http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''

Excuse me?

Adding perpetual "holders" who are paid dividends is dilutive by
definition.

So the government plan is to give big money to big banks. That's easy.

But what about thousands of small banks? There is no mechanism in
place to give them money. So, there will be two new classes of banks,
the "too big to fail" state-banks, with extra liquidity and US
backing, and the "underclass" of thousands of small banks?

So what about their health? If the deposits are sucked from them and
moved to the state-sponsored big banks, how can the little ones make
loans? How would that "support small business"? How can small banks
stay solvent if their deposits are drained and flee to big banks?

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''

Excuse me?

Adding perpetual "holders" who are paid dividends is dilutive by
definition.

You noticed that G
I wonder why these clowns are tip toeing around shareholders who have seen
their equity cut at least in half?
You wouldn't care much about dilution as long as it's Daddy Warbucks doing
the diluting. It would seem pretty good, especially if the common stock
rebounded.


JC

Ignoramus31919 wrote:

So the government plan is to give big money to big banks. That's
easy.

But what about thousands of small banks? There is no mechanism in
place to give them money. So, there will be two new classes of
banks, the "too big to fail" state-banks, with extra liquidity
and US backing, and the "underclass" of thousands of small banks?






So what about their health? If the deposits are sucked from them
and moved to the state-sponsored big banks, how can the little
ones make loans? How would that "support small business"? How can
small banks stay solvent if their deposits are drained and flee
to big banks?


Well, there are a number of small banks that didn't get sucked into
the crazy times. We moved to a bank based in Carrollton, IL that is
apparently doing fine. They just kept on doing the same due
diligence they had always done (after all, it was actually "their
money" at risk, unlike many "big banks". There must be more
outfits like that around.

We were originally with one of the local banks, but they got bought
up several times by bigger and bigger banks, eventually ending up as
US Bank. (Oh, yeah, they've been bought again, but kept the same
operating name for branches in MO.) Anyway, one day I went to
deposit a check to my home business account, and they wouldn't take
it, as somebody there had removed my business name from the account
without my permission or knowledge. That was the final straw, as
they always looked at me funny when I went in there, like they knew
I was some kind of crook and they were trying to figure out what I
was "up to".

So, I'm pretty happy with this Carrollton Bank outfit, and hope they
will weather this storm OK. I doubt any small
depositors will be moving. I don't know about institutional
depositors and the commercial paper crowd, though.

Jon

On 2008-10-14, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:

"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''

By the way, the numerous typos are not mine.

Excuse me?

Adding perpetual "holders" who are paid dividends is dilutive by
definition.

You noticed that G

The orwellian language

I wonder why these clowns are tip toeing around shareholders who have seen
their equity cut at least in half?
You wouldn't care much about dilution as long as it's Daddy Warbucks doing
the diluting. It would seem pretty good, especially if the common stock
rebounded.

Except for creating a two tier banking system. Plus, some banks such
as Well Fargo, always had great underwriting standards and did not ask
to be rescued.

What I see going on, is suggestive of a lot of noise, but the actions
leave me perplexed.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
...
On 2008-10-14, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:

"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''

By the way, the numerous typos are not mine.

Excuse me?

Adding perpetual "holders" who are paid dividends is dilutive by
definition.

You noticed that G

The orwellian language

I wonder why these clowns are tip toeing around shareholders who have
seen
their equity cut at least in half?
You wouldn't care much about dilution as long as it's Daddy Warbucks
doing
the diluting. It would seem pretty good, especially if the common stock
rebounded.

Except for creating a two tier banking system. Plus, some banks such
as Well Fargo, always had great underwriting standards and did not ask
to be rescued.

What I see going on, is suggestive of a lot of noise, but the actions
leave me perplexed.

I don't think this bunch get's it. All they really needed to do was make a
convincing case that they wouldn't let the former head of Goldman ( our Mr.
Paulson) do again what he did ro his former competitor - Lehman. I suppose
an equity position would signal that. The Europeans have really showed us up
an this one.
The center of gravity looks to be shifting as far as I'm concerned.
What a bunch of hose nozzles. It's to bad we can't innaugarate a new
administration a week after the election.
Can you imagine? Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........

JC

In article ,
Jon Elson wrote:

Ignoramus31919 wrote:

So the government plan is to give big money to big banks. That's
easy.

But what about thousands of small banks? There is no mechanism in
place to give them money. So, there will be two new classes of
banks, the "too big to fail" state-banks, with extra liquidity
and US backing, and the "underclass" of thousands of small banks?






So what about their health? If the deposits are sucked from them
and moved to the state-sponsored big banks, how can the little
ones make loans? How would that "support small business"? How can
small banks stay solvent if their deposits are drained and flee
to big banks?


Well, there are a number of small banks that didn't get sucked into
the crazy times. We moved to a bank based in Carrollton, IL that is
apparently doing fine. They just kept on doing the same due
diligence they had always done (after all, it was actually "their
money" at risk, unlike many "big banks". There must be more
outfits like that around.

Yep:

Nothing's the Matter With Kansas --
My bank is still making loans. We have none in default.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122307498894303825.html

Far from the bright lights of the City.

Joe Gwinn




We were originally with one of the local banks, but they got bought
up several times by bigger and bigger banks, eventually ending up as
US Bank. (Oh, yeah, they've been bought again, but kept the same
operating name for branches in MO.) Anyway, one day I went to
deposit a check to my home business account, and they wouldn't take
it, as somebody there had removed my business name from the account
without my permission or knowledge. That was the final straw, as
they always looked at me funny when I went in there, like they knew
I was some kind of crook and they were trying to figure out what I
was "up to".

