Change

P

polystyle

Well-known member
vimothy said:
More:
http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/11/no-change-no-hope-obamas-transition-economic-advisory-board/

Hmm -- Looks like they really will:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...3267.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter
Click to expand...

Hear u Vimothy
But being Summers has not been named ... yet,
maybe it's one thing to be consulted and another to get a position. Fingers crossed.
And yeah. lots of op ed's here last week about the Clintoness' of who's been mooted ...
But here's more info : http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/the_new_team/index.html

And about the Auto industry -yeah on the face of it I agree "No why them ?',
possibly followed by "Why not us ?'
but as I caught on NBC last night - think how many jobs are involved in the Auto industry.
If one of them goes down - and I'd luv to see it in some ways (creative destruction) -
and this is perhaps great chance to say 'um guys, unless you do this and this , you won't get anything '.
Last nights news had a piece on delivery Co. DHL's downsizing - a whole city in Ohio
( think it was Ohio ... ) where they are based takes a giant hit.
A whole region would take a major hit and Obama's Chicago is not so very far away.

Goes with the topic ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/opinion/l11obama.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
On GM's push for rents -- worth quoting in full (though I agree that there are public choice issues that will likely win out in the end):

I've been among those arguing that GM ought to shut up about a government bailout and use the well-established bailout/reinvention tool that is Chapter 11 bankruptcy to pave the way for a better future. Now here, courtesy of the WSJ's John Stoll, are GM's three arguments for why that's not an option--followed by my analysis in italics.

1) Getting debtor-in-possession financing "would be practically impossible, given the state of the credit markets and the size of GM's obligations."

Debtor-in-possession, or DIP, financing is what keeps companies in Chapter 11 alive until they've restructured their way back to better health. If GM really can't get it, maybe there's a case to be made for direct federal DIP financing for GM.

2) GM has already dealt with two of the main things that companies use Chapter 11 to fix: legacy costs and capacity utilization.

That's at least partly true, but the company has dealt with these issues (fully funding its pension plan in particular) largely by borrowing money, with GM's debt going from about $9.6 billion in 2000 to more than $40 billion today. Which is why it's headed for bankruptcy without government intervention.

3) Nobody would be willing to buy a car from a bankrupt company. Here's GM CEO Rick Wagoner in a Friday interview on Fox Business News:

“In fact, there has been some independent research that was done as recently as June of this summer which asks for every manufacturer, ‘if this manufacturer were in bankruptcy would you buy a car from them?' Eighty percent of the people said they would immediately take that manufacturer off their list.”

Wagoner said that, in light of people's reluctance to shop a bankrupt car company, a Chapter 11 filing may actually be impossible for GM. “If your revenue line falls, you would not be talking about a reorganization, you would be talking about a liquidation.”

Wagoner could be right about that. But again, GM is headed for bankruptcy without government intervention. So any government intervention ought to be structured like a bankruptcy: Current shareholders wiped out (they're almost there already), debt converted to equity, top management out. We could just, for the sake of not scaring car buyers, call it something else. "Government-arranged workout"? "Bailoutruptcy"? "GMerdämmerung"? "Economic stimulus"?​
 
D

droid

Guest
Obama's choices as president-elect are disconcerting

Is Obama really serious about tackling inequality in the US? The signals are not encouraging, writes Vincent Browne

IT IS the scale of poverty and inequality in the US that is by far the most salient issue. Maybe not the most immediately pressing, but the most crucial. And during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama held his nerve on being taunted by John McCain about his remark to Joe the Plumber on "spreading the wealth". Maybe he is serious about undoing at least some of the inequality, an inequality he noted repeatedly in his book, Dreams from my Father.

The following data gives a sense of the depth of inequality:

In 1965, chief executives in major companies in the US earned 24 times the amount earned by the typical worker. By 2007, these chief executives earned 275 times the amount earned by the typical worker. In other words, these chief executives earned in a day the amount earned by the typical worker in a year.

The top 1 per cent of wage earners in the US now takes 23 per cent of all income, the highest inequality level in any year since 1913, bar one year - 1928.

In 2004 (the latest year for which data is available), the wealthiest 1 per cent of all households controlled a larger share of national wealth than the entire bottom 90 per cent.

The average wealth held by the top 1 per cent was some $15 million (€11.96 million) per household, while for average households it was $81,000. Approximately 30 per cent of households have a net worth of less than $10,000, and about one in six households have zero or negative net wealth.

The median wealth of white households is 10 times that of black households. Almost 30 per cent of black households have zero or negative net wealth.

According to official figures, more than 36 million people live in poverty in the US, including almost 13 million children. Other estimates put the poverty figure at 52 million. Whichever measure is used, a larger share of the population was poor in 2006 than in 2000 - and greater inequality explains entirely the rise in the poverty level.

Almost half of African- American children were poor in 1995. This proportion declined to one-third by 2000, but it is now back up at almost 40 per cent.

The gap in life expectancy between the socioeconomically best and worst off grew from 2.8 years in 1980 to 4.5 years in 2000.

Infant mortality of black infants is 2.3 times that of white infants.

(Source for figures: The State of Working America 2008-2009, a report by the Economic Policy Institute.)

