One thing Obama IS good at.
-
Oakman wrote:
er. Will Obama and Geithner either go along
The real question is "do they have any other choice?" I don't think we know the whole story here, either on the real state of the economy, or on China's assessment of what best suits their interest (I'm dead certain our best interests are irrelevant to them). Put yourself in Zhou's shoes. What would you do. It's not a fun exercise from where I sit. Learning Mandarin might not be a bad backup plan...
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't think we know the whole story here, either on the real state of the economy
When does transparency not mean transparency, is no longer a riddle, eh?
Rob Graham wrote:
Put yourself in Zhou's shoes
Nope, they were probably made in China for people with slanted toenails.
Rob Graham wrote:
What would you do.
I think he knows what he should do - just as Obama does; just a Merkle does; just as Putin does. The question is whether he thinks his country would survive the crash more or less intact and (more importantly as far as he is concerned) whether he thinks he has the political capital to survive with his status more or less intact. My guess is that Obama and Merkle have already decided to, as Paul Krugman said in the NYTimes yesterday, rearrange the deck chairs, while Putin works to consolodate his power expecting someone else to trigger Armageddon. But what decision a technocrat like Zhou makes is impossible for me to say. The eight-ball says "Outlook Hazy - try again later."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I don't think we know the whole story here, either on the real state of the economy
When does transparency not mean transparency, is no longer a riddle, eh?
Rob Graham wrote:
Put yourself in Zhou's shoes
Nope, they were probably made in China for people with slanted toenails.
Rob Graham wrote:
What would you do.
I think he knows what he should do - just as Obama does; just a Merkle does; just as Putin does. The question is whether he thinks his country would survive the crash more or less intact and (more importantly as far as he is concerned) whether he thinks he has the political capital to survive with his status more or less intact. My guess is that Obama and Merkle have already decided to, as Paul Krugman said in the NYTimes yesterday, rearrange the deck chairs, while Putin works to consolodate his power expecting someone else to trigger Armageddon. But what decision a technocrat like Zhou makes is impossible for me to say. The eight-ball says "Outlook Hazy - try again later."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
My guess is that Obama and Merkle have already decided to, as Paul Krugman said in the NYTimes yesterday, rearrange the deck chairs,
It is not a good thing to have bought passage on the Titanic.
Oakman wrote:
But what decision a technocrat like Zhou makes
We have a myopic tendency to view Zhou as the sole factor in China's decision making. That foolishly disregards it's recent appetite for Military power, and assigns our own tendancy to only view the relatively near term outcomes of any scenario. I am more inclined to view the Chinese as imperialists with a patient long term view, and a good grasp of historical timing.
-
Oakman wrote:
My guess is that Obama and Merkle have already decided to, as Paul Krugman said in the NYTimes yesterday, rearrange the deck chairs,
It is not a good thing to have bought passage on the Titanic.
Oakman wrote:
But what decision a technocrat like Zhou makes
We have a myopic tendency to view Zhou as the sole factor in China's decision making. That foolishly disregards it's recent appetite for Military power, and assigns our own tendancy to only view the relatively near term outcomes of any scenario. I am more inclined to view the Chinese as imperialists with a patient long term view, and a good grasp of historical timing.
Rob Graham wrote:
It is not a good thing to have bought passage on the Titanic.
As Sandahl Bergman said in Conan the Barbarian: "Do you want to live forever?"
Rob Graham wrote:
I am more inclined to view the Chinese as imperialists with a patient long term view, and a good grasp of historical timing.
Looking at their history they seem to alternate periods of being very insular and trying to block out the world with periods of trying to own it. It would seem that they are not very insular these days. :~ It seems to me that the day they march into Taiwan is a good day to start a long vacation in the mountains. That's their Sudetenland and I imagine the reaction of the SEATO nations will pretty much mirror the reaction of Checkoslovakia's allies. But that China's appetite will be whetted not appeased, just as Germany's was.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Rob Graham wrote:
How do they rationalize sharing taxpayer dollars with Fiat, an Italian company
Careful, you'll be called a protectionist. Only the EU member states are allowed to refuse to give money to foreign companies. But to answer your question, I am not sure they are rationalizing anything any more. And, in actuality, they may not need to. I suspect that John Q. Public is getting tired of all the ends and out and ups and downs of the dozens of action-items Obama is juggling. Any uproar over this will soon be buried in the breathless reporting we can expect re: his triumphal return to Europe - where he will accomplish absolutely nothing, but have his ass kissed many times. Andrea Merkel replied, when asked if she thought Obama's spending plan was a good one. "I will do anything for love, but I won't do that."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Andrea Merkel replied, when asked if she thought Obama's spending plan was a good one. "I will do anything for love, but I won't do that.
