Obama 7 - now what?

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Foriegners are voting with their money...and under Bush, there was less interest in dollar assets:

And under Obama, there's even less interest than there was under Bush. Thank you for proving my point. Per xe.com:

Dollars/Euro on 11/5/08: 1.295
Dollars/Euro on 11/1/09: 1.477

That's nearly a 15% decline in the dollar since Obama was elected. Nobody wants to buy our assets any more, because they don't have confidence that they'll get a decent return on their investment. This indicates a general distrust of the US economy. It's not all Obama's fault (nor Bush's nor any other single person), of course, but clearly the massive debt is hurting, not helping.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Hasn't hurt Subaru any.

How do you know how they would have done otherwise? I didn't say it wasn't *possible* to run a profitable more environmentally friendly business - just that it's more expensive. If your marketing department can figure out how to tout your "green" credentials to the right demographics so that you can charge enough more for your products to cover those extra costs, then bully for you - that's great capitalism at work. But that doesn't mean that those extra costs were fictitious.

It also doesn't mean that the same strategy would necessarily work for Ford or GM (or GE or Procter & Gamble or whomever, for that matter). Every company's situation is different.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Boy what is it with the anger here? Its a message board for opinions. I pretty much ignore those who can't have a civil conversation...

I believe there is an option for that under User CP.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

It's not all Obama's fault (nor Bush's nor any other single person), of course, but clearly the massive debt is hurting, not helping.

Since the recession was triggered by the US housing market, the dollar will fall as the US economy absorbs the shock (although it won't fall off a cliff, since the recession is global and our competitors are affected, too). The Obama increase in the deficit is supposed to prevent a catastrophic collapse, so that afterwards normal functioning will restore homeostatis (the dollar drops, our goods are cheaper on foreign markets, our exports go up, business expands, the dollar rises).

One can already see the problem with proving it worked. A large burden (the additional debt) will persist, whether it works or not. Its justification is to avert a crisis. If it works, the crisis is averted, and critics are then free to say there was no crisis. This is similar to, say, the expense/deterrent value of a strong military, or QA overhead on a software project. It's really easy to "expose the waste" after the fact, when everybody's safe. Is this starting to sound familiar?

Bush : Iraq :: Obama : Stimulus?

Libertarians are probably the only group consistently critical of both efforts and fully accepting of the analogy, unless there are any remaining hard-core authoritarian statists in the corridors of PNAC who are cheering equally hard for both.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

How do you know how they would have done otherwise? I didn't say it wasn't *possible* to run a profitable more environmentally friendly business - just that it's more expensive. If your marketing department can figure out how to tout your "green" credentials to the right demographics so that you can charge enough more for your products to cover those extra costs, then bully for you - that's great capitalism at work. But that doesn't mean that those extra costs were fictitious.

It also doesn't mean that the same strategy would necessarily work for Ford or GM (or GE or Procter & Gamble or whomever, for that matter). Every company's situation is different.

Lynah, this is a straw man argument that you're generally better than. Since you make the point, prove to us please how any company has been made worse off by Clean Air or Clean Water acts for example. Who got put out of business, who lost business, etc? Specifics please. Because right now, your argument is smelling a lot like hay...

Regarding whether or not clean operation = less cost for business, the problem is the myth that everybody will go out of business if they adopt this. Its very similar to the arguments against banning smoking in public places that took place a decade ago. Nobody wanted to be the first to do it, and the myth was that all of your customers were indeed smokers that would stay home and put every restaurant and bar out of business. That was an out and out lie, which has been disproven in any place that enacted a ban.

Similarly, when companies have to find a way to use their resources more efficiently, they benefit. It may not be something they undertake by themselves because of a sacrafice of short term profit for long term gain - something companies are loathe to do. Clearly if you can recycle more raw materials, or use less electricity during your manufacturing, you'll end up saving money. No, not every business will benefit from this. Coal fired power plants are most likely going to take it in the shorts. But on the whole, business and the country benefit. The US can no longer rely on the old way of doing things. If it does, the world will pass us by. This is not an easy issue to tackle, but we've got to start making progress, and it would be nice if the same old tired arguments stopped getting trotted out by the "No Progress Ever" crowd.

Switching gears, I find it amusing that conservatives still blame minority lending for the housing crisis. The problem was 1) overbuilding and 2) cheap credit to ALL borrowers, not just fake income and documentation to minorities. As this has been disproven countless times already, one has to wonder about the racial attitudes of a person who continues to spew this bile.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Switching gears, I find it amusing that conservatives still blame minority lending for the housing crisis. The problem was 1) overbuilding and 2) cheap credit to ALL borrowers, not just fake income and documentation to minorities. As this has been disproven countless times already, one has to wonder about the racial attitudes of a person who continues to spew this bile.

