Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Hyper-Inflation Nation?
windstrike1
Member Posts: 553
"My question to you is; Will you tell the American people, to whom you lent 2.2 Trillion of their dollars? Will you tell us who got that money and what the terms are of those agreements?" - Senator Bernie Sanders
"No." - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
What do you all think about the odds of hyperinflation? What indicators can we look to in your opinion? Maybe making 350k a year isn't going to be so much in the near future?
Comments
Look for supermarkets with no food on the shelves.
U.S. senator wants Fed to name loan recipients
Perspective PLEASE? Context if you don't mind, lol? Your post had none of that.
Most economists say we are already beginning to come out of the recession, but it will be a jobless recovery. The job indicators ALWAYS follow economic indictators. Even President Obama said a second stimulus won't be needed because long term indicators are showing good improvement. Present job situation isn't a "long term" indicator of how the economy is going or where it's headed.
"And he (Obama) rejected talk of a second stimulus, an idea that has been discussed by Democrats and even famed investor Warren Buffett.
"We must let it work the way it's supposed to, with the understanding that in any recession, unemployment tends to recover more slowly than other measures of economic activity," Obama, who is visiting Ghana on Saturday, said in his recorded message."
Just as people were working during the Bush years even though we were already knee deep in the recession, they didn't lose their jobs until MUCH later. The same happens in reverse when the economy picks up. People will be out of work until long after signs that a recovery HAS already happened.
To say making 350 a year in the future isn't "so much" is classic hyperbole.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Perspective PLEASE? Context if you don't mind, lol? Your post had none of that.
Most economists say we are already beginning to come out of the recession, but it will be a jobless recovery. The job indicators ALWAYS follow economic indictators. Even President Obama said a second stimulus won't be needed People will be out of work until long after signs that a recovery HAS already happened.
To say making 350 a year in the future isn't "so much" is classic hyperbole.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Several great things, at least I think so, have been told recently.
One, although only there was 787 Billion dollars in stimulus money, only around 60 Billion of the remaining 499 Billion has been spent; one-third of the original amount was for tax cuts, which have taken effect. From education grants to building our broadband infrastructure, red tape is being cut to ensure that the money is spent.
Two, I also read somewhere recently there is a plan to expand aid to small businesses, which is REALLY the backbone of the American economy. It is where our growth, innovation, and jobs are.
Three, the U.S. is consuming LESS and exporting MORE, which is good. On today's front page Journal, U.S. exports have grown in May while imports fell, narrowing the trade deficit. China and the U.S. are the world's most important economies, and export growth is stabilizing. A sign of life and a sure sign of stability.
Fourth, we need taxes to increase. We can choose to tax a lot of things, or forms, or whatever. But we have chosen a surtaxe on families, or households, making over $350,000 a year.
Fifth, oil has fallen below $60 a barrel and averages, roughly, I think $2.60. It will allow ordinary Americans to save, consume, travel, etc. more.
I think it is fair to say there are some signs of good things. I will get really excited, though, when I see:
EDIT: Yes. It is possible that when the banks unleash the credit and capital they have been hoarding, and the Obama Admin unleashes the remainder of the stimulus package, inflation will result. A very serious possibility, which could undue any gain or stability thus far achieved. Inflation should be carefully watched.
The government here has made 15% profit on the bailout so far.
I do not anything about that. It is the first I have heard of it.
When unemployment reaches, or exceeds, 10% officially, then you will see the corporate press (Disney, Microsoft, Fox, etc.) focus their attention on the economy.
Great feature NY TIMES on tracking the bail-out:
projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
The system is not designed to survive, or expect, government handouts. Small businesses would benefit from handouts, but what would possibly really help is a long-term tax cut.
And, in case you are bored, please enjoy Vivaldi WINTER: www.youtube.com/watch.
I truly, and really, have nothing short of the highest and greatest confidence in our system. The best, and most important, system ever created by true patriots; true intellectuals; and true people. It is not complex. Government will be divided among several branches; the rule of law will be respected; the people have rights; and the people are sovereign. Very impressive, if - but only if - YOU can keep it. What a grand experiment.
Economically, the People have limited, little recourse to rights or power. That is our challenge, here and now. How to give them credit (their debt) and profit from it. We overload the U.S. name with debt we could change things, in a bad way, which is not just economical but political . . . and else. We could, through debt, crush our People, but save our system, but is not our system our People, our neighbors, our sons, our daughters, our posterity, and our good name? A good name. A good name, We, the People, did inherit, from our Revolutionary through WWII to now?
