114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:00 pm
Our local radio station is debating the 'cash for clunkers program this afternoon--this is a homegrown show and local talk show host. The host says "this isn't the worst idea the government has come up with because at least the money is being returned to the people."

I was agreeing with that but it was still bugging me more than my usual contempt for spending money we don't have for something we don't have to spend it for. I just figured out why.

Those who bought the gas guzzlers years ago are now being rewarded for being 'environmentally irresponsible'. And those of us who were responsibly buying 'green' fuel efficient cars are ineligible for the program.

Just one more case of a 'progressively liberal' government rewarding the most irresponsible at the expense of the responsible.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:33 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Those who bought the gas guzzlers years ago are now being rewarded for being 'environmentally irresponsible'. And those of us who were responsibly buying 'green' fuel efficient cars are ineligible for the program.

Just one more case of a 'progressively liberal' government rewarding the most irresponsible at the expense of the responsible


You have to be kidding me.....we just spent a few trillion dollars rewarding the irresponsible financial sector fat cats who ruined our economy, and now you get your panties all twisted because we shovel a couple of billion to everyone else??

If fair was fair all the rest of us would have a free car, not a measly few hundred thousand of us a up to a few thousand dollars in excess of our trade in's value.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 06:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye, And that's not the end of it; they're giving their employees $1 million dollar bonuses.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
hawkeye, And that's not the end of it; they're giving their employees $1 million dollar bonuses.


You know what this means right? Nothing has been learned, nothing has changed. The crash of 2008 will go down in history as the warning that was ignored in the run up to the monster global depression of 20??.

My hope was the the rest of the world would impose a new global economic system against the will of America, but Europe is as always without balls, Japan is a wreak, and China is not yet strong enough.

I am putting 25% of my money in traditional investments, the other 75% is purely defensive. I am getting ready for the depression, you should do the same. What ever the optimists call this time (green shoots, recovery, partial recovery??) it is the last chance for the smart ones to get ready for what is coming. Have no debt, own your house clear, and have your money spread around so that when you need it at least some of it will be available to live on.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:14 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The crash of 2008 will go down in history as the warning that was ignored in the run up to the monster global depression of 20??.


Just out of curiousity, who do you think will get the blame if you are correct?
Which political party or President?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
My timing has been pretty good on our investments. I sold about a third of our investments when the market was 14,000+, bought back some when it was 8,500, and purchased three more funds on June 18 by selling off my money market account. From June 18 to today, I've already gained 8.5%.

My feel for the market has been pretty good in all the years we've invested for our retirement. I try to beat the crowd before it goes down or up, and feel pretty confident my future moves will be good also.

Many economic indicators are showing we've turned the corner, but I'm still a little bit weary because of the increase in unemployment. Until that is fixed, our economic outlook is going to be hard pressed to show improvements in all sectors of our economy.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Those who bought the gas guzzlers years ago are now being rewarded for being 'environmentally irresponsible'. And those of us who were responsibly buying 'green' fuel efficient cars are ineligible for the program.

Just one more case of a 'progressively liberal' government rewarding the most irresponsible at the expense of the responsible


You have to be kidding me.....we just spent a few trillion dollars rewarding the irresponsible financial sector fat cats who ruined our economy, and now you get your panties all twisted because we shovel a couple of billion to everyone else??

If fair was fair all the rest of us would have a free car, not a measly few hundred thousand of us a up to a few thousand dollars in excess of our trade in's value.


Um, I think you missed the point there. I am deploring rewarding the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible.

It happened in the bailouts.

And it is happening the cash for clunkers program.

If life was fair, those who bought 'green' several years ago would be getting a break and not those who didn't.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
**** the numbers, for almost a full year the experts were claiming that all was OK, but the common man felt that the economy was in trouble. The common man turned out to be right. Upon reevaluation of the numbers the economists decided that the economy entered recession over 9 months before the announcement of recession was made!!

Talk to the common man today, I do, almost everyone thinks that we are headed off a cliff because both the economy and the political system are broken. And they will be proven right again.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:48 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Um, I think you missed the point there. I am deploring rewarding the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible.


if the ship is going down do the officers have the right to steal what ever they want but the rest of the crew should take nothing because it would be morally wrong?

