U.S. 2012 Election

[aesop081]

..or we could be talking every car sold in North America is now made outside our borders, along with those jobs.

Funny, my Mitsubishi is made by North American workers in Illinois.  Guess we can have auto sector jobs in NA without GM eh ?

 

[cupper]

Redeye,

How do you know that letting the companies go into receivership, get bought out and restructed (or open the market for upstarts to take their place) would not have worked better?

One thing everyone seems to overlook in the auto bailout is that if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go into receivership, the number of unemployed would have skyrocketed way past the 9+% that we saw at peak. The direct jobs lost would have been bad enough, but the number of indirect jobs would have been devastating to the economy, and would have had more far reaching and long lasting effects than we have seen.

 

[Redeye]

Funny, my Mitsubishi is made by North American workers in Michigan.  Guess we can have auto sector jobs in NA without GM eh ?

The most "US components" car on the market in 2008 (or was it 2009?) was the Toyota Camry. I'd be unsurprised if it was still that way. It doesn't change the fact that GM and Chrysler directly employ tens of thousands, and they propel tens of thousands more jobs. So, had they collapsed, and a buyer not been found, how many people would have wound up employed. Even if eventually they had been reorganized, how long would it have taken, and what costs would have been borne in the meantime? I don't know. No one does. However, I'm inclined to believe that intervention to force the reorganization and downsizing they sorely needed, including forcing unions to accept huge concessions for future hires.

I don't like the idea of governments going into business like that - but again, the alternative to me seems to have been far, far worse. And I'd have to bear those costs as a taypayer too. I'll take the equity share in the automakers and the preservation of more jobs. It seems like it wasn't the worst bet out there, either.

 

[cupper]

I'm not a big fan of President Obama but some of you people are friggin outrageous in your hatred..........smacks of a lot more than just policy to me.

You think it's bad on here, you should spend a couple of days living on the southern side of the Mason Dixon line, or better still south of the DC Beltway.

 

[aesop081]

smacks of a lot more than just policy to me.

Why don't you just come out and say it ?

 

[Redeye]

You think it's bad on here, you should spend a couple of days living on the southern side of the Mason Dixon line, or better still south of the DC Beltway.

My wife is from Georgia. Her old friends and family have some bizarre views of the world. And some frankly scary ones.

 

[cupper]

Why don't you just come out and say it ?

I'll say it.

There are definite racist overtones when it comes to the criticism of Obama.

I don't believe that anyone here is being racist, however a significant amount of what you here in the US news can be veiled racism.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

(unless it's a platypus  ;D )

 

[Redeye]

It's not even subtle. Whether it's identifying him as "B. Hussein Obama", or other superfluous uses of his middle name, or the suggestion that he "doesn't get America" or the continued suggestions that he was born elsewhere, that he's a Muslim (that's not really racism, but it's the same vein), and so on, it's not subtle at all. It's not a fringe view, sadly.

 

[GAP]

Did you really think the first black president for America would not have overtones of racism.....?

 

[Redeye]

Did you really think the first black president for America would not have overtones of racism.....?

Sadly, not even a little surprised.

 

[cupper]

Did you really think the first black president for America would not have overtones of racism.....?

Nope. Fully expected it. For all the advances in racial equality that are claimed to have occurred since the 1960's you still see signs of racism and other forms of discrimination all over. Be it the illegal immigration debates, islamiphobia, homophobia, or what have you, it still exists and is still as ugly as ever.

And I fully expect a flood of sexism to come in when they elect their first woman president (or VP, which ever comes first)

 

[a_majoor]

Gee, that's funny. Smaller, leaner, and more flexible operations with healthier balance sheets sounds pretty much exactly like what's going on right now.

Kind of like the unemployment rate is only 8.3% (Until you add back the people dropped out, recalculate the labour participation rate and hey presto, the unemployment rate is actually 11%!). Like I said, the metrics of car sales, cash flow and share prices tell a very different story about how GM is doing. The quick summary is if the US government were to sell the shares of GM right now, the US taxpayer would be taking a $16 billion dollar loss. Pretty lean, I'd say.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Kind of like the unemployment rate is only 8.3% (Until you add back the people dropped out, recalculate the labour participation rate and hey presto, the unemployment rate is actually 11%!).

..and this has to do with this discussion how??

Like I said, the metrics of car sales, cash flow and share prices tell a very different story about how GM is doing.

Source??

 

[Edward Campbell]

Santorum seems to have upset Romney's applecart, a Gingrich's too, I guess.

This may be the GOP's social conservative base's revenge but, in my estimation, Santorum cannot attract many (any?) Reagan Democrats and even fewer independents, thus a Santorum nomination, like Gingrich one, will guarantee a second Obama term.

Are we seeing an irrevocable split between traditional Republicans and a new, social conservative party that will give the Democrats a repeat of 1930 to 1970? Further, are the Democrats really united? Can the Blue Dog Democrats really survive, as Democrats, under four more years of Obama vs the Tea Party?

 

[GAP]

I think this is just a bump, a sizable one, but out of the B team Santorum doesn't cut it....Gingrich draws up visions of total incompetence......

Romney doesn't offer much in the vision of competence, but when stacked up against the other clowns he's looking somewhat better.

Still don't see anyone capable of beating Obama and the Dem's election machine. The Republicans had better hope there is still some one out there that can instill a sense of leadership for 2016, these guys aren't doing it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Ironically, there are fewer overtones of racism among the criticisms against Obama than there are among the responses to those criticisms.  "Oh, it's racism!"

 

[aesop081]

  "Oh, it's racism!"

Exactly.

 

[a_majoor]

..and this has to do with this discussion how??