I mention this, only, do not underestimate what I see as a severe threat of inflation. I HONESTLY (100% honestly) want to know what Paul Volcker thinks. I was reading today about Latin American love of caudillos, or strongmen, who ride in a on horse and seize control of "things" (country, people, institutions, values . . . everything). We do not need a caudillo in the United States of America; we need an informed, participative, and active citizenry. Simply put, we need . . . Americans.
GM has already came out of bankruptcy, lol. They are ready to start REpaying the LOAN back. In case some of the doomsayers forgot, it was a loan; not a handout. Too much Republican propaganda.
GM acknowledged that the loan helped give them time to restructure and this is a very good indicator. Other companies will follow suit as well so I think all this Chicken Little fear of the economy is getting a bit much.
It's only been a few months since A SMALL PORTION of the stimulus monies has been LOANED out to companies.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Which is going to be interesting on how the 2010 elections are played out. Since little of the bailout budget has been spent, the reason may (notice the word 'may', I did not use 'is') be in hold until the 2010 elections draw near. At which time projects and organizations will be receiving funding, to help boost the chances of winning for the incumbents.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
GM's reemergence from bankruptcy does not inspire confidence because it should not have declared so anyway.
I have posted, in previous topics, how the 50 billion of generous taxpayer dollars is why GM "emerged" from bankruptcy.
In truth, I support it; the infusion and emergence from bankruptcy.
As long as they pay it back, I'm satisfied with the results. GM will be paying dividends on taxpayer dollars for quite some time, probably more than the government would have gotten on bonds.
That new Camaro is kinda hot, and seems to be generating a LOT of interest. They say it's already starting to outsell the Mustang. We'll see how it goes with their other models, especially the Volt.
"TO MICHAEL!"
As long as they pay it back, I'm satisfied with the results. GM will be paying dividends on taxpayer dollars for quite some time, probably more than the government would have gotten on bonds.
That new Camaro is kinda hot, and seems to be generating a LOT of interest. They say it's already starting to outsell the Mustang. We'll see how it goes with their other models, especially the Volt.
FORD, finally, the one GOOD American car manufacturer, has produced good vehicles. I, PERSONALLY, drive a GM vehicle, primarily because I DELIBERATELY BUY AMERICAN, as a sucker.
FORD is a much better company than GM, though. I am not an ordinary consumer when it comes to cars. I feel sorry, actually, for those who buy "european" cars that are manufactured in Tennessee. I mean, I never had the heart to tell them that their card is NOT foreign. They still do not know. Of course they think a label makes it foreign.
The U.S. car industry is oversized, over built, over gased, and defective-prone. People buy "foreign" cars because they think they are better. Well, yes, the Europeans and Japanese force the American labor to build to certain standards. But, let's face it, we need a car industry; but we need one that can compete. Just giving it OUR (taxpayer) money and then DISCHARGING its debts (because of OUR $50 billion infusion of taxpayer dollars) will not make it so.
NOTABLE EDIT: Those who think "their" economy will be save or rescued from these bail-outs, guarantees, and discharged debts are those, most-likely, paying for it. They do not know how they pay for it. They do not know why. They know neither the process nor procedure. They only know they will be "saved" or "rescued" and "things will get better." Help them - someone.
MORE IMPORTANT EDIT: I would probably be doing exactly what the admin is doing right now, while biting my nails and hoping, praying, and working toward a real car-manufacturing industry. How much does the U.S. taxpayer own of GM? 60% or so now? Congratulations, taxpayer! This is getting really silly.
I would only say you shouldn't keep using the conservative term for these loans. It changes the focus and makes people think these companies that get these loans don't have to pay them back. Its inflammatory to those who don't read for themselves but like to watch newcasts.
Bailout IS a dirty word because it implies that one doesn't really have to pay it back. These monies are loans, that are required by federal law to be paid back. The last time that the U.S. government "bailed out" a U.S. automaker was in 1979 to Chrysler by liberal president Jimmy Carter, and that went VERY well. The U.S. government actually made 350 million dollars, was paid back years earlier than expected and Chrysler actually went on to prosperity, just like GM says they are able to do now.
Chrysler greedy heads later got stupid (as usual for corporate heads) paying themselves great bonuses and buying up things like Lamborghini.
The discharged debts I assume you mean are bankruptcies? If so, that's not something Obama is granting to them. They can do that on their own and have been for years as its already legal to do without Congressional help.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Whos going to buy those cars?
They have to sale cars to have income .