Argh!!!!! Don't go there. The attempt to blame the home mortgage lending crisis on minority lending is wholly explainable by the insistence by economic "conservatives" to relate everything back to their crackpot economic theories. They only have that hammer, so everything's a nail, and they can't admit that their fantasy of an informationally-optimized unregulated market turned out to be just another con for a few sharps to make money at our expense.

That's what that's about. It isn't anything like racism -- it's pointless, provocative, and poisonous to drop those leaden hints, so stop it.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

it's pointless, provocative, and poisonous.

This is the most complete and concise biography of Rover that will ever be written. "Minority lending"? Talk about a straw man.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Argh!!!!! Don't go there. The attempt to blame the home mortgage lending crisis on minority lending is wholly explainable by the insistence by economic "conservatives" to relate everything back to their crackpot economic theories. They only have that hammer, so everything's a nail, and they can't admit that their fantasy of an informationally-optimized unregulated market turned out to be just another con for a few sharps to make money at our expense.

That's what that's about. It isn't anything like racism -- it's pointless, provocative, and poisonous to drop those leaden hints, so stop it.

Sorry Kep, but I will go there. I don't think people who expouse this theory are wearing white sheets around town, but they're working towards the same goal - scapegoating people who have nothing to do in actuality with the problem for their own personal gain. Call that what you want, but whatever its label it needs to be called out whenever it happens. There are reasonable points of contention on why the housing price happens, but when the same people keep bringing up the falsehood that most or even a large part of the problem was caused by the govt forcing banks to lend to unqualified minorities (and completely skipping over all the unqualified "majorities" who got the same loans with the same lack of qualifications and no govt pressure) they need to be held to account.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

And under Obama, there's even less interest than there was under Bush. Thank you for proving my point. Per xe.com:

Dollars/Euro on 11/5/08: 1.295
Dollars/Euro on 11/1/09: 1.477

That's nearly a 15% decline in the dollar since Obama was elected. Nobody wants to buy our assets any more, because they don't have confidence that they'll get a decent return on their investment. This indicates a general distrust of the US economy. It's not all Obama's fault (nor Bush's nor any other single person), of course, but clearly the massive debt is hurting, not helping.

Frankly what youre seeing at this point is not driven by Obama, the Fed, etc. As a matter of fact, it should look familiar in the inverse (can't pic the chart):

Its a reflection of the Dow and comfort with the global economy. As I mentioned before, the exchange rate was and is currently a result of flight to safety or risk. At this point, we are currently in a flight to risk for higher profits due to recovery. If we double dip, the dollar will strengthen again. Bet on it.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

"Minority lending"? Talk about a straw man.

Talk to your ideological compatriot on this one - this was the comment I referred to..

It would be a violation of Fair Lending Laws if someone wants to apply for a loan, and you turn them down because you, as a banker, don't think they are creditworthy. You have to take the application REGARDLESS. I took loan applications from people who had no income and multiple bankruptcies, and even though I pretty much KNEW it was a huge waste of time, I, as a loan officer, can't make that call. Underwriting can. And in the case of mortgages, it's up to Fannie/Freddie's regulators to determine that. To refuse someone a loan application would be guaranteeing a lawsuit of epic proportions.....especially when you consider the potential racial aspects of those loan applicants.

You know geez- sometimes it helps to read the thread...

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Regarding whether or not clean operation = less cost for business, the problem is the myth that everybody will go out of business if they adopt this. Its very similar to the arguments against banning smoking in public places that took place a decade ago. Nobody wanted to be the first to do it, and the myth was that all of your customers were indeed smokers that would stay home and put every restaurant and bar out of business. That was an out and out lie, which has been disproven in any place that enacted a ban.

Actually, there is much evidence that smoking bans do cause a loss of revenue. Economic losses due to smoking ban

Of course, its a false arguement since the ban affects the customer base and not the cost of the items being sold.

Similarly, when companies have to find a way to use their resources more efficiently, they benefit. It may not be something they undertake by themselves because of a sacrafice of short term profit for long term gain - something companies are loathe to do. Clearly if you can recycle more raw materials, or use less electricity during your manufacturing, you'll end up saving money. No, not every business will benefit from this. Coal fired power plants are most likely going to take it in the shorts. But on the whole, business and the country benefit. The US can no longer rely on the old way of doing things. If it does, the world will pass us by. This is not an easy issue to tackle, but we've got to start making progress, and it would be nice if the same old tired arguments stopped getting trotted out by the "No Progress Ever" crowd.

