Ford and GM are reduced to "junk bond" status

Discussion in 'Green Room' started by Perris Calderon, May 6, 2005.

  1. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    hard to believe but true

    I don't know who's responsible for the American economy, but whoever it is needs a course.

    (he could use a few, but here economics 101 would be a nice place to start)

    or maybe instead of the course,, he should try that "take all the money you can possibly take from people that buy cars... give it to rich people who don't by American cars" strategy.

    I know I know, but you've heard the expression;"if at first you don't succeed, try and try again"

    so maybe if he tries it again it will work according the expression...I think so...let me go and ask my economic professor

    I think that's probably the best course of action.

    here's the ticket;

    rich people that we give our money to will (for some reason) find a way to spend that very same money in order to give it back to the people that they took it from

    this will work...they promise it will...it's simple;

    .you see, obviously, rich people don't want to spend their own money...(why would they want to do that?), but maybe, just maybe they will spend our money.

    so the strategy is that if we give them our money, we think they will spend it....and that is the ticket to a booming economy

    this might not sound like it will work, but believe me, rich people (and the media they own) will prove to you that it will.

    give rich people your money for nothing in return

    this is the ticket to economic growth
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2005
    Kush likes this.
  2. Kush

    Kush High On Life!

    Messages:
    4,590
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec
    thanks perris, ill show this to my econ teacher for some extra credit:p
     
  3. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Well my fiance's family is rich and all they buy is Ford. :p
     
  4. Kush

    Kush High On Life!

    Messages:
    4,590
    Location:
    Montreal, Quebec
    ohh crap i read this as ford and gm reduce junk bond status, lol hmmmm
     
  5. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    does your fiance have a sister?
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2005
  6. melon

    melon MS-DOS 2.0 Political User

    Messages:
    854
    Location:
    Ásgarðr
    I think most economics teachers are real douches. :p I left my economics class with a severe hatred of supply-side economics, because I thought it was completely amoral (labor is the same as equipment--expendable) and, in a complete contradiction, "faith-based." That is, talk about an economics system that doesn't know how anything works and doesn't worry about potential social ills; just that "it all works out in the end."

    Anyway, many people have remarked that we're mirroring the mid-to-late 1970s economically. In the 1970s, Keynesian capitalism hit a dead end, and supply-side economics emerged to "save the day." Enter Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Brian Mulroney in U.S., UK, and Canadian politics. However, I think we've now seen the dead end of supply-side economics, where it is now experiencing completely diminished returns, where tax cuts no longer stimulate the economy and the rich are so goddamn rich that making them richer amounts to nothing and we're hurting our economy as a whole merely by playing "economics-as-usual."

    Considering that over 60% of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending, not Donald Trump's pocketbook, our economy is not going to pick up unless the working class, quite frankly, is properly employed and paid well. Period. Of course, the supply-siders made that very difficult, when they shifted the primary indicator of "inflation" from consumer prices to wages in 1982. That served a two-fold purpose: to allow businesses to raise prices endlessly with no inflation fears and to allow them to drastically slash wages and limit their growth. In other words, the "inflation" that plagued Carter in the late 1970s is not the same "inflation" that we have today. Reagan's real solution to "inflation" was to merely change what the term meant. Likewise, he played a similar game with "unemployment," changing the definition of "unemployed" to those who make unemployment claims. The long-term employed then fall off of the claims after a few weeks and are statistically assumed to be "employed."

    In short, most of the "success" of the American economy over the last 25 years has been wholly "postmodern" in nature. Changing definitions of key economic terms to make things look "rosy." Hell...look at the "tech boom" of the 1990s. Want to know where that came from? The 1990s happened to be the boom of the 401K, so it was retirement funds that drove our economy for that decade, and, apparently, there wasn't any "real growth" at all, as all those tech stocks that drove Nasdaq sky high never really had a real product or even remotely posted a profit. "Postmodern."

    But you can only play tricks for so long before "reality" catches up, and I think that's where we're at. We're going to have to be "imaginative" again and stop mooching off of 30 year-old R&D. Everything from the computer to the internet have their roots in 30+ year-old research and development. We've just been making innovations built on that ever since. Nanotechnology is very promising, but it's still probably an optimistic 15 years away from having a real effect on our economic growth. I think we just might have to get used to a few years of that dreaded term, "stagflation," and issue Jimmy Carter an apology. After all, this time, it's from a Republican.