Everyones scared right now ,even people who have somewhat stable jobs.Only thing increasing these days is Government.Are government employees going to be the only people buying these vehicles?
I' ll probably never own another car myself do to markup and depreciation even when(if) the economy gets better .
Personally I didnt even like it it when GW want 90 billion for Iraq.Let alone all these bailouts.Its mostly wasted money unless it goes into infrastructure and other meaning full projects.
Investment companies are still giving bonuses (WTH?!) to their employees .Where is The Punisher when you need him?
Maybe I made a mistake going into a Welding trade?!
Seems like Financial and Insurance are the rackets to me.I have never seen a job that you fail and your company goes under,gets bailed out and then gives bonuses
How can these people sleep at night?!
Other countries are laughing at us at how irresponsible our governement is(and yes this includes GW's 8 years)
Something has got to happen ,there is nowhere on the planet to go to get away from all this
and we are steamrolling toward a country destroying disaster.Where is our fiscal responsibility,California is proof of this as they getting ready to implode
JUNE U.S. AUTO SALES
New Camaro outsells Mustang for first time since 93
Apparently, nine thousand, three hundred and twenty people OTHER than YOU.
For as much sense as your rant made, you'd have been better off commenting on how cool the pic was and moving on.
Here, here's another chance to redeem yourself in this thread:
"TO MICHAEL!"
...
* Now made in China.
JUNE U.S. AUTO SALES
New Camaro outsells Mustang for first time since ’93
Apparently, nine thousand, three hundred and twenty people OTHER than YOU.
For as much sense as your rant made, you'd have been better off commenting on how cool the pic was and moving on.
Here, here's another chance to redeem yourself in this thread:
I thought the Camaro was a cool car until I drove one with less than 1,000 miles on it and watched the entire dashboard move to the right as I made a left turn. It was an 80's Camaro but that image will forever be burned into my brain. I couldn't stop laughing and thinking that there were people buying that crap off the show room floor. All cars flex but this was ridiculous.
I just have to ask....
If you are right, if it is really a "Hyper-inflation Nation"....
What do you plan to do about it?
GM received billions of dollars in loans from the generous taxpayer preceding its Chapter 11 (reorganization) filing. GM was forgiven all the emergency loans it received from the government prior to filing bankruptcy. The loans were designed to keep GM afloat, which were ineffective, which I knew would not be. That is what I am referring to: the first bail-out that preceded the second bail-out in order for the bankruptcy to be approved by the Judiciary.
GM and Chrysler both filed for bankruptcy. Under the GM agreement, the government now owns around 60% of the company. Under the Chrysler agreement, Fiat (Italian) now owns 30% and can increase to 51% of the company. No one wanted to purchase GM, so the government was in a sense forced to (some refer to GM as Government Motors). The government also, interestingly, appointed an outsider with a very impressive record to serve as Chairman on GM's board (Edward E. Whiteacre, former Chairman of AT&T). GM's 50 Billion in government loans could be forgiven in the future.
I always advocated bankruptcy for the auto-industry. I knew they received free money from the taxpayer that would not help them. Now, the taxpayer lost all of that money. Yes. This is a bail-out. Frankly, I knew that the taxpayer would not see any of its money returned. It has all been forgiven, and now there is a new round of taxpayer infusion into GM. The industry, or major players in the industry, had to restructure and reorganize to survive.
EDIT: Right now, however, my concern is ensuring that GM is a viable company now and in the future. Because the government owns so much of the company, we can finally and hopefully build smaller and more efficient --perhaps even safer-- vehicles. Ultimately, I suspect it is a good thing, but we will see.
Good points and well thought out.
I would only say that in regards to the government's track record of loaning money to big carmakers, it's not bad in recent memory.
The lesson we can learn from the 70's here are immense.
First, the government gave massive loans to Chrysler that in today's dollars would be enormous. The government also further aided them buy buying thousands of the trucks they built. That was a two fold package that helped them immensely, but the other key is what this allowed Chrysler to do: INVENT the minivan.
By helping them stay afloat, we gave other carmakers in the U.S. the ability to produce minivans and more jobs from Chrysler's designs. If Chrysler had gone into bankruptcy, they wouldn't have been able to develop this important vehicle. Minivans gave birth to SUVs as well. And look at what the Japanese and Koreans are doing with that technology from Chrysler. That's a really good return on the money. The U.S. companies just got greedy later because things were going well, and began to make stupid vehicles.
