the most expensive part of a car? The employee-based obligations (i.e., union pay, union pension, union health benefits). The only way to avoid cutting those benefits is to pay more for your car. Most won't do that because you can get a cheaper import.

Instead, some propose what would essentially be a government-subsidized industry. I don't think that's wise. Everyone gets caught up in this idea that the industry cannot be allowed to fail. When muskets became unprofitable, the musket industry was allowed to fail. When the horse-and-carriage industry became unprofitable, the industry was allowed to fail (those who didn't wise up and start making cars). This is different, because we still drive cars. However, in the current economic climate, the United States auto industry is unprofitable. The US has to make a judgment call about whether it's essential to say that we need this industry even if it's unprofitable. Maybe it is. I don't know.