The only appropriate reply would have been Bertrand Russels: "Madame, we have already established what you are, we're just haggling over the price".
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Will you be buying a car from FM?
nope, saving my money for arms and ammo. this idiot is flushing the nation and the Constituition down the toilet, I'd say the outloook is pretty grim and possibly Mad Max like.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Hey Mike, I read 'Change of Heart' at your suggestion. It was an interesting book. I'm unsure now if you were encouraging me to read it because of my religion beliefs, my beliefs on the death penalty, or my views on organ donation. Do you recall ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Hey Mike, I read 'Change of Heart' at your suggestion. It was an interesting book. I'm unsure now if you were encouraging me to read it because of my religion beliefs, my beliefs on the death penalty, or my views on organ donation. Do you recall ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
"I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
ROFL
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Christian Graus wrote:
"I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
ROFL
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I know - it's a nightmare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Kicking the crap out of the stock market.
Looks like they're going to kick the crap out of anyone crazy enough to have loaned money to GM in the last ten years; and the UAW has been put on notice that whatever the concessions they made to Waggonner weren't enough. It appears that the ultimatum is pretty much accept that bondholders must accept 10 cents on the dollar loaned, GM must unilaterally cut retirees benefits, and the UAW accept a big cut workers' payroll (and work rules?) or they'll be ordered to declare bankruptcy. So much for contracts being important.
Rob Graham wrote:
Will you be buying a car from FM
Did you know that until 1950 there was a truck manufacturer called Federal Motors[(video)^]? "It hauls up the hard hills!" Federal Motors didn't survive, once the USA started being an importer instead of an exporter of vehicles.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Looks like they're going to kick the crap out of anyone crazy enough to have loaned money to GM in the last ten years; and the UAW has been put on notice that whatever the concessions they made to Waggonner weren't enough. It appears that the ultimatum is pretty much accept that bondholders must accept 10 cents on the dollar loaned, GM must unilaterally cut retirees benefits, and the UAW accept a big cut workers' payroll (and work rules?) or they'll be ordered to declare bankruptcy. So much for contracts being important.
I don't know where you get this idea that contracts are sacrosanct. Bankruptcy always involves defaulting on contractual obligations --- that is the whole point of bankruptcy --- and it is entirely routine for companies on the verge of bankruptcy to re-negotiate contracts. People agree to these re-negotiations because they figure that they will get more money that way than if the company goes bankrupt. One thing about the US system that seems strange to me is the way retiree benefits are up for negotiation. In Australia, the providers of retirement benefits are completely separate companies. Employers pay into these companies on behalf of their employees and have no claim whatsoever on the funds that are accumulated; these are solely owned by the employees.
John Carson
-
Kicking the crap out of the stock market. the Wagoner assassination/Federal Motors plan sure thrilled Wall street. Looks like we'll be giving back all of last month's gains pretty quickly. Will you be buying a car from FM?
Rob Graham wrote:
Kicking the crap out of the stock market. the Wagoner assassination/Federal Motors plan sure thrilled Wall street. Looks like we'll be giving back all of last month's gains pretty quickly.
I think you need to take a chill pill. Markets fluctuate and Wall Street's judgement isn't particularly perspicacious. Check back in a year.
John Carson
-
Kicking the crap out of the stock market. the Wagoner assassination/Federal Motors plan sure thrilled Wall street. Looks like we'll be giving back all of last month's gains pretty quickly. Will you be buying a car from FM?
Rob Graham wrote:
Will you be buying a car from FM?
I'm currently in the market for a new car for my wife and there is no way I will buy Government Motors. It will be either Honda, Toyota or Ford.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Kicking the crap out of the stock market. the Wagoner assassination/Federal Motors plan sure thrilled Wall street. Looks like we'll be giving back all of last month's gains pretty quickly.
I think you need to take a chill pill. Markets fluctuate and Wall Street's judgement isn't particularly perspicacious. Check back in a year.
John Carson
-250 points today, and that entirely the result of the new deal being forced on GM and Chrysler. Thus far, almost no one (left or right) thinks the Obama team has it right.