I will trade in my 95 van with 150 k miles which on the market is worth $900, and get $4,500 from the US Treasury for it. I will sleep like a baby at night.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
I disagree; the sky is falling scenario doesn't fit in my meme.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 07:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
I would too. If somebody is going to get the money, it sure ought to be those who have been paying into the system.

Unfortunately, my almost 14-year-old Subaru is too fuel efficient so it doesn't qualify as a clunker.

So because I was deemed 'responsible' back in 1995, I am now being punished. You apparently didn't care about the environment and energy efficiency back then--their opinion not mine--and so you will be rewarded for that.

And that's what isn't fair.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
you are fixated on the old system, on hopping against all reason that it can be saved, so you call it "the sky is falling". I have already seen and processed that it is over, I have already moved on the what is next. For me the change will be "the dawn of a new day".

I am not a pessimist, I am a progressive.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:03 pm
@Foxfyre,
Do yourself a favor, and look up "Moral Hazard". I get your point, but that ship had already sailed long before we decided to fund the clunker program.

I say let the peons have what ever loot that has not already been plundered by the ruling class. Fairness demands it be allowed.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 08:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
as an aside, I suppose then that you are happy about how the mortgage renegotiation program that Obama set up is failing. The idea was that those who entered into stupid mortgages would get new and better terms paid for by the US Treasury. It is a complete failure, because the holders of the mortgages have decided that they can make more money by letting the mortgages slide into default, and then foreclosing. Saving home owners is not in their best interest, so they are refusing to save them.

those who made bad moves are being put out into the street. Justice is served. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty much with you, but we need to hammer the ruling class before we lower the boom on the herd who followed them.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 11:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
I hurt when people hurt regardless of what caused the pain or what ignorance or bad choices brought it on. So I don't rejoice in any failure other than failure of those who intend to do unkindness or harm to others.

Evenso right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who does it or why. And so long as the government rewards bad behavior and does not reward good behavior, which do you think we are going to have more of?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2009 11:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
not only do individuals tend to conform to the will of the collective under any scheme, but also individuals in market capitalism societies are highly sensitive what is economically rewarded and punished.

the bail outs as well as the clunker program might meet some short term objectives, but they have long term costs which have been barely acknowledged, much less allowed for.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 12:38 am
@hawkeye10,
No argument from me there.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 06:37 pm
Update on the Clunker Program and your tax dollars at work:

Quote:
July 31, 2009, 2:13 pm
Dealers Race to Get Their Clunkers Crushed
By Katharine Q. Seelye
Yana Paskova for The New York Times

The White House and Congress may be giving the “cash for clunkers” program a reprieve, but one can’t help wondering how many dealers and customers will have the confidence to go forward at this point. Things sound like a total mess in the showrooms.

“There is absolute frustration across the board,” Alex Kurkin, a lawyer based in Miami who represents several car dealerships, tells The Lede today. “As of this morning, they’re not really confident about any deals, and no one can give them advice about what they should be telling their customers.”

One thing still not clear is how many older cars have actually been sold and scrapped with the original $1 billion, and how many more the new $2 billion will be able to cover. Mr. Kurkin tells us that the government Web site where dealers are supposed to register their deals has been crashing, and the dealers haven’t been able to plug in their information.

We spent a couple of days earlier this week following the whole complex program, from dealer to scrap heap, and found twists and turns in it that are making it a nightmare now for everyone involved.

The program requires that the clunkers be put out of service for good, so dealers must destroy the engines on cars that are traded in. We watched this process yesterday at the DCH Paramus Honda in Paramus, N.J. It is quite laborious and potentially dangerous. And it certainly is final.

Nick Clites, who is in charge of used cars for the dealership, was prepping a 1988 BMW 535IS, with 214,000 miles on the odometer, for its death. He drained the oil, then donned a silky blue protective suit, goggles and gloves and poured a sodium silicate solution into the engine. He revved the car, and within a few seconds, the solution hardened into a glass-like substance, the engine seized up and the car was dead.

So here is one question: With the program now on shaky ground, even with a new infusion of money, what consumer and what dealer will risk rendering an engine irretrievably unusable?

Well, as it turns out, a lot of them are doing so, because unless the dealers can prove to the government that they have killed the engines and scrapped the cars, the government will not reimburse them for the $3,500 or $4,500 discount that they have given the customer on a new, more efficient vehicle.