It doesn't matter how efficiently you do things if the cost of your inputs are greater than your competitors. Cap and Trade moves everyone away from the most efficient/cheapest energy. If your energy costs are doubled then your product is necessarily at a disadvantage. That is why virtually every serious study of Cap and Trade shows a decrease in GDP and higher unemployment.

Switching gears, I find it amusing that conservatives still blame minority lending for the housing crisis. The problem was 1) overbuilding and 2) cheap credit to ALL borrowers, not just fake income and documentation to minorities. As this has been disproven countless times already, one has to wonder about the racial attitudes of a person who continues to spew this bile.

The biggest issue leading to the housing crisis was the implicit backing of Freddie/Fannie by the gov't. The gov't basically said they would absorb all the risk and lenders were free to take the profits. Why would someone care how risky a borrower was if they could just pass off the loan to a GSE?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

people keep bringing up the falsehood that most or even a large part of the problem was caused by the govt forcing banks to lend to unqualified minorities (and completely skipping over all the unqualified "majorities" who got the same loans with the same lack of qualifications and no govt pressure) they need to be held to account.

It's one thing to call ideologues to account over their deflection of the lending crisis from the deregulators and the supposed governmental stewards who were in bed with Wall Street. Call them on their cynicism, mendacity, or sincere but vapid worship of debunked 19th century economic theory.

All well and good.

But it's another to go that extra mile and start throwing in the red meat. Not only are those completely unprovable and thus irresponsible accusations, but they're completely unnecessary to kill the beast. The Grover Norquist types have been exposed on the merits: they were wrong, it's obvious, they're done. There is no need or point in waving the bloody shirt. That only obscures the bottom line that the right-wing economic project of the last 30 years proved, in the end, to have been some combination of fairyland and a racket.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Lynah, this is a straw man argument that you're generally better than. Since you make the point, prove to us please how any company has been made worse off by Clean Air or Clean Water acts for example. Who got put out of business, who lost business, etc? Specifics please. Because right now, your argument is smelling a lot like hay...

I think you're absolutely, 100% right - it is a straw man. The problem is that it is Rufus's straw man. He asserted that Subaru was not impacted, and I merely challenged him to back it up - the exact same reaction that you had to my post.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

538 finds the correlation between gubernatorial and presidential partisan vote shares: zero.

Unsurprisingly, state and local candidates adjust to local political conditions and the balance point between D and R floats accordingly. An AL D is right of a VT R.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Actually, there is much evidence that smoking bans do cause a loss of revenue. Economic losses due to smoking ban

Of course, its a false arguement since the ban affects the customer base and not the cost of the items being sold.

You posted an article from The Smokers Club written by two smokers showing how smoking bans are bad? You have to be playing a character out here. How about a study from Harvard, which has a bit more credibility....

http://www.boston.com/ae/food/resta...staurants_bars_gain_business_under_smoke_ban/

It doesn't matter how efficiently you do things if the cost of your inputs are greater than your competitors. Cap and Trade moves everyone away from the most efficient/cheapest energy. If your energy costs are doubled then your product is necessarily at a disadvantage. That is why virtually every serious study of Cap and Trade shows a decrease in GDP and higher unemployment.

Umm..yes it does as if your using your inputs more efficiently you need less of them and therefore can cut costs faster than your competitors. You should have learned that in high school. Also, why would Cap and Trade move people away from the most efficient energy, when they would be making money through Carbon credits?

The biggest issue leading to the housing crisis was the implicit backing of Freddie/Fannie by the gov't. The gov't basically said they would absorb all the risk and lenders were free to take the profits. Why would someone care how risky a borrower was if they could just pass off the loan to a GSE?

Not at all. The biggest problem with the housing crisis was the people writing the loans weren't keeping them, but selling them and therefore assuming no risk while lending to anybody and everybody to make a buck. Furthermore, the companies buying them falsely assumed that the securitized mortgages had the risk diversified out of them, and therefore bought bad debt mixed with good and had no idea what they actually owned in underlying securities. The government had nothing to do with this phenomenon, its the age old problem of people thinking they've found a way to eliminate risk in the securities industry.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Umm..yes it does as if your using your inputs more efficiently you need less of them and therefore can cut costs faster than your competitors. You should have learned that in high school. Also, why would Cap and Trade move people away from the most efficient energy, when they would be making money through Carbon credits?

Way over simplified. What if it costs you a million dollars in new equipment to reduce your energy bill by $50,000 per year? Will the price of your products go up or down? More efficiency does not come free - you have to do a cost/benefit analysis to see if the benefits of the efficiency outweigh the costs. Unless you're the government, of course, in which case you can just mandate them on ideological, rather than economic, grounds - which is not always a bad thing, mind you.

But that doesn't mean that those mandates help companies cut their costs. In the vast majority of cases, I'd be willing to bet that most companies are already operating pretty darn close to the sweet spot, where they've chosen to implement efficiency improvements that pay for themselves and not to implement the ones that don't. Therefore, almost by definition, any new "efficiencies" mandated by the government will be ones that don't pay for themselves - the companies' costs will go up, not down.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

[/URL]

Umm..yes it does as if your using your inputs more efficiently you need less of them and therefore can cut costs faster than your competitors. You should have learned that in high school. Also, why would Cap and Trade move people away from the most efficient energy, when they would be making money through Carbon credits?

And where does the money for the carbon credits come from? What happens when those companies who were paying them go out of business? That is why it is a net loss for the economy.

No matter what you are going to need energy to make products. Your competitors are going to be trying to work more efficiently as well. They will just have a competitive advantage over you.

If you don't think this will lead to higher unemployment you may want to take a look at what happened in Spain when they instituted a similar policy.

2.2 jobs lost for every "green" job created

Not at all. The biggest problem with the housing crisis was the people writing the loans weren't keeping them, but selling them and therefore assuming no risk while lending to anybody and everybody to make a buck. Furthermore, the companies buying them falsely assumed that the securitized mortgages had the risk diversified out of them, and therefore bought bad debt mixed with good and had no idea what they actually owned in underlying securities. The government had nothing to do with this phenomenon, its the age old problem of people thinking they've found a way to eliminate risk in the securities industry.

The gov't is the only reason that this phenomenon could exist in the first place. They were the final bailout for all the risk that was assumed.


*edit* I did find one way that smoking bans will be similar to Cap and Trade

“Now all people have to do is cross one of three bridges and they can gamble, smoke, whatever,”

Link

Just like companies will go overseas to reduce their costs

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Talk to your ideological compatriot on this one - this was the comment I referred to..

You know geez- sometimes it helps to read the thread...

I read the same thing.
He pointed out that people today are so eager to throw out the Race Card Challenge, that you have to be careful not to deny anyone a loan application, regardless of INCOME, BANKRUPTCIES or anything else... and you said conservatives want to do away with "minority lending"?????
All you're doing is proving him right. The RACE CARD trumps all, regardless of income, employment, bankruptcies, parole violations... don't you see that your response is the racist one?

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Talk to your ideological compatriot on this one - this was the comment I referred to..



You know geez- sometimes it helps to read the thread...

Ummm.....where did I blame the mortgage fallout on minorities? I was talking about Fair Lending laws and pointing out that banks don't have a choice in whether or not they take a loan application. Lawsuits have been filed--and won--by people who were denied the opportunity to apply for a loan. I was merely pointing out that IF someone were denied the chance to apply for a loan, the race/gender/sexual identity card could easily be played.

It does help to READ THE THREAD, Rover, and not read into a post what you want it to mean. You're using the 5mn_major School of Reasoning.

 

[Plante26]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Not at all. The biggest problem with the housing crisis was the people writing the loans weren't keeping them, but selling them and therefore assuming no risk while lending to anybody and everybody to make a buck. Furthermore, the companies buying them falsely assumed that the securitized mortgages had the risk diversified out of them, and therefore bought bad debt mixed with good and had no idea what they actually owned in underlying securities. The government had nothing to do with this phenomenon, its the age old problem of people thinking they've found a way to eliminate risk in the securities industry.

No, the problem arose when the borrowers started defaulting on their mortgages, thereby making the securities backed by the debt worthless, which in turn made the CDSs go t*ts up. The entire mess was a domino effect started by irresponsible borrowing.

Now this is the point where you're going to point the finger at the banks for irresponsible lending, but you'd be wrong. People aren't forced to submit mortgage applications or sign mortgage documents. This entire mortgage debacle is the first major signal that Americans, by and large, have become fiscally irresponsible. Rather than tighten their belts--or not getting in over their heads in the first place--Americans throw in the towel and file bankruptcy, or allow their homes/rental properties to be foreclosed upon.