-
Oakman wrote:
Looks like they're going to kick the crap out of anyone crazy enough to have loaned money to GM in the last ten years; and the UAW has been put on notice that whatever the concessions they made to Waggonner weren't enough. It appears that the ultimatum is pretty much accept that bondholders must accept 10 cents on the dollar loaned, GM must unilaterally cut retirees benefits, and the UAW accept a big cut workers' payroll (and work rules?) or they'll be ordered to declare bankruptcy. So much for contracts being important.
I don't know where you get this idea that contracts are sacrosanct. Bankruptcy always involves defaulting on contractual obligations --- that is the whole point of bankruptcy --- and it is entirely routine for companies on the verge of bankruptcy to re-negotiate contracts. People agree to these re-negotiations because they figure that they will get more money that way than if the company goes bankrupt. One thing about the US system that seems strange to me is the way retiree benefits are up for negotiation. In Australia, the providers of retirement benefits are completely separate companies. Employers pay into these companies on behalf of their employees and have no claim whatsoever on the funds that are accumulated; these are solely owned by the employees.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I don't know where you get this idea that contracts are sacrosanct
Banruptcy started (in the mid 1500's) as an attempt to force debtors to pay off their creditors as best they were able, leaving them literally with nothing. Sometimes, they even cut off a debtor's ear although I don't imagine that brought in too much extra cash. There was no bankruptcy law in the US until 1800 - when it was passed, it was considered lenient since it specified that a bankrupt couldn't be put to death as he could be in the mother country. Around 1900 the law was modified to leave the bankrupt with enough that he wouldn't be a burden on the state and it became possible for private citizens as well as businessmen to become bankrupt. The law was still quite harsh and remained so until the late '70's when it was rewritten to be so lenient that the number of bankruptcies in this country skyrocketed and the standard business practice of reniging on contracts by ducking in and out of bankruptcy became s.o.p. I think that when a CEO takes his company into bankruptcy, we should go back to cutting his ear off. It would certainly make them think twice.
John Carson wrote:
One thing about the US system that seems strange to me is the way retiree benefits are up for negotiation.
I agree. I was truly surprised when I learned that many large companies, like GM, put aside no capital to fund their pension plans but simply assumed that they could always be paid out of operating income. I worked, for awhile for a large company that did the same thing with its health benefits. It was "self-insured," and simply paid the bills that came in as a line item expense. Not surprisingly, every year the employees were getting socked for a larger and larger percentage of the costs - otherwise the senior management couldn't have voted themselves 100% increases in remuneration every year for the three years I was there.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Will you be buying a car from FM?
I'm currently in the market for a new car for my wife and there is no way I will buy Government Motors. It will be either Honda, Toyota or Ford.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I know - it's a nightmare.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I know - it's a nightmare.
What really scary is that many of these people are employed by outsourcing firms and you and I may be using applications they had a hand in.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I'm not sure that I believe too many of their apps get to market.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Kicking the crap out of the stock market.
Looks like they're going to kick the crap out of anyone crazy enough to have loaned money to GM in the last ten years; and the UAW has been put on notice that whatever the concessions they made to Waggonner weren't enough. It appears that the ultimatum is pretty much accept that bondholders must accept 10 cents on the dollar loaned, GM must unilaterally cut retirees benefits, and the UAW accept a big cut workers' payroll (and work rules?) or they'll be ordered to declare bankruptcy. So much for contracts being important.
Rob Graham wrote:
Will you be buying a car from FM
Did you know that until 1950 there was a truck manufacturer called Federal Motors[(video)^]? "It hauls up the hard hills!" Federal Motors didn't survive, once the USA started being an importer instead of an exporter of vehicles.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So much for contracts being important.
Don't even get me started. Arggg. Nihilism appears to be the order of the day when it comes to these things.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
Kicking the crap out of the stock market. the Wagoner assassination/Federal Motors plan sure thrilled Wall street. Looks like we'll be giving back all of last month's gains pretty quickly. Will you be buying a car from FM?
Rob Graham wrote:
Will you be buying a car from FM?