This election will hinge heavily on perception, so expect to see "facts" heavily manipulated (sadly by both sides, even though the unvarnished truth will do nothing but help the Republicans).

Source??

Multiple sources are available in the "Let them Fail" thread

The auto industry should be an election issue, since it is a dramatic example of Administration policy applied to one area of business.

The extreme cost, the destruction of property rights (the legitimate owners of GM and Chrysler [the bond holders] being abruptly deprived of their position as first secured creditors), the abuse of the bankruptcy laws, government intrusion into all aspects of business from which dealers remained and which were closed to what models should be pushed and the ultimate lack of success should all reflect in a very negative way on the Administration.

What is even worse (if possible) was seeing a blurb in an automotive blog about the new Buick being a rebadged Chevy Cruze. Evidently GM management has learned nothing at all; this is the sort of product line pioneered in the 1980's that led to the long term decline of the GM brand. Since failure has been rewarded there has been no need to implement profound or sweeping changes; look for bailout redux at some future date.

 

[Redeye]

The extreme cost, the destruction of property rights (the legitimate owners of GM and Chrysler [the bond holders] being abruptly deprived of their position as first secured creditors), the abuse of the bankruptcy laws, government intrusion into all aspects of business from which dealers remained and which were closed to what models should be pushed and the ultimate lack of success should all reflect in a very negative way on the Administration.

Extreme cost relative to what? What would the cost of any alternate course of been?

LEGITIMATE OWNERS?!

IN WHAT UNIVERSE, EXACTLY, HAVE BONDHOLDERS EVER BEEN THE LEGITIMATE OWNERS OF A COMPANY?

Corporate bonds are more technically debentures in that they're not secured by specific assets of the corporation (there are exceptions possibly, but I can't think of any off the top of my head). Their owners are creditors, they have no stake in the company's equity. Ever.

This nonsense constantly blathered about which dealerships were closed and which weren't doesn't seem to hold much water, and moreover, you're essentially arguing for the same sort of "bailout" if you're going to say that certain dealers should somehow have been protected. As for what models were pushed, again, where's an actual reasonable source that claims the government took that much of a role in the day to day operations of the business? I don't think that one exists. The only effort I've seen to claim one revolves around rebate structures for the Chevrolet Volt, which has more to do with governments wanting to encourage the development of technologies which reduce dependence on fossil fuels. You know that "energy independence" stuff everyone (including the right) goes on about? Supporting those technologies supports that goal. It's a long term vision kind of thing, something that the right seems to fail at, comparatively speaking, to "progressives" who seem to be a lot more interested in the long term outcomes.

If the auto industry does indeed become a major issue, I think it'll be an excellent example of the GOP choosing the wrong hill to die on (and frankly, any hill they choose seems like it'll serve that purpose), and I suspect they know that.

 

[a_majoor]

I'll leave you to read the Let them Fail thread, or not. The issues are addressed there.

Meanwhile the price of fuel is another issue which should throw the race wide open if this report by ABC news is correct. Access to inexpensive energy is the foundation of modern economies, so a huge spike like the one predicted will be devastating for the economy. Even a spike of .20 will bring higher prices in food and goods, slowing economic activity :

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gas-prices-spike-60-cents/story?id=15519576&fb_ref=.TzNNuo0rXPg.like&fb_source=home_oneline#.TzNOjV15GqR

Gas prices to spike 60 cents or more by May
Gas Prices Seem Poised to RiseAuto Start: On | Off
ShareEmail45 CommentsPrintText Size- / +By Gary Strauss, USA TODAY
February 6, 2012

Get ready for another round of pain at the pump: $4 (or higher) gasoline.

After rising 19 cents a gallon in the past four weeks, regular unleaded gasoline now averages $3.48 a gallon, vs. $3.12 a year ago and $2.67 in February 2010.

Prices could spike another 60 cents or more by May. "I think it's going to be a chaotic spring, with huge price increases in some places," says Tom Kloza of the Oil Price Information Service. Kloza expects average prices to peak at $4.05, although he and other industry trackers say prices could be sharply higher in some markets.

Rising prices are an annual spring ritual, largely because of seasonal demand.

Refiners also switch from winter formulations to more expensive seasonal formulations to meet stringent environmental standards, which can tack on 15 cents a gallon, says Brian Milne of energy tracker Televent DTN.

This year's earlier-than-usual run-up is more about anticipation than current supply and demand. Last week, the Energy Department reported anemic U.S. consumption — the lowest levels since September 2001. Domestic crude oil prices, now about $98 a barrel, are near six-week lows.

Renewed tensions in the Middle East are bolstering crude prices, while speculators are boosting futures contracts, betting on global supply disruptions and tighter refining capacity. Kloza notes that several U.S. and overseas refiners have experienced temporary or permanent closures.

So far, $4 a gallon has proven to be the upper limit consumers will pay. Last April, national prices peaked at about $3.98 a gallon. In 2008, a sharp run-up ended when prices hit an all-time average of $4.11 a gallon that summer.

"Higher demand, Iran, lost refining capacity are all potential problems," Milne says. "We'll get over $4 a gallon, but it's going to be tough to sustain that level. People will drive less."

Energy analyst Patrick DeHaan of price tracker Gasbuddy.com expects prices to rise to about $3.55 a gallon by the end of February and peak around $4 by Memorial Day weekend.

"You could see prices in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington and other major metropolitan areas at $4.60 or higher," DeHaan says.

Lisa Margonelli, author of Oil on the Brain: Petroleum's Long, Strange Trip to Your Tank, says consumers will be vulnerable to rising prices until the U.S. develops alternative fuels such as natural gas.