So, I'm pretty happy with this Carrollton Bank outfit, and hope they
will weather this storm OK. I doubt any small
depositors will be moving. I don't know about institutional
depositors and the commercial paper crowd, though.

Jon

John R. Carroll wrote:
"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
...

On 2008-10-14, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:

"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
news:R6adnUmYJZ7bmWnVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews. com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''

By the way, the numerous typos are not mine.


Excuse me?

Adding perpetual "holders" who are paid dividends is dilutive by
definition.

You noticed that G

The orwellian language


I wonder why these clowns are tip toeing around shareholders who have
seen
their equity cut at least in half?
You wouldn't care much about dilution as long as it's Daddy Warbucks
doing
the diluting. It would seem pretty good, especially if the common stock
rebounded.

Except for creating a two tier banking system. Plus, some banks such
as Well Fargo, always had great underwriting standards and did not ask
to be rescued.

What I see going on, is suggestive of a lot of noise, but the actions
leave me perplexed.


I don't think this bunch get's it. All they really needed to do was make a
convincing case that they wouldn't let the former head of Goldman ( our Mr.
Paulson) do again what he did ro his former competitor - Lehman. I suppose
an equity position would signal that. The Europeans have really showed us up
an this one.
The center of gravity looks to be shifting as far as I'm concerned.
What a bunch of hose nozzles. It's to bad we can't innaugarate a new
administration a week after the election.
Can you imagine? Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........

JC






Ow how could that be, John?

They are, after all, our special elite!

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:32:50 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........
snip
-------------
It all depends what "job" they were attempting to do.

It is a fundamental error, and one that I am frequently guilty
of, to assume the "elite" has the same objectives and indeed the
same view of reality as the vast majority of voters.

It may well be that the "elite" has a brilliant plan, and one
that is succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, but this is
unknown, because if any such plan exists the "mission statement"
and the supporting "policies and procedures manuals" are closely
guarded "state" secrets.

What does seem clear is when the actual activities and results of
the last 10-15 years are evaluated, using the apparent long and
short term benefits [or lack thereof] for the typical citizen as
a criteria, almost all have been useless, and most have been
counterproductive.

It is long past time to ignore the "balh-blah-blah" and look at
the hard/measurable results.

The national debt has either increased, decreased, or stayed the
same. The inflation adjusted median family/individual income has
either increased, decreased, or stayed the same. The same is
true for available health care, employment security and pensions,
GDP/GDI, and a whole raft of other metrics, including "high value
added" manufacturing and the GINI index.

In short, don't pay any attention to what "they" say their "going
to do," but look at what they have done.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Here is an insane sentence, from PA.

Last Updated: Oct 8, 2008 02:47 PM EDT
Agnes Yencho pleaded guilty to homicide by vehicle Wednesday in Luzerne
County.
An elderly woman pleaded guilty to killing a motorcyclist in a crash back
in April.
Agnes Yencho, 83, of Oneida entered her plea Wednesday morning in Luzerne
County court. She was charged with homicide by vehicle for the crash that
killed Frank Valvano, of Tunkhannock, on Interstate 81 near Hazleton.
Police said Yencho made an illegal U-turn on the interstate and pulled into
the path of the motorcycle Valvano was riding. He was killed.
Yencho was sentenced to 12 months probation. She could have faced time
behind bars for the crime.

Valvano of course recognised the risk of riding, but there is no incentive
for drivers to ever yield the right of way if this is how it works. How
would you like it if some granny ran over your kids while pulling an illegal
move and they didn't even suspend her license?
--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
...

On 2008-10-14, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:

"Ignoramus31919" wrote in message
news:R6adnUmYJZ7bmWnVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews .com...


Ow how could that be, John?

They are, after all, our special elite!


And they belong in the Special Olympics with their peers.


JC

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:32:50 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........
snip
-------------
It all depends what "job" they were attempting to do.

I believe the term is "Crony Capitalism" isn't it?


It is a fundamental error, and one that I am frequently guilty
of, to assume the "elite" has the same objectives and indeed the
same view of reality as the vast majority of voters.

It may well be that the "elite" has a brilliant plan, and one
that is succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, but this is
unknown, because if any such plan exists the "mission statement"
and the supporting "policies and procedures manuals" are closely
guarded "state" secrets.

Not this time George. I think what is happening is a refusal to admit that
their version of free markets doesn't work as advertised and never did.
That's called denial.

They are especially trying to deny that a strong economy relies on an
upwardly mobile, prosperous, middle class and a reasonable gap between the
upper and middle class as far as income goes.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:32:50 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........
snip
-------------
It all depends what "job" they were attempting to do.

I believe the term is "Crony Capitalism" isn't it?


It is a fundamental error, and one that I am frequently guilty
of, to assume the "elite" has the same objectives and indeed the
same view of reality as the vast majority of voters.

It may well be that the "elite" has a brilliant plan, and one
that is succeeding beyond their wildest dreams, but this is
unknown, because if any such plan exists the "mission statement"
and the supporting "policies and procedures manuals" are closely
guarded "state" secrets.

Not this time George. I think what is happening is a refusal to admit that
their version of free markets doesn't work as advertised and never did.
That's called denial.

They are especially trying to deny that a strong economy relies on an
upwardly mobile, prosperous, middle class and a reasonable gap between
the upper and middle class as far as income goes.

JC

Yes! The source of America's strong economy for 50 years was an overpaid and
underworked middle class. g Given that our growth has been stimulated
mostly by individual consumption, there's a lot of truth in that wisecrack.
Restoring it in a globalized economy, however, probably is impossible.