In Dreams from my Father, there is lots of anger about the scale of inequalities Obama encountered in Chicago, and it led him to reflect on how globalisation had devastated communities in Indonesia, where he spent four years as a child.

Now, as president-elect, what will his priorities be? Will he "spread the wealth" and defy the system that has consolidated the wealth among the few? Or do as they all have done? Some of the signals are not encouraging.

The economic advisers Obama had around him at the press conference last Friday were the usual suspects, all attuned to the economic orthodoxy that there is no other way than the way that has caused such poverty amid plenty.

His first appointment was Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff in the White House. Emanuel worked in the Clinton White House and then went off to make millions for himself as an investment banker before becoming a congressman. The background in investment banking is hardly reassuring.

Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, volunteered as a civilian to work on an Israeli military supply base during the Gulf war. This suggests an identification with the "cause" of Israel which, if decisive, will massively compromise Obama's Middle East initiatives.

Also disconcerting is what appears to be the informed speculation that the current US defence secretary Robert Gates will be retained.

In a recent speech on why the US should retain nuclear weapons, Gates said: "As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons - and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends - then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the US in the nuclear arena - or with other weapons of mass destruction - could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response." So challenging the US in the nuclear arena, not by the use of nuclear weapons, but by merely "challenging" the US such as, presumably, by refusing to disavow the option of acquiring a nuclear weapon, "could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response".

A contributor to the letters page in this newspaper last week challenged me to explain why I had been critical of Obama some months ago and then effusive, as I was last week.

The answer is twofold. I was impressed by his steadfastness during the campaign. But, more significantly for me, by his book about his father. In its candour about his insecurities and early rages, in its reflectiveness about black nationalism, about racism, about inequality and globalisation, about personal relationships and about himself, it is a remarkable work of literature. I came to read that book only in the last 10 days.

But now I am nervous all over again.

© 2008 The Irish Times
Click to expand...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1112/1226408552219.html
 
P

polystyle

Well-known member
Let GM go bankrupt ... then help the workers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/business/economy/13bankruptcy.html?hp

And even a messianic' Obama cannot change inequality,
but we deal wit the cards handed ...

Facts' & figures, stats are one thing, doing is another.
Still almost 70 days out from being President and pundits, journo's, Fox,etc.
are 'not encouraged' ?.
Tough ...
We have no choice but to hang out a bit and see, do we ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

droid

Guest
It's perfectly valid to have concerns that his bark may be 'worse' than his bite when the speculations about his likely cabinet appointments seem to signal that he is not about to embrace any kind of real 'change' after all.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
droid said:
It's perfectly valid to have concerns that his bark may be 'worse' than his bite when the speculations about his likely cabinet appointments seem to signal that he is not about to embrace any kind of real 'change' after all.
Click to expand...

Indeed -- but I'm not sure what the appointment of Rahm (or slightly creepy insinuations of that perennial favourite, 'dual-loyalty') tells anyone about Obama's responses to the growth of inequality. Ditto the possibility that (the excellent) Robert Gates will be retained. (In fact, re-read the para on Gates for a lesson in total disingenuousness and willfully faulty logic -- it is quite clear that Gates means that the deterrent capabiity of US nuclear weapons requires the possibility and even probability that an attack will be met be an overwhelming response. Nothing to do with failing to disavow nuclear weapons. You know, it's how nuclear deterrence works and would remain so even if the article's author were SecDef).

As for economists and even policy -- who and what would you prefer?
 
D

droid

Guest
vimothy said:
Indeed -- but I'm not sure what the appointment of Rahm (or slightly creepy insinuations of that perennial favourite, 'dual-loyalty') tells anyone about Obama's responses to the growth of inequality.
Click to expand...

So your saying that pointing out that someone who is to be appointed to one of the most important positions in the white house also volunteered for the IDF and is a staunch supporter of Israel is somehow 'creepy'? Surely it's fair to suggest that there may be a conflict of interest with an American politician who volunteers to serve in a foreign military force.

Also, if you read the next sentence "will massively compromise Obama's Middle East initiatives"., you'll see that this point was made in relation to foreign policy. I think it's clear that Rahm's appointment does not signal an radical departure or change in this area.

Ditto the possibility that (the excellent) Robert Gates will be retained. (In fact, re-read the para on Gates for a lesson in total disingenuousness and willfully faulty logic -- it is quite clear that Gates means that the deterrent capabiity of US nuclear weapons requires the possibility and even probability that an attack will be met be an overwhelming response. Nothing to do with failing to disavow nuclear weapons. You know, it's how nuclear deterrence works and would remain so even if the article's author were SecDef).
Click to expand...

Nonsense. As has been shown with the whole 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle in Iraq, and by many other examples in recent history, any attempt by a 'rogue' state to obtain nuclear weapons is seen as a challenge to US dominance, hence the hysterical reaction to Iran's (perfectly legal within the bounds of the NPT) nuclear energy program. The hypocrisy of this stance is obvious in the context of US nuclear deals with India, attempts by the US to normalise the use of 'tactical' nukes, the refusal of the US and the UK to abide by the NPT by refusing to decommission their nukes and allowing inspections to that effect, and of course, the elephant in the corner - Israel's 'non-existent' nuclear program.

As for economists and even policy -- who and what would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right. He should stick with the bankers, they're obviously doing a great job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top