And speaking of the money, Chrysler repaid that loan (what everyone is calling a "bailout") today, back extremely earlier than expected and all at a taxpayer PROFIT. It was the decisions AFTER this time that was stupid.
By giving loans to GM and such, they now may be able to finish the Chevy Volt or other types of green travel just like Chrysler was able to finish the minivan. If GM can create the batteries needed to sustain these cars, in 20 years we will be looking back on this just like we do now with Chrysler in the 70s. We just may be able to be off of foreign oil and reintroduce manufacturing back to America due to keeping these companies in business.
"TO MICHAEL!"
There hasn't been many Camaros around for awhile. Mustangs have been much more popular. If Chevy is able to get more interest in the car nationally and overseas, there just might be some turn.
I'm not sure how fuel efficient these models are, but they were planned long before the current economic crisis so they are built on a past model mechanically.
If Chevy can sell enough, and then they are able to engineer the Chevy Volt as planned (battery issues), this could effectively allow these to have that technology and the government loans would have certainly gave GM the time they needed to turn things around.
"TO MICHAEL!"
You know, I knew that your wikipedia definition of what happened to Chrysler was a little off my memory of events. So here pop, have a read of the news from back when it happened:
www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg276.cfm
Of course, you will be quick to point out the source (gasp, a libertarian in the 1980's) and the fact that the modern pundits all buy into the mainstream thought that the bailout was a success and made money for America. But isn't it interesting how history changes?
I have no problem with most rational, reputable sources at all, wherever they come from. But if this is the best link that you can find from twenty six years ago that says the loans to Chrysler was a bust, then it must not have been a well-known notion or accepted ideal back then by hardly anyone. You have a problem with your source that I do not understand the life of me why you cannot see it.
"The Chrysler Bail-Out Bust" July 13, 1983
That article you linked was written in 1983. The author was trying to figure out the LONG term effect on a government loan program to a major U.S. corporation that at the time of its writing, had only been a FEW YEARS OLD and was ending. All of the government loans were ALREADY paid back by Chrysler the year this same article had been written, lol. There is no way that article can give the perspective that only time can give something like that to study what actually happened and what the LONG TERM effects were. It's like someone writing an article in 1961-2 that NASA was a 'bust' because Kennedy said in 1961 that we should have a man on the moon, but it didn't happen until 1969. Perspective please?
We all know Chrysler had VERY good years after this, just look up any stocks for them following. Hell, they BOUGHT Lamborghini FOUR years after this government loan deal was done! You call that a 'bust'? I suppose they went back to the government for another loan to do that, right? Sorry, no they didn't. They had the money to do it after the LOAN they REPAID.
To say this article is some kind of validation for results the same year the LOANS were paid back cannot be looked at with any sense of perspective. They don't even mention how much profit the government actually MADE off the loan (350 million) because at the time of THAT writing, they COULD NOT have known yet. It wasn't even announced.
That's like asking someone now to write an article on how bad the recent stimulus plans failed (or worked) completely right now. The stimulus was done early this year and the effects won't fully be know THIS year.
Friend, I understand you want to use a "liberal" perspective to justify not giving government loans, as if, "Well, it's liberal so I know he'll believe this ONE article". But that's pretty far reaching even for you. There is simply no way possible that a 26 year old article written the same year the government loan program is fulfilled can say what the results ultimately would be... 4 to 26 years later, even with a crystal ball.
I already told you; many things came from the result of that loan that were postive to the industry. Chrysler was able to introduce a whole NEW vehicle category, the minivan, into the world lexicon. No government loans, no Chrysler, no minivan, no American innovation for other things and so on and so forth. Not to mention jobs that were saved OVERALL for another 26 YEARS. The ceos later fell into that old capitalistic mindset (CEO bonuses for them, strip down unions, export labor, make crappy cars cheap) that ruins most things in this country which put Chrysler back into debt 26 YEARS LATER. But the government LOAN wasn't at fault there.
This is the strangest conversation I've ever been in; a moderate/liberal trying to convince a conservative/neocon that government loans to huge corporations are a GOOD thing to America.
I'm not even sure what position you are taking here, because all you say is your "memory" is different. Of what actually? You don't even make a claim to dispute anything other than "your source is wrong, this one liberal guy said it failed".
What point are you actually making about the government loan, that it was a bust? And if so in WHAT way.. what made it so? What gives YOU that idea when this government loan was repaid at taxpayer PROFIT with no fleecing of taxpayers and wasting of money that is was a waste of time today after Chrysler had almost a quarter of a century of profit afterwards?
"TO MICHAEL!"