The point of attack, it seems to me, should be stimulating the middle class
part of the economy. I'm not above taxing the upper extremes, as a pragmatic
way to temper some of the division. But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals (having essentially accomplished most of
what we set out to do after WWII) and a combination of increased
productivity and lackluster education that are going to make it tough to get
the middle class moving again.

Socially and economically, we look a lot like the UK did in the years after
WWI. That doesn't feel very good.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:32:50 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........
snip
-------------
It all depends what "job" they were attempting to do.

I believe the term is "Crony Capitalism" isn't it?


JC

Yes! The source of America's strong economy for 50 years was an overpaid
and underworked middle class. g Given that our growth has been
stimulated mostly by individual consumption, there's a lot of truth in
that wisecrack.

An economy that relies heavily on consumer spending must insure that those
that consume have the funds to do so and from earnings, not borrowing.

Restoring it in a globalized economy, however, probably is impossible.

The point of attack, it seems to me, should be stimulating the middle
class part of the economy. I'm not above taxing the upper extremes, as a
pragmatic way to temper some of the division. But we have bigger
problems -- notably a lack of common ambition and goals (having
essentially accomplished most of what we set out to do after WWII) and a
combination of increased productivity and lackluster education that are
going to make it tough to get the middle class moving again.

The state of our current infrastructure is a blessing in disguise.
Adding the necessary plant, equipment and infrastructure to reduce the use
of fossil fuels in an intelligent manner is another such blessing.
All of the above requires a well educated ( at the basic level ) work force
and the jobs created are living wage jobs, not McFlippers.


Socially and economically, we look a lot like the UK did in the years
after WWI. That doesn't feel very good.

That's exactly correct and I've heard this explained at length. I just can't
remember who it was that was making the case!
LOL

JC

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:45:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
----------
Indeed, but an expected problem when the "elite" are "world
citizens" and the companies they control are transnational
corporations, while everyone else [except for the "undocumented"
guest workers] are American citizens, with their homes and small
businesses located in the USA.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:15:25 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

snip
It all depends what "job" they were attempting to do.

I believe the term is "Crony Capitalism" isn't it?
snip
==============
One man's "crony capitalism," is another man's "just being a pal
and helping a friend out."


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:55:13 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

snip
An economy that relies heavily on consumer spending must insure that those
that consume have the funds to do so and from earnings, not borrowing.
snip
===========
It does indeed.

Unfortunately this also requires that the median
individual/family inflation adjusted gross and disposable incomes
to increase, while the corporate drive is to reduce wages and
benefits of *THEIR* employees. The apparent assumption is that
they can reduce the wages/benefits they pay, but the employers'
of their customers, i.e. other corporations will not.

State and local governments are also contributing to the
reduction of net disposable real income by their continual
increases of taxes and fees, with reductions in services.
Although the Federal government has reduced taxes, this appears
to be more than offset by the reduction in services, and the
increase in the national debt, which *MUST* be paid later [with
interest].

How one state [NJ] is killing the goose that lays the golden
eggs:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303159,00.html
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php...wthread/41594/


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:45:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
----------
Indeed, but an expected problem when the "elite" are "world
citizens" and the companies they control are transnational
corporations, while everyone else [except for the "undocumented"
guest workers] are American citizens, with their homes and small
businesses located in the USA.

Do you think that's it? I think it's more a matter of general ennui, not
having any big new projects, like building families and housing after WWII,
or putting a man on the moon. Like John, I hope that energy independence
becomes the next big thing, but it will take leadership from the top to get
people excited about it.

Coming up with some goal we all agree upon is not easy. Bush has kind of
burned out the idea of being constantly at war with an abstraction.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Yes! The source of America's strong economy for 50 years was an overpaid and
underworked middle class. g Given that our growth has been stimulated
mostly by individual consumption, there's a lot of truth in that wisecrack.
Restoring it in a globalized economy, however, probably is impossible.

Actually, I think we were living off the backs and labor of the REST of
the world, who were in dire poverty so we could bask in glory. We
didn't ENFORCE this upon them, we just were both in a historical place,
much due to WW-II, and with the kind of goods everyone wanted. It
caused a HUGE imbalance, both socially and global-economically, and was
totally unsustainable. The chickens have come home to roost.

Jon

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:45:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
----------
Indeed, but an expected problem when the "elite" are "world
citizens" and the companies they control are transnational
corporations, while everyone else [except for the "undocumented"
guest workers] are American citizens, with their homes and small
businesses located in the USA.

That really isn'y much of a problem George. The US market is the US market
and it's in the US.
It's up to the transnational corporations to behave in ways that grow that
market - frick TNC's or anybody else that isn't with the program no matter
where they are.
When TNC's either don't or can't protect their markets, it's up to the folks
that constitute that
market to protect themselves.
This isn't anything to be ashamed of and it isn't "BAD".
It's pretty damned smart actually.

A list of what a healthy consumer would look like is a handy thing. Hank
Paulson could use that list right now.
A list of what consumers look like now would also be a good idea.
What the government, as an intervenyion phylosophy, needs to worry about
isn't markets, it's getting consumers from the where we are list onto the
healthy consumer list.
The markets will figure out how to benefit and it's their problem to do so.
You don't think business will walk away from a healthy and large consumer
pool do you? LMAO, believe me, the shoe has been put not just on the wrong
foot but the wrong barnyard animal.

That's a pretty good analogy BTW. Feed lot owners take better care of their
cattle than business has of thiers and the results are obvious.
Undernourished and sickly consumers that aren't worth much and healthy
consumers won't result from fatter bankers.

Know what I mean????


JC

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yes! The source of America's strong economy for 50 years was an overpaid
and underworked middle class. g Given that our growth has been
stimulated mostly by individual consumption, there's a lot of truth in
that wisecrack. Restoring it in a globalized economy, however, probably
is impossible.