Hell, I wouldn't buy a car from them when they were GM. Now, it's pretty interesting isn't it when you look a it. We, those of us that pay tax, now are unwitting investors in that steaming pile of crap. I'll be in the market for a minivan or wagon soon. I thought my mind was made up but this does cause me to take pause.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't know where you get this idea that contracts are sacrosanct
Banruptcy started (in the mid 1500's) as an attempt to force debtors to pay off their creditors as best they were able, leaving them literally with nothing. Sometimes, they even cut off a debtor's ear although I don't imagine that brought in too much extra cash. There was no bankruptcy law in the US until 1800 - when it was passed, it was considered lenient since it specified that a bankrupt couldn't be put to death as he could be in the mother country. Around 1900 the law was modified to leave the bankrupt with enough that he wouldn't be a burden on the state and it became possible for private citizens as well as businessmen to become bankrupt. The law was still quite harsh and remained so until the late '70's when it was rewritten to be so lenient that the number of bankruptcies in this country skyrocketed and the standard business practice of reniging on contracts by ducking in and out of bankruptcy became s.o.p. I think that when a CEO takes his company into bankruptcy, we should go back to cutting his ear off. It would certainly make them think twice.
John Carson wrote:
One thing about the US system that seems strange to me is the way retiree benefits are up for negotiation.
I agree. I was truly surprised when I learned that many large companies, like GM, put aside no capital to fund their pension plans but simply assumed that they could always be paid out of operating income. I worked, for awhile for a large company that did the same thing with its health benefits. It was "self-insured," and simply paid the bills that came in as a line item expense. Not surprisingly, every year the employees were getting socked for a larger and larger percentage of the costs - otherwise the senior management couldn't have voted themselves 100% increases in remuneration every year for the three years I was there.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
There was no bankruptcy law in the US until 1800 - when it was passed, it was considered lenient since it specified that a bankrupt couldn't be put to death as he could be in the mother country. Around 1900 the law was modified to leave the bankrupt with enough that he wouldn't be a burden on the state and it became possible for private citizens as well as businessmen to become bankrupt. The law was still quite harsh and remained so until the late '70's when it was rewritten to be so lenient that the number of bankruptcies in this country skyrocketed and the standard business practice of reniging on contracts by ducking in and out of bankruptcy became s.o.p.
I am not an expert on US bankruptcy law, but I think you need to distinguish personal bankruptcy from corporate bankruptcy. Limited liability is part of the definition of a corporation (as opposed to, say, a sole proprietorship) and means that the personal assets of owners are not subject to any claims in the event that the business goes bankrupt. I think that has been around for a long time (though the shame associated with corporate bankruptcy may have diminished somewhat).
John Carson
-
-250 points today, and that entirely the result of the new deal being forced on GM and Chrysler. Thus far, almost no one (left or right) thinks the Obama team has it right.
Rob Graham wrote:
-250 points today, and that entirely the result of the new deal being forced on GM and Chrysler.
Notwithstanding the propensity of talking heads on television to make such statements, noone can say with certainty exactly why the index has gone up or down on a particular day. Between March 5 and March 26, the (closing value of the) index went up more than 1300 points. Strangely, I didn't see a whole lot of people declaring that this was a triumph for the Administration's economic policies. I didn't make such a declaration either. Obsessing over the short term fluctuations of the stock market is a bad idea. Only making a big deal over the falls and not the rises is an even worse idea.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
There was no bankruptcy law in the US until 1800 - when it was passed, it was considered lenient since it specified that a bankrupt couldn't be put to death as he could be in the mother country. Around 1900 the law was modified to leave the bankrupt with enough that he wouldn't be a burden on the state and it became possible for private citizens as well as businessmen to become bankrupt. The law was still quite harsh and remained so until the late '70's when it was rewritten to be so lenient that the number of bankruptcies in this country skyrocketed and the standard business practice of reniging on contracts by ducking in and out of bankruptcy became s.o.p.
I am not an expert on US bankruptcy law, but I think you need to distinguish personal bankruptcy from corporate bankruptcy. Limited liability is part of the definition of a corporation (as opposed to, say, a sole proprietorship) and means that the personal assets of owners are not subject to any claims in the event that the business goes bankrupt. I think that has been around for a long time (though the shame associated with corporate bankruptcy may have diminished somewhat).
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think you need to distinguish personal bankruptcy from corporate bankruptcy.
John Carson wrote:
I think you need to distinguish personal bankruptcy from corporate bankruptcy.
Sorry. I got focused on bankruptcy per se. Limited liability started to become popular with the beginnings of the industrial revolution here in the states as it did everywhere. Although the idea that managers and majority share-holders be protected in the same way as other investors came along later and never received the same support as limited liability for the investors. There have been, I believe, many strong arguments put forth that suggest that limited liability is in itself a perversion of the free market since it takes away some of the risk from those who would certainly claim the reward if things go well, and distributes it among society as a whole. I tend to side with that argument, at least as far as not letting senior management off the hook.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface