VladimirPee

*** Property values dropped when the bubble burst. Suddenly banks were sitting on mortgages for homes that weren't worth anywhere near where they were projected. All part of the whole picture.


Unions don't run companies but they dictated much of what went on and were directly responsible for costs in operating the business. Bond holders simply lent money. So yes Union is more complicit than Bond Holders without a doubt

straightUp Loc: California

You seem to be suggesting that there is nothing actually wrong with this whole picture and yet you describe it terms of bursting bubbles which is in itself the very definition of a problem. The reason why they call it a mortgage bubble is because unlike an economic boom which is driven by business, production and real value, a bubble is an artificial substitute that is unstable and driven by imaginary value which can disappear in a flash. Ponzi schemes are a good examples. Yeah... there's nothing wrong with that. :roll:



Bond holders don't lend money without expecting a return which *IS* directly responsible for costs in operating the business, unless you think returns on investment magically appear in the wake of Tinkerbell's wand.

VladimirPee

I agree a bubble certainly shows something was wrong.

A Bond holder lends money in exchange for interest. Unless the company defaults he has nothing to say. It is not the Bond Holders fault that the company needs to borrow money. The bond holder is not responsible for the costs in operating the business. That's like claiming someone who buys a US Savings bond is responsible for the National Debt.

straightUp Loc: California

They DO have a share in the blame. Think about it.. If no one buys the bonds there would be no debt.

It's a shame but as Americans, we are horrible when it comes to fucking things up and refusing to be blamed for it. We tend to think that it's not a problem if everyone else is doing it too because then it becomes "normal". But that doesn't change the nature of the problem. We are also incredibly short-sighted... so much so that the reach of our destruction far exceeds our ability (or willingness) to actually see it .

Just to pick one of many examples - the chocolate industry, which is directly involved in the s***e trade... Americans love chocolate, mmmm... But how can we possibly blame people for the s***e trade in Africa, just for buying chocolate Easter bunnies? BECAUSE, every time they buy chocolate, they are creating demand... and when millions of people are buying little pieces of chocolate, that demand adds up. I can't remember the exact percentage but something like 90% of the world supply of chocolate all comes from beans harvested by s***es in west Africa. Mostly boys ages 8 to 12, who die from mistreatment before they get much older. They spend nights in shackles and chains so they can't escape. But the reason why they are there is because of that demand for chocolate. Fair trade chocolate is different because fair trade imposes standards, including this one... "Don't use s***es!" But then you have to actually pay people to pick the beans and that increases the cost of production which is reflected in the price of fair trade chocolate in the supermarket. Most of us pass on the $5 fair trade chocolate bar so we can save a dollar or two and still much on delicious chocolate... which is effectively a decision to put another child in shackles.

It's the same "I can only see one link in the chain" problem that I described when explaining how the mortgage contract doesn't explain anything about the investment games being played on the secondary market and it's the same as the bond buyers who ushered GM into the debt that eventually harmed their business.

Is this the difference between us..? That I can see past the end of my nose? Or that just what you call being a bleeding-heart liberal? Just so you know, I consider myself part of the problem too. I am a small-time investor (meaning typical for middle-class) and although I try to pay attention to where my money goes, I know the system makes that really hard. But I am part of the problem nevertheless. I also buy cheap chocolate from time to time. But at least I'm not denying it and I am keeping an eye out for solutions and maybe THAT is what makes a bleeding-heart liberal as opposed to a typical conservative who's entire political ideology is based on denial.

VladimirPee

Yikes this post really amazes me. I am going to allow you time to think about it and edit it before I crush it because it is perhaps the dumbest post you ever presented.

straightUp Loc: California

Well... you KNOW every time you say you're going to crush an argument it turns out you just didn't understand it. But take your time... scrounge the right-wing propaganda sites for all the rocks you can throw... Just don't get so lost in battling all the supporting arguments and details that you forget the main point...

...that investors DO contribute to damaging business debt despite the fact that it's not always obvious to them.

VladimirPee

I have no problem understanding your post. I just can't believe any intelligent person would connect bond holders who lend money to corporations with s***es in the chocolate industry. That is quite a stretch. And I do not believe I have ever posted anything from a right wing propaganda site although I seem to recall you posting from left wing propaganda sources.

Your claim that without bond holders there would be no debt may be true because there would probably be no company and no jobs. Bond Holders have no say in how a company is run. They are not stock holders. Our country needs bond holders to provide funds for industry to operate. You simply cannot blame a bond holder for the actions of company management. Its ABSURD. That's like blaming GM auto credit for a drunk driver. Or blaming the mortgage holder for Michael Vicks dog abuse.

straightUp Loc: California

Then you DON'T understand my post. I wasn't "connecting" bond holders to s***es in Africa. I was using the later as (yet another) analogy to describe a concept that you - just - are - not - getting.


I never said you did. But you seemed to require time before responding so I was just suggesting that you do (with tongue in cheek).

...Never mind.

And if by "left-wing propaganda sources" you mean ANY source that helps with my argument then I suppose I do.


Or to use the common argument on your side of the bail-out decision, they would be forced to innovate. Or to use Reagan's favorite argument, their "destruction" would make room for someone else to "create". How's that for left wing propaganda? ;)


You keep coming back to this... I think you do understand that debt alone can have a crippling effect on a business, but rather than concede, you just pop back to "yeah, but they don't tell a company what to do." Dennis... I understand that... but that still doesn't eliminate the burden of debt as a negative factor. The average citizens that buy U.S. bonds don't have controlling interest over the government either, does that mean the national debt isn't a problem?


Everything in moderation.


Yes, it WOULD be absurd if I were actually putting all the blame on the individual, but that isn't what I am doing... something else I've been saying over and over and you just aren't getting it. I am blaming the aggregate and the system and even the culture that encourages it.

If I haven't made this clear to you by now, then I don't suppose I ever will. I can't explain something to someone who won't leave the box. You have to liberate your mind to think outside the box and see the bigger patterns but I realize conservative culture is very strong on this. Don't leave the box or the devil will lead you astray, the Marxists will recruit you. Or my favorite (which actually is kind of funny) the liberal's mind is so open the brains fall right out.

Don't leave the temple Dennis... Just stay where you are. I'm sure you're a good person with a lot to offer.

I'm going to leave this conversation though... I have a lot to do in the next few days... Maybe I'll catch you later.

Take care.

VladimirPee

Good enjoy yourself

I will leave you with one last thought. Purchasing chocolate which relies on documented s***e labor is despicable and the government of Ivory Coast supports these human rights violations and should be prosecuted.

Buying a bond from GM in order for them to expand or retool helps American Union labor and is not despicable or illegal or offensive. Your analogy is ABSURD.

straightUp Loc: California

Hey... I just happened to see a program on PBS that exposed an interesting fact about the auto industry. Apparently, all those factories belonging to U.S. automakers that were shut down in the 70's and 80's were replaced by even MORE factories that were owned by foreign automakers like VW and Toyota but were nevertheless located right here in the U.S. and employing American UNION workers. First thing I thought about was how that totally destroys your argument about unions destroying the American car industry. I mean TOTALLY.

Then I thought, wait a minute... Do conservatives actually watch PBS? Is PBS even on their strict diet of right-wing propaganda? Isn't PBS one of those "c*******t" channels? So, I decided to ask the Internet in general, a simple question. "where did America's car manufacturing jobs go?"... Guess who answered right away? Forbes did. I figure OK, Forbes is a well-known voice of Wall Street... certainly THEY can't be c*******t too.

So, I checked this out... http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/07/21/the-unions-didnt-bankrupt-detroit-but-great-american-cars-did/

In this article, the author points out early on, that bailing out the industry was a bad move... OK, even better - I actually never took a position on that issue, but you made it pretty clear that you thought the bail outs were a bad move... so far you and this author seem to be on the same page... THEN he goes on to say that what k**led the "Big Three" wasn't the unions or liberal politics but the weak dollar, which he traces back to President Nixon’s mistaken decision (one oddly encouraged by American carmakers) to delink the dollar from gold in 1971. Oh-oh... :(

And remember how I mentioned the oil peak in 1974? Yeah... so check this out... the author goes on to say that "a fiat dollar in the ‘70s coincided with a weak dollar, oil is priced in the latter, and with the dollar in freefall, gasoline prices naturally soared. Expensive petrol prices made that way by faulty U.S. monetary policy robbed the Big Three of their market advantage." Granted, he's not actually putting any blame on the oil peak but he IS blaming monetary policy for decreasing the dollar's ability to buy gasoline... and the U.S. oil peak DID shift supply chains over to OPEC right about the time that was happening. I was just focused on another part of the same problem this guy is talking about. Either way... The massive increase in foreign cars being made in America is pretty hardcore proof that unions and liberal politics are the wrong trees to be barking up.

I thought this was interesting too. (hoping your not sick and vomiting in the toilet yet)The Reagan ‘80s and Clinton ‘90s during which monetary policy was mostly sound gave the Big Three a renewed lifeline (oddly former GM CEO Rick Waggoner lobbied for a weak dollar), but their revival proved short lived. The George W. Bush administration, staffed by mercantilists of the Paul O’Neill variety, questioned the importance of sound money on the way to a falling greenback, high gasoline prices, and a sagging Big Three; Chrysler and GM in such bad straits that they required bailouts nearly five years ago.

Gee, maybe that explains that stock split and the $1.7b in interest payments mentioned in that GM Death-Watch-181 article that you already shot yourself in the foot with...

(although valiantly, you limped on, carrying the banner...
**************************************************************************
* 'You CAN'T blame the investors ...for bailing out a company that needed the money
* ...but you CAN blame the government for doing the same thing
* ...that is... *if* the idea comes from Democratic leadership.)
**************************************************************************

Whether by government or market investors the solution was the same - give them money to... "retool" I think was the term you used - and the problem was certainly no different. As you said yourself, The auto industry was in trouble before the fiscal crisis. Indeed it was and now we know... big thanks to conservative politics. (as I stand and sarcastically applaud)

VladimirPee

There is no doubt that foreign manufacturers have opened auto plants inside the USA. Some are union and some are not. But the point everyone misses when they tout this fact is that the profits go overseas and the better jobs go overseas. Yes we pick up some assembly line jobs but the engineers, draftsmen, designers, aerodynamic experts etc. are usually back in their home country. Did PBS mention that? Is that what you want for America? Should we be the worker bees only? Buying an America auto is better for America than buying a foreign auto. I don't care where the foreign product was made. I think you are making assumptions about unions in these foreign auto plants. From what I have read they are few. Which BUSTS your argument wide open . Maybe you should watch more FOX and less PBS. You would have known few of these foreign plants are union.


The claims in the Forbes article are laughable since the US Auto industry was in decline long before GW Bush.

UAW's Devastating Defeat in Tennessee: Four Blunt Points


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-17/uaws-devastating-defeat-at-a-tennessee-volkswagen-plant-four-blunt-points

DETROIT — The United Auto Workers union is positioning itself as a car company partner rather than an adversary as it renews a campaign to sign up workers at U.S. plants owned by foreign-based car companies.

Yet Bob King, the union's president, says it will play tough with Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai and others if they don't agree to secret b****t e******n principles that the union is backing. Companies that don't sign on to the principles will be branded in as human rights violators, King told an industry group last week.

The UAW has had little success the past 30 years in organizing workers at U.S. factories owned by Japanese, Korean and German auto companies. The companies built factories mainly in southern states such as Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky that are generally not as union-friendly as the UAW's home base around the Great Lakes. Many pay wages comparable to UAW-represented factories owned by Detroit automakers, but the foreign companies have avoided UAW work rules that

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/2011-01-13-uaw-organizing_N.htm



Mercedes Alabama plant violated law by stopping union from handing out literature, board rules

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/mercedes_alabama_plantviolated.html


Non-Union Automakers


Conversely, their rivals – the German Big 3 (Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW) and Japanese Big 3 (Honda, Toyota, and Nissan) – have gained volumes in the market since the downward spiral the 70s brought on for American auto manufacturers.

Being non-unionized has certainly given these global competitors an advantage. The Japanese Big 3 succeeded in having enormously lower health care costs (compared to GM) in 2007 which resulted in a $14 billion profit. And because they are not associated with unions, these manufacturers have the opportunity to flux production with the demand. Although decreased production may involve layoffs and terminations, in the long run, they are saving millions not having to shell out to laid off employees like the UAW does. Non-unionized companies also have considerably lower wage expenses and don’t face the risk of strike (read: no $1 billion strike fund to tend to).

These companies, (particularly the Japanese who focus on small, everyday use vehicles and the Germans whose hub is the midsized luxury sector), have really latched onto the new global market place. Looking to the future, they have succeeded in predicting trends and producing reliable, high quality, fuel efficient vehicles. They’ve done so well in fact that Toyota overtook GM in sales and production in 2008.

American manufacturers and the government have tried to counter this strong international influence in the auto industry by laying import restrictions on Japanese and Germany non-unionized manufacturers. However, both overseas Big 3’s have successfully opened new plants in the southern United States, providing jobs for many Americans.

In reality, the Japanese Big 3 are on top and it looks as though they might remain there since SUV’s don’t quite fit in with the new, more environmentally conscious consumer. In order for the American union to continue to provide for their employees and compete in a global market place, they are going to have to “renegotiate” and change their ways to keep up with the quickly and ever expanding automotive industry of today. Only time will tell

http://www.autobytel.com/car-buying-tips/new-car-buying-tips/union-vs-non-union-auto-manufacturing-104195/



Yeah TOTALLY destroys my Argument






:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

straightUp Loc: California

The profits go to the stock exchanges, Toyota trades on the Tokyo Exchange but they also make their shares available on the NYSE as ADR shares... That means that ultimately the profits go to the same places they always have.


We've already been through this when you were blaming unions for chasing the jobs overseas and like I said then... those "better jobs" aren't union jobs. They never were. The only reason why foreign engineers and designers are being used is because they're better. It's the American engineers that couldn't innovate their way out of gas-guzzling inefficiency, remember?


Maybe that's a question you should be asking the conservative dumb-asses cutting back funding for the kind of schools that produce qualified engineers.


Better how? That Americans drive s**t cars instead of good cars? I love my F-150 for when I'm working on my landscape, but other than that I'd say this American is far better off for also buying reliable Hondas for himself, his wife and his daughter. I actually helped my son buy a Saturn which we both regret now.


No it doesn't... You were painting a picture that unions made American workers so expensive that companies were forced to move their manufacturing overseas. My argument was simply a disagreement with that picture. It doesn't matter if the foreign company that sets up shop in Tennessee is union or not, the fact remains they are hiring American workers. So my "argument" stands - while your argument is as broken as a GM car. ;)


You mean I would have been "appropriately" distracted by meaningless bulls**t.


Ya know, you'll be less the fool if you actually read the article BEFORE you start laughing. He actually described the decline as having started with Nixon.



I applaud your efforts to dig up support for the point you're trying to make. Isn't Google great? But as I've already proven, the point itself is moot. Unions or not, they are building factories in America. So obviously car manufactures do have a choice, they don't HAVE to submit to unions, they just have to pay a decent wage and make decent cars.

What a concept, eh?

VladimirPee

First of all let me address this post


"Hey... I just happened to see a program on PBS that exposed an interesting fact about the auto industry. Apparently, all those factories belonging to U.S. automakers that were shut down in the 70's and 80's were replaced by even MORE factories that were owned by foreign automakers like VW and Toyota but were nevertheless located right here in the U.S. and employing American UNION workers. First thing I thought about was how that totally destroys your argument about unions destroying the American car industry. I mean TOTALLY."


So Unions forcing sales to foreign companies who employ non union labor somehow destroys my argument? Are you blind or stupid? It totally destroys YOUR argument. Automobiles can be made competitively inside America without UNIONs. Yes replacing Union plants with Non Union plants has benefited foreign auto makers.

This comment really made me laugh
"Maybe that's a question you should be asking the conservative dumb-asses cutting back funding for the kind of schools that produce qualified engineers. "

Generic far left bulls**t. What funding? Are you saying there is a decline in enrollment at our engineering schools? Another unsupported claim. And where will they find Jobs? In OSAKA Japan?





Your comment on Toyota Stock displays a total ignorance of how the stock market works and how profits are retained by corporations. Some companies issue a very small percent of profits in the form of dividends while others pay no dividend. I doubt you are able to read an annual report but Toyota pays out less than 10% of profits in a dividend. And they are also traded on the Nikkei exchange in Japan. Increases in stock value are directly related to profits generally but are not increased by profits unless a company offers to buy up its own shares.

I didn't need Google to know the foreign auto makers are mainly non union. But of course providing a source is better than asking you to take my word for it.

I have concluded that you are an arrogant uninformed liberal who overestimates his intelligence. I have kicked your ass from sea to shining sea on almost every issue. I am done with you and will not respond again.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL... Aw... are you sticking out your tongue and running away from the mean liberal? I guess that's self-preservation talking. Well, for what it's worth, at least you made it interesting.