Actually, I think we were living off the backs and labor of the REST of
the world,

Actually we were squandering the wealth earned by an earlier generation and
the wealth that would necessarily have to be created by the next.
We have arrived.


JC

Ignoramus31919 wrote:

But what about thousands of small banks?

Is there such a thing. With all the "one bank buying out
another bank" I don't think there is any "small" banks.
...lew...

Ignoramus31919 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''


When government can't write something at the 8th grade level for the citizens to
understand, it is a sure sign a snow job is going on.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:39:47 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:45:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
----------
Indeed, but an expected problem when the "elite" are "world
citizens" and the companies they control are transnational
corporations, while everyone else [except for the "undocumented"
guest workers] are American citizens, with their homes and small
businesses located in the USA.

That really isn'y much of a problem George. The US market is the US market
and it's in the US.
It's up to the transnational corporations to behave in ways that grow that
market - frick TNC's or anybody else that isn't with the program no matter
where they are.
When TNC's either don't or can't protect their markets, it's up to the folks
that constitute that
market to protect themselves.
This isn't anything to be ashamed of and it isn't "BAD".
It's pretty damned smart actually.

A list of what a healthy consumer would look like is a handy thing. Hank
Paulson could use that list right now.
A list of what consumers look like now would also be a good idea.
What the government, as an intervenyion phylosophy, needs to worry about
isn't markets, it's getting consumers from the where we are list onto the
healthy consumer list.
The markets will figure out how to benefit and it's their problem to do so.
You don't think business will walk away from a healthy and large consumer
pool do you? LMAO, believe me, the shoe has been put not just on the wrong
foot but the wrong barnyard animal.

That's a pretty good analogy BTW. Feed lot owners take better care of their
cattle than business has of thiers and the results are obvious.
Undernourished and sickly consumers that aren't worth much and healthy
consumers won't result from fatter bankers.

Know what I mean????


JC
=====================
Major problem here is the difference in mindset between a "going
enterprise" and "a one night stand."

If management's goal is to inflate the corporate balance sheet to
justify fully funding their "judgement-proof" retirement trust
funds, and provide capital for their "deferred compensation"
withdrawals, [money of account -- $USV] the fact that they may
well screw the company, the employees, and stockholders into the
ground will be no deterrent, and indeed in many cases this may
act as an incentive, either from spite/rage at forced retirement
[Götterdämmerung], or megalomania ["Après moi, le déluge"].

Even with a "going concern" mindset, one of the problems in
dealing with TNCs is assuming they will "protect their markets."
In point of fact their markets [as is their domicile or home
country] are a floating crap game. For example, GM is doing
great in the PRC, and not too bad in the EEC, while the US
markets are in the toilet. In the time honored tradition of
"snake oil" medicine shows, it is time for them to fold their
tent here in the US, dumping some of their pension and other
liabilities on the US honest US companies and the taxpayers
through the PBGC and "stiffing" their retirees for the rest. The
local communities and states [actually their taxpayers] that have
invested heavily Economic Development funds in GMC facilities and
huge tax breaks will also take it in the shorts. Ford is in much
the same situation.

Chrysler is screwed in that they are mainly a US corporation with
few foreign operations, but if Cerberus can get GM to swap their
49% of GMAC for the 80% of Chrysler they own, Cerberus becomes a
"one bank holding company," and GM *MAY* become too big to fail,
at least not until the taxpayers pump additional billions (last
count 25$USR from the taxpayers scheduled for injection) into the
zombie to keep it "alive." This infusion of taxpayer money will
provide the funding required for the "performance bonuses,"
"retirement trust funds," and perks/benefits any self-respecting
titan of industry will demand.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Jon Elson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Yes! The source of America's strong economy for 50 years was an overpaid
and underworked middle class. g Given that our growth has been
stimulated mostly by individual consumption, there's a lot of truth in
that wisecrack. Restoring it in a globalized economy, however, probably
is impossible.

Actually, I think we were living off the backs and labor of the REST of
the world, who were in dire poverty so we could bask in glory. We didn't
ENFORCE this upon them, we just were both in a historical place, much due
to WW-II, and with the kind of goods everyone wanted. It caused a HUGE
imbalance, both socially and global-economically, and was totally
unsustainable. The chickens have come home to roost.

Jon

Hmm. That's an interesting take on events. I don't generally agree with it,
but it would be interesting to see how you arrived at it.

I see it more as a set of fortunate circumstances for the US after WWII, but
it didn't necessarily mean "living off the labor of the rest of the world."
We had a lot of things they needed, but most of our economic activity was
strictly internal. In fact, as the rest of the world climbed out of WWII's
aftermath, they targeted the US market first and foremost.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:45:48 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


Yes! The source of America's strong economy for 50 years was an overpaid and
underworked middle class. g

Alas, if I could only make it back _up_ to there...


Given that our growth has been stimulated
mostly by individual consumption, there's a lot of truth in that wisecrack.
Restoring it in a globalized economy, however, probably is impossible.

Damn, I _knew_ you were going to say that.


The point of attack, it seems to me, should be stimulating the middle class
part of the economy. I'm not above taxing the upper extremes, as a pragmatic
way to temper some of the division. But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals (having essentially accomplished most of
what we set out to do after WWII) and a combination of increased
productivity and lackluster education that are going to make it tough to get
the middle class moving again.

It's too bad the space program doesn't have a bit more instantaneous
ROI to it.


Socially and economically, we look a lot like the UK did in the years after
WWI. That doesn't feel very good.

No. Not at all.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:40:43 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Ignoramus31919 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''


When government can't write something at the 8th grade level for the citizens to
understand, it is a sure sign a snow job is going on.