    Melon
     
    Grandmaster likes this.
  7. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    melon, there have never been tax cuts by reagan or bush...there's been re direction of tax revenue, and there has been the stealing of tax resources from the middle class, but never tax cuts

    reagan had the largest tax increase in the history of peace time presidents...however the wealthy owned media brainwashing machine tries to convince everyone that this man cut taxes.

    this "strategy" of reagans brought the middle class in America to near extinction...Clinton, redirecting the tax burdon to the people that could afford it most nourished the middle class back to health, and the economy grew

    surprise surprise

    in case anyone didn't know it, the middle class is the engine that drives the American economy, and ANY strategy that suffers the middle class in America is flawed

    this president thinks giving middle class money to wealthy class people that allready have plenty of their own is a better idea...and the middle class suffers again

    surprise surprise

    there is no such thing as "supply side economics"...that type of economic magic thinking was correctly coined "voodoo economics" by the first president bush...bush was correct in that assessment wasn't he.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2005
  8. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Two actually. One is married and the other is 18. :p
     
  9. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    I won't go out with a married women, so the eighteen year old sounds like the better choice then

    tell her to give me a call
     
  10. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Hahaha, can you handle a conservative? :p
     
  11. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    of course...most of the company I keep are concervatives
     
  12. muzikool

    muzikool Act your wage. Political User

    Oh ok... didn't know that. :)
     
  13. melon

    melon MS-DOS 2.0 Political User

    Messages:
    854
    Location:
    Ásgarðr
    Well, tax revenue has been cut, yes, but mostly for the wealthy. Federal tax cuts, by their design, always benefit the wealthy. Most people, even prior to Bush's tax cuts, got most of their federal taxes back in refund. So when the federal government doesn't pick up the slack, it goes to the states and your state taxes are raised. Or, if the states don't want to pick up the slack, it goes to the local level, and then you notice that the schools start feverishly issuing school levys. If the local level doesn't want to pick up the slack, it plain doesn't get done.

    In the 1950s, the largest contributor of tax revenue was corporations, who contributed 92% of all taxes. That means all individuals, from the wealthiest to the poorest, paid only 8% of all tax revenue. By 1975, corporations paid 70% of all tax revenue, with individuals paying 30%. By 1986, the numbers flipped; corporations paying 30% of all taxes, with individuals paying 70%. Currently, I believe, corporations pay 8% of all taxes, with individuals paying 92%. We have flip-flopped from the 1950s figures, and we're paying the price. Corporations won't be happy until the government gives them large sums of money. Of course, cities and states are already doing this to bribe industry to either stay put or to move there. We have an utterly sick economic system, where the wealthiest entities in America are literally getting welfare, while the rest of us are told to shut up and take it, or we're "un-American."

    Melon
     
    Perris Calderon likes this.
  14. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    great post!

    I haven't looked into your stats, but if true, VERY IMPRESSIVE indded

    rep on it's way
     
  15. LeeJend

    LeeJend Moderator

    Messages:
    5,291
    Location:
    Fort Worth, TX
    I'm confused. What have all the above discussions got to do with the fact that GM and Ford are loosing their asses because they put all their focus on gas guzzling SUVs that are unsustainable ecologically with limited world resources and booming economic growth in Asia. 2 Billion new consumers in the market place = short supply of everything.

    GM and Ford ****ed up. They neutered their car lines to sell station wagons with load lifter shocks as SUVs to yuppies who grew up after the great oil crisis of the 70's.

    I've been shopping for a new "US" car for 3 yeras. There is nothing out there to buy. I go to a dealership and ask to see full size cars and they show me SUV's. GM and Ford have no products left, the Japs, Koreans and Europeans do. So who gets the business when reality catches up with the price of gasoline? Not Ford or GM.

    None of this has anything to do with taxes or economic policy it is purely free market processes at work. GM and Ford just did not bother to look ahead. Demand shifted based on market pressure from Asia pushing up gasoline prices. Live with it. God punishes the stupid. Gasoline prices have been rising for years, not just 6 months.
     
  16. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,333
    Location:
    new york
    I have to agree leejend...ford and gm do not have a competitive product...however, these suv's and gas guzzlers were what was selling, so I can't fault American car manufacturers for building what the comsumer was buying...that's good bussiness.

    I fault do fault the auto industry for building a product that is not equal in quality as it's imported or foreign manufacturers counterpart.

    I also blame the lack of money in the middle classes pocket...take away my money, give it to rich people, and I won't be buying as many cars
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2005