Barry Magnus, the general manager of DCH Paramus Honda, told us he was owed more than $80,000, and he wondered if he would ever see it. The government has said it would take 10 days to reimburse the dealers, but that was before the program apparently ran out of money and devolved into chaos Thursday night.

Today, dealers are frantically trying to move the old trade-ins to the scrap heap so that they can get reimbursement before the money tap shuts off. Until they can certify that the car has been decommissioned, they cannot submit their paperwork to be repaid.

“Oh my God, what a mess today,” Sally Ann Maggio, who co-owns Hackensack Auto Wreckers, also in New Jersey, said on Friday. We visited her car-crushing business on Thursday. She didn’t think much of the program to begin with.

Ms. Maggio said she generally makes her profit by reselling the engines, the most valuable parts of the cars she takes, but that’s not posible with the cars coming to her because of the cash for clunkers program, because they have been rendered unusable. That cuts down the salvage value of the cars " and the incentive for salvage yards and wreckers to take them " to almost nothing, considering the time and energy they must spend in going to the dealer, towing back the dead cars, removing the engines, crushing the bodies and shipping them to a metal scrap shredder and recycler.

And, of course, the process reduces the supply of used engines for people who can’t afford to buy a new car and come to the salvage yard looking to fix up old ones.

In any case, Ms. Maggio said, dealers are “hitting the panic button” today.

“We have been overwhelmed with phone calls from the dealerships,” she said. They have already killed the engines, and want her to pick up the heaps.

And on hearing the news that the government might be pumping more money into the program, she said, they are stepping up the process. “They’re worried that the new money might last only two days,” Ms. Maggio said. “But until it’s scrapped and the paperwork is done, it’s not a done deal,” she said. “They’re driving me crazy.”

Mr. Kurkin, the lawyer in Miami, said that many dealers are attaching clauses to their sales agreements, saying that if the government money does not come through, the customer will have to make up the difference.

“If a dealer doesn’t have a separate document addressing this possibility, the dealer will likely have to eat it,” Mr. Kurkin said. “I certainly see a lot of litigation over this.”

Dealers Step In | 7:43 p.m.

While the government’s “cash for clunkers” program may be stalled at a yellow light, a group of private auto dealers is stepping into the breach.

The group, made up of about 50 of the nation’s biggest dealers, who sell both foreign and domestic makes, are hoping to capitalize on the popularity of the “cash for clunkers” program with their own “automotive stimulus program,” but with looser requirements.

“So many customers were so close to qualifying,” but their cars did not meet the government requirement of getting less than 18 miles per gallon, said Brian Benstock, general manager of Paragon Honda, Paragon Acura of Brooklyn, and one of the participating dealers. Still, he said, the government program was clearly successful, which is why it ran out of money. On Friday, the House voted to add $2 billion to the program; the Senate is to vote next week.

Set to run for 12 weeks, the dealers’ plan requires that the clunkers being traded in have been registered and insured by the owner for just six months, half the government’s requirement. It also allows customers to trade in their clunkers for used cars, not just new ones.

“Clunker customers would like the option of going from a 15-year-old car to a 5-year-old car,” Mr. Benstock said. The government plan requires that the customer buy a new car that gets at least 4 more miles per gallon than the clunker; the dealers’ plan says only that the replacement car be more fuel-efficient, so it could get just one more mile per gallon.

That may help sales, but is likely to do little for the environment. But experts said the government plan would do little for the environment either.

Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Climate Change Law, said in a statement that the cash-for-clunker program is not a cost-effective way to reduce fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. Any energy savings, he said, could take several years to realize, considering the time it takes the fuel savings from a new car to exceed the energy cost used to make it.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/dealers-race-to-get-their-clunkers-crushed/?hp
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2009 06:41 pm
@Foxfyre,
Another stupid government program that was not thought through before implementation.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2009 10:09 am
While looking through some old records, I found our list of retirement funds dated January of 2006, and compared that to our current funds, and found we are now break even. I was thinking that's probably pretty good, because we've been withdrawing from our funds, and we're still at the same level in our retirement assets.

Anybody else know where they are compared to 3.5 years ago?

 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 03/12/2025 at 03:37:15