Haven't we slipped down to 4th grade level yet? It sure feels like it
sometimes.

"Would you like fries with that?"

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:40:43 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Ignoramus31919 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''


When government can't write something at the 8th grade level for the
citizens to
understand, it is a sure sign a snow job is going on.

Haven't we slipped down to 4th grade level yet? It sure feels like it
sometimes.

"Would you like fries with that?"




so, ask yourself and everyone you know this question - who should earn more,
a personal injury lawyer or a nobel prize winner? An actress/actor/singer
or a teacher/scientist/engineer/doctor. Why do we abandon the best and the
brightest to attempt to educate the dumbest and dullest? How can we allow
our children to grow up thinking that algebra is hard, that science is
unimportant, and that our modern conveniences work by pure magic?


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''

By the way, the numerous typos are not mine.

Excuse me?

Adding perpetual "holders" who are paid dividends is dilutive by
definition.

You noticed that G

The orwellian language

I wonder why these clowns are tip toeing around shareholders who have
seen
their equity cut at least in half?
You wouldn't care much about dilution as long as it's Daddy Warbucks
doing
the diluting. It would seem pretty good, especially if the common stock
rebounded.

Except for creating a two tier banking system. Plus, some banks such
as Well Fargo, always had great underwriting standards and did not ask
to be rescued.

What I see going on, is suggestive of a lot of noise, but the actions
leave me perplexed.

I don't think this bunch get's it. All they really needed to do was make a
convincing case that they wouldn't let the former head of Goldman ( our
Mr.
Paulson) do again what he did ro his former competitor - Lehman. I suppose
an equity position would signal that. The Europeans have really showed us
up
an this one.
The center of gravity looks to be shifting as far as I'm concerned.
What a bunch of hose nozzles. It's to bad we can't innaugarate a new
administration a week after the election.
Can you imagine? Even with trillions of dollars at their disposal they
haven't been able to get the job done.
Talk about lacking a plan...........

JC


Man!, you need to give those guys a break. Your standards are ridiculously
high. Here we are in a situation that no one has ever been in before.
Today's problems are nothing like those in 1929. They're actually worse and
more complicated. The Bush administration's people working on this are doing
a very good job actually considering the difficulty of the problems. I never
say anything good about this administration but for the first time I think
they are doing a good job. The problems we are facing are monumental. No one
has any idea exactly how to solve them and so they are having to learn as
they go. It's true that the initial plan wasn't the best but to their credit
they have continued to modify them and are moving forward in a way to do
what is needed. The fact that they have not known from day one what to do or
have had a perfect plan to simply apply when needed just demonstrates that
they are in uncharted waters. Geez, there are so many problems and they are
so tough to fix yet you seem to think they should be able to just snap their
fingers and have them all solved. Right! I agree that the Europeans have
come up with better ideas than ours so far but I'll wager we will copy them
if their plans are really better. Given the depth of our problems I think
the effort by the government has been quite good. It's not perfect but name
one time it ever was. After your comments I sure wouldn't have wanted to
work for you guys. Talk about harsh task masters. Picky, picky, picky.

Hawke

But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
----------
Indeed, but an expected problem when the "elite" are "world
citizens" and the companies they control are transnational
corporations, while everyone else [except for the "undocumented"
guest workers] are American citizens, with their homes and small
businesses located in the USA.

Do you think that's it? I think it's more a matter of general ennui, not
having any big new projects, like building families and housing after
WWII,
or putting a man on the moon. Like John, I hope that energy independence
becomes the next big thing, but it will take leadership from the top to
get
people excited about it.

Coming up with some goal we all agree upon is not easy. Bush has kind of
burned out the idea of being constantly at war with an abstraction.


We haven't been going anywhere because a nation can't go anywhere without a
leader who can actually lead. We had a man in power that had no leadership
ability at all. In fact, I can't think of a real leader since Harry Truman
was president. Without someone with charisma and real presence and with a
direction in mind any country will flounder. Also chalk it up to a country
following the republican philosophy of every man for himself. It's kind of
hard to get on the same page with other citizens when they are all
competitors and not countrymen. There has to be something shared and
something in common to get a country to pull in one direction. We have had
plenty to do but no one to lead us. The policies and philosophy of the
people who have been in power for the last eight years has failed us like
never before. It's vital that the nation repudiate those policies and way of
thinking. Once the failed policies have been sent to the dust bin of history
we can start to move in a new direction. There is plenty to do if we can
finally get someone who knows how to do it. I have my fingers crossed that
Obama's the guy.

Hawke

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
m...
Ignoramus31919 wrote:

But what about thousands of small banks?

Is there such a thing. With all the "one bank buying out
another bank" I don't think there is any "small" banks.
...lew...


Why, yes, there are small banks, lots and lots of them. Last I heard there
are somewhere around 8,000 banks in the US. That's way too many, by the way.
Most of them are "community" banks and are small. I have also heard that
about 10% of them should go out of business because they are not sound. It's
bank shake out time and the bad ones need to go and many others should be
consolidated. It's just another area in this country where we need
improvement. Maybe the little financial problem we are having right now will
be a cause to fix things that have been neglected for far too long. We can
hope.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus31919 wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/bu...4treasury.html

``The government will purchase perpectual preferred shares in all the
largest U.S. banking companies. The shares will notbe dilutive to
current shareholders, a concern to banking chie executives, because
perpetual preferred stock holders are paid a dividend, not a portion
of earnings.''


When government can't write something at the 8th grade level for the
citizens to
understand, it is a sure sign a snow job is going on.

Wes


If one is so stupid that they are operating on an 8th grade level they don't
need to know what's going on because they would be useless. Haven't we
learned from Bush that if you don't know what you are doing you shouldn't
try to do it? That should go double for any adult that only understands what
an 8th grader can comprehend.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
----------
Indeed, but an expected problem when the "elite" are "world
citizens" and the companies they control are transnational
corporations, while everyone else [except for the "undocumented"
guest workers] are American citizens, with their homes and small
businesses located in the USA.

Do you think that's it? I think it's more a matter of general ennui, not
having any big new projects, like building families and housing after
WWII,
or putting a man on the moon. Like John, I hope that energy independence
becomes the next big thing, but it will take leadership from the top to
get
people excited about it.

Coming up with some goal we all agree upon is not easy. Bush has kind of
burned out the idea of being constantly at war with an abstraction.


We haven't been going anywhere because a nation can't go anywhere without
a
leader who can actually lead. We had a man in power that had no leadership
ability at all. In fact, I can't think of a real leader since Harry Truman
was president. Without someone with charisma and real presence and with a
direction in mind any country will flounder. Also chalk it up to a country
following the republican philosophy of every man for himself. It's kind of
hard to get on the same page with other citizens when they are all
competitors and not countrymen. There has to be something shared and
something in common to get a country to pull in one direction. We have had
plenty to do but no one to lead us. The policies and philosophy of the
people who have been in power for the last eight years has failed us like
never before. It's vital that the nation repudiate those policies and way
of
thinking. Once the failed policies have been sent to the dust bin of
history
we can start to move in a new direction. There is plenty to do if we can
finally get someone who knows how to do it. I have my fingers crossed that
Obama's the guy.

Hawke

I don't disagree (except about Truman), but it's also true that we've
reached a point in history where new common goals are hard to identify.
That's been true for decades. After the USSR fell, we didn't even have a
real enemy that amounted to much.

Leadership can take a real goal and make it congeal in the public
consciousness. Energy independence certainly is real and has the potential
to be such a goal, but it, too, is an abstract idea that's only been defined
by a lot of chaotic activity, politicized by competing ideologies. For a
president to make that turn into something like a Manhattan Project would be
an extraordinary accomplishment.

I'm not holding my breath on that one but I would like to have my skepticism
proved wrong.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:39:47 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:45:48 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
But we have bigger problems -- notably a
lack of common ambition and goals
snip
What the government, as an intervenyion phylosophy, needs to worry about
isn't markets, it's getting consumers from the where we are list onto the
healthy consumer list.
The markets will figure out how to benefit and it's their problem to do
so.
You don't think business will walk away from a healthy and large consumer
pool do you? LMAO, believe me, the shoe has been put not just on the wrong
foot but the wrong barnyard animal.

That's a pretty good analogy BTW. Feed lot owners take better care of
their
cattle than business has of thiers and the results are obvious.
Undernourished and sickly consumers that aren't worth much and healthy
consumers won't result from fatter bankers.

Major problem here is the difference in mindset between a "going
enterprise" and "a one night stand."

If management's goal is to inflate the corporate balance sheet to
justify fully funding their "judgement-proof" retirement trust
funds, and provide capital for their "deferred compensation"
withdrawals, [money of account -- $USV] the fact that they may
well screw the company, the employees, and stockholders into the
ground will be no deterrent, and indeed in many cases this may
act as an incentive, either from spite/rage at forced retirement
[Götterdämmerung], or megalomania ["Après moi, le déluge"].

That behavior can be discouraged with a little thought.


Even with a "going concern" mindset, one of the problems in
dealing with TNCs is assuming they will "protect their markets."
In point of fact their markets [as is their domicile or home
country] are a floating crap game. For example, GM is doing
great in the PRC, and not too bad in the EEC, while the US
markets are in the toilet. In the time honored tradition of
"snake oil" medicine shows, it is time for them to fold their
tent here in the US, dumping some of their pension and other
liabilities on the US honest US companies and the taxpayers
through the PBGC and "stiffing" their retirees for the rest. The
local communities and states [actually their taxpayers] that have
invested heavily Economic Development funds in GMC facilities and
huge tax breaks will also take it in the shorts. Ford is in much
the same situation.

Chrysler is screwed in that they are mainly a US corporation with
few foreign operations, but if Cerberus can get GM to swap their
49% of GMAC for the 80% of Chrysler they own, Cerberus becomes a
"one bank holding company," and GM *MAY* become too big to fail,
at least not until the taxpayers pump additional billions (last
count 25$USR from the taxpayers scheduled for injection) into the
zombie to keep it "alive." This infusion of taxpayer money will
provide the funding required for the "performance bonuses,"
"retirement trust funds," and perks/benefits any self-respecting
titan of industry will demand.


The Japanese, Korean and Europeans don't suffer from this malady to the
extent that our domestic automakers do and they seem able to ttract decent
talent.
General Electric doesn't either. They value every market they are in and
have the best and brightest. The list of appropriate examples is as long as
the list of bad actors.

One thing is constant across markets. Broken consumers aren't desirable.
China's real challenge is to convert their populace into a homogenous group
af desirable consumers quickly enough to avoid civil war.
The Indian's are the same. Both are steadily exerting pressure to accomplish
their goals but in very different ways.
The common thread is that both are building healthy consumers.

This is the real lesson of the WWII years. Everyone worked hard and they
couldn't spend what they made.
After the war, demand was matched to wherewithal. It's also worth having a
look at income distribution in 1950 compared to today.

Anyway, America isn't going to get well on the backs of Wall Street.
Wealth creation and a growing middle class are what is required and
government policy that doesn't serve that end is contrary to the voters and
public interest generally.
Dropping he penalty for 401K and IRA withdrawals is a great idea. More of
those solutions are necessary to get people through the consumer pull back
we are experiencing. Might save a lot of folks in the short term and it
couldn't hurt.

JC

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:55:36 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


--snip--
Hawke

I don't disagree (except about Truman), but it's also true that we've
reached a point in history where new common goals are hard to identify.
That's been true for decades. After the USSR fell, we didn't even have a
real enemy that amounted to much.

Now we do. It's ourselves. sigh


Leadership can take a real goal and make it congeal in the public
consciousness. Energy independence certainly is real and has the potential
to be such a goal, but it, too, is an abstract idea that's only been defined
by a lot of chaotic activity, politicized by competing ideologies. For a
president to make that turn into something like a Manhattan Project would be
an extraordinary accomplishment.

Let's hope that either of the two candidates can become that man and
do that leading, and that he surrounds himself with the best possible
men and women from all walks of life in order to achieve it for all of
us.


I'm not holding my breath on that one but I would like to have my skepticism
proved wrong.

Ditto.

--
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it
exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong
remedy." -- Ernest Benn

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:17:55 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

snip
It's also worth having a
look at income distribution in 1950 compared to today.
snip
The metric for this is called the GINI index, and when you
compare the US GINI over time and against other countries it will
make your hair stand on end.
to see a graph click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/gini1.pdf

FWIW the lowest GINI was for the period 1947-1996 was 1965-1971
at about 0.35 at the height of LBJs "War on Poverty" [and the
concurrent war in Vietnam] The US 2007 GINI was estimated at
0.45 by the CIA economics analysis section, while my trend line
forecast was about a 0.49.

The US currently has the highest GINI index of any of the OECD
{developed/industralized} countries, and it continues to climb at
a increasing rate. [0.00 = perfect income equality, everyone get
the same income, 1.00=perfect inequality, 1 person gets
everything, everyone else gets nothing.] In many cases, the US
GINI is now *ABOVE* some so called LDCs [less developed
countries]/third-world economies.

While I do not suggest causality, there is a high degree of
correlation [R sq. .5] between the GINI index and many "quality
of life" metrics such as the crime/murder rate, longevity,
suicide rate, infant mortality, etc. This is true world-wide,
although some if this data is doubtful, to the United States
where state GINIs used to be available. From limited data, this
also appears to be the case for the even smaller MSA
[metropolitian statistical areas] where both the GINI and QoL
data is available.

Remember that the GINI index does not indicate the level of
income [or other items such as health care (different GINI)], but
the evenness of distribution, so a poor area can have a low GINI
index if everybody is poor, and so can a rich area if everyone is
rich.

FWIW -- the US area with the highest known GINI is Washington DC,
and their QoL problems are well known.

If interested click on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ncome_equality
google on gini indes for 168k hits.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:15:25 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Not this time George. I think what is happening is a refusal to admit that
their version of free markets doesn't work as advertised and never did.
That's called denial.
It's called "short selling."

They are especially trying to deny that a strong economy relies on an
upwardly mobile, prosperous, middle class and a reasonable gap between the
upper and middle class as far as income goes.

One example is how Boeing is attempting to reduce their costs for
US engineers [while at the same time complaining that no one
wants to be an engineer any more and work 80 hours a week..]
===========
snip
SPEEA's new executive director, Ray Goforth, told the meeting
that preliminary discussions suggest Boeing will offer a
compensation increase wrapped around a series of benefit
"take-aways."

"It's not looking pretty," said Goforth. "Boeing is an island of
prosperity in a global economy that's experiencing great
difficulties right now. ... There's no reason at all why the
Boeing Company should be seeking take-aways."

Goforth said that in preliminary talks, Boeing hasn't engaged in
a substantive discussion. Signaling the union's dissatisfaction,
he said that once full-time negotiations begin, SPEEA will insist
that top Boeing negotiators hash out every last contract detail
in main-table bargaining sessions, rather than relegating the
minutiae to subcommittees.

He said he's been getting calls from Wall Street analysts
surprised and dismayed to hear the rumblings of a
professional-staff strike.

"Just the fact that SPEEA is even contemplating this, they are
seeing as a sign of management failure," said Goforth.
snip
----------------
for complete article click on
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._boeing13.html
also see
http://economie.moldova.org/stiri/eng/157012/
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={259395B5-504A-4732-B141-1F30AD054FEE}&siteid=rss


Note that Boeing has continuously exported the methodology and
expertise needed for the design and manufacture of wide-body
jumbo civilian aircraft that was supposed to be the American
niche, as quickly as possible, by their zeal for the lowest cost
outsourcing and subcontracting. Indeed, with the liquidation of
Macdonald-Douglas,
[http://www.einsteins-emporium.com/te...ers/aam00.htm]
they have even exported the special machines and tooling such as
spar mills. This goes far beyond any normal management-union
differences, but has serious national defense and economic
viability issues.
http://3plp.ru/thirdplnews/?p=1&idnews=4059


Why would anyone want to be an aeronautical engineer if the only
thing they have to look forward to is a series of wage/benefit
cuts, and shortages of employment?

========
snip
The offshore issue.
When I was at boeing it was having many of its huge tail
sections made in china as a way to encourage chinese sales and
no doubt ramp up chinese manufacturing capibility in that
area. It would not surprise me at all to see Boeing move
most of its manufacturing to china...and fly the finished
planes to buyers direct from china.

It wouldnt be much of a problem to arrange that.

If it did though the US would loose crucial military
industrial capability.. so it wont happen 100% at least.
the US may have to subsidize Boeing in the end.
snip
==========
for complete article click on
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg00056.html

==============
snip"
After denying a McDonald Douglas application to ship machine
tools to China, Leitner was told by his supervisor that the
decision had already been made to approve the transfer and that
Leitner "should change my position from a denial to one of
approval with conditions and to get busy writing conditions to go
along with the case."

He refused. Machine tools were then shipped to a cruise missile
manufacturing facility that was "hundreds of miles away from the
location where they said it was going to be;' said Leitner.

Right now, no one within the government is analyzing the impact
of either the day-to-day technology releases under the current
dysfunctional export licensing process, or the overall strategic
and military impact of the technology decontrols, said Leitner.
"Without such assessments the government will continue to blunder
along endangering the lives of our citizens unnecessarily," he
said.
snip
------------------
for complete article click on
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_n8787570



Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:15:25 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Not this time George. I think what is happening is a refusal to admit that
their version of free markets doesn't work as advertised and never did.
That's called denial.
It's called "short selling."

They are especially trying to deny that a strong economy relies on an
upwardly mobile, prosperous, middle class and a reasonable gap between
the
upper and middle class as far as income goes.

One example is how Boeing is attempting to reduce their costs for
US engineers [while at the same time complaining that no one
wants to be an engineer any more and work 80 hours a week..]
===========
snip

Boeing's commitment to offshore manufacturing is a necessary part of their
sales strategy George.
In order to secure Asian orders, for example, Boeing agreed to put
manufacturing jobs in Asia.

As far as contributing to the American work force, Airbus puts more work in
US shops for civilian airframe parts as a percentage of sales and those jobs
pay top dollar. I've got a dozen large parts in the A380 alone and they are
fabbed right here in California.
This globalization thing works both ways but the mechanics are fairly
industry and country specific.

Were Boeing not to have agreed to build a fixed volume of their stuff in
China, the Chinese would have selected Airbus for their fleet.
The number of US jobs directly attributable to Boeing would then have been
exactly zero.
The metric of choice in civil aviation doesn't involve Boeing at all, It's
the heatlth of the operators that's important and they are very sick and
have been for years. Another instance where opaque deregulation has lead to
failure of an industry.


JC

OT: this thread seems a good place to insert this piece of
information.

As several of us have observed, there is little difference
between most of the major industrial firms and banks in that a
major portion of their income is derived from financial
operations.

One of the largest is G.E. Financial Services.

It has just been announced that through the commercial paper
market, the FRB/Treasury will subsidize about 1/3 to 1/2 of their
borrowing costs by offering capital at below market rates.
-------
The discount cuts the cost of cash to 2.1 percent from 3.85
percent for General Electric Co.'s financing arm and from 4.6
percent for Citigroup Inc., data compiled by Bloomberg show.
snip
Officials are setting up a special fund to buy the commercial
paper, and will start the program on Oct. 27, the central bank
said in a statement yesterday. Pacific Investment Management Co.
of Newport Beach, California, is in talks to run the plan.

Maximum Amount

A Fed report made public today by Senate Banking Committee
Chairman Christopher Dodd showed that the U.S. Treasury will make
a $50 billion deposit into the fund as an indication of support.
The Fed said the maximum amount of commercial paper that could be
funded by the facility is about $1.8 trillion.
snip
-------
For complete article click on
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...QDI&refer=home

Bloomberg's homepage has a realtime chart of the DJIA if you want
to see how well your tax dollars are supporting the US stock
market.
http://www.bloomberg.com/?b=0&Intro=intro3

So far the "free market" has proven to be very expensive.....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On 2008-10-15, F George McDuffee wrote:
OT: this thread seems a good place to insert this piece of
information.

Hi George... Have you given this a thought: just what is the limit of
the ability of the Federal government to support failing banks and
firms?

Let's say, for example, that house prices fall by 15 more percent.
That would, surely, put a lot more mortgages underwater and further
reduce the banks' capitals. Would the Federal government still be able to
prop up the banks?

Or, let's say that foreign investors decide not to buy as many
Treasuries as they used to. (or would insist on loans to be
denominated in non-US currency) That would raise borrowing costs for
everyone, including the Federal government, and add roughly 100
billion per year of debt servicing costs for the US government debt,
for every percentage point of interest rates.

I have a feeling, which I cannot yet quantify, that the staggering
amounts of money being used to plug up the dikes, may not be too far
from the maximum that the government could spend/print without the
currency free fall.

So, making a hypothetical logical leap, let's assume for a minute that
the losses exceed what the Federal government can finance. Then what?
We have a government that just spent trillions, cannot any more effect
any positive changes, and the crisis would continue but with the
government's hands already tied.

i

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
m...
John R. Carroll wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:15:25 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


Not this time George. I think what is happening is a refusal to admit
that
their version of free markets doesn't work as advertised and never did.
That's called denial.

It's called "short selling."

They are especially trying to deny that a strong economy relies on an
upwardly mobile, prosperous, middle class and a reasonable gap between
the
upper and middle class as far as income goes.

One example is how Boeing is attempting to reduce their costs for
US engineers [while at the same time complaining that no one
wants to be an engineer any more and work 80 hours a week..]
===========
snip
The metric of choice in civil aviation doesn't involve Boeing at all,
It's the heatlth of the operators that's important and they are very sick
and have been for years. Another instance where opaque deregulation has
lead to failure of an industry.


JC


I was with you all the way up to the end, but I disagree with the last
sentence.

Deregulation? Of civil aviation?

Yes.
Have you looked at the shenanigans surrounding ticket pricing?
Fairs used to be regulated in a way that kept them high enough to cover
costs.
Fair wars aren't good for the airlines or, in the long run, passengers.


No, the failure of that particular industry is entirely due to the legal
industry.

How's that?
Rate deregulaion lead to maintenance practices that were criminal fraud.
Is that what you mean?

JC