Corporations have no reason to think about environmental conditions until they are traded says one section about 38-40 minutes in.
Is this the idea behind cap-and-trade, because corporations won't pay any attention to fines, but if the costs are up front they might do something to mitigate those costs?
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
which the WSJ amplifies....is how the nature of employment in the United States has changed. Ex. are the perma temp, massive part time, the new "unpaid furloughs", which skew the data enormously.
I was fairly shocked to see WSJ weigh in frankly but this post amplifies some strong points on the green shoots/brown weeds argument/analysis all over the blogs.
That on job loss, we're now back to 2001 levels- wiping out *every* gain of the expansion since then- I think you're right about that. Technical recoveries are only recoveries if you got in at the top of the pyramid. Most people didn't.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
but I can't keep track of all of this....if GS leveraged again...40:1, 50:1 to "trade" after the crisis....
I also noticed many saying GS still has massive toxic waste on the books and were asking what happened with that in the various video interviews I watched.
Here's another issue I have with TBTF, if it takes a forensic team from hell and still no one can figure out what is going on with various funds, finances in a company (and seriously we must have thousands of interested parties pouring over GS at the moment).....
yes I intentionally mixed it up. I have always believed there are fundamental structural problems with the economy for a long time and these problems really came to light around 2001 time frame.
So, this "side" is easy for me to pick, because I disagree that the economy recovered from 2001 time frame.
I think it was masked.
Now, there are some technical indicators abounding which imply we have hit a bottom, but in my mind, no one, anywhere should say the words "jobless recovery" period and that is because I am middle class focused.
I do not believe one can claim there is a recovery under the terms "jobless".
All of this said, my views do not invalidate the many "green shoots" analysis on there looking at various EIs. You can have a technical recovery, based on EIs which really isn't a "recovery" in fact due to the middle class squeeze.
My one and only reason for being on the "brown shoots" side is that I hope if I yell about it enough I'll be wrong (from all the people working to prove me wrong).
It's the theory of the self-defeating prophecy- people will only avoid the bad stuff if they can see it coming.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
We often overlook these and focus on the TARP money. FDIC agreed, through the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, to guarantee the unsecured debt of participants.
I wonder if this is what Goldman Sachs was really after. They issued $2 billion in FDIC guaranteed debt which was rated 'AAA'. I am sure they leveraged that $2 billion nicely.
Remember, Goldman Sachs was not "forced" to accept TARP funds. They actually applied and were approved in record time to be a bank holding company.
Stimulus expanded to public infrastructure AND skills retention projects.
In other words, if there is anything we used to make in America that we don't make any more, and there is still demand in that market, we should be paying some college somewhere to open up an On The Job Training Factory, partially financed by selling the output of the factory.
There should be NO excuse, when the diplomatic situation calls for war, to fail to go to war because the other country makes something we need.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Foreign investment to me seems like a HUGE national security risk- kind of kin to me allowing Chase to remain my mortgage holder just because they bought out Citibank who bought out Ameriquest who bought out Countrywide.
Instead, I'm shopping for a local bank who is less likely to commit fraud merely because he is local and has ties to the community. The same should be said of any other business. Businesses that don't have ties to the community WILL find a way to suck your community dry in their search for bigger profits.
If you're not a superpower equal to the MNCs, then your people are just slaves to be used and abused. It's time we started actually letting the government compete with the MNCs directly instead of just rolling over in this war and playing dead.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
on specifics with the Stimulus and I did a huge analysis when it passed (and said at that time we're in trouble). Looks like we need an update post on specifically where the money has gone.
This type of government spending should be targeted. Strictly to public infrastructure projects. I admittedly don't know every detail about the $787 billion stimulus package but I believe some of the stimulus was in the form of grants and subsidies to corporate entities - this is a big mistake with this type of stimulus.
households and firms that require balancing or more like balancing mechanisms to offset spending excesses or deficiencies in the rest of the economy?
A classic economic question. If government spending is needed to fill the void of other sectors then it seems that the budget deficit has to take a back seat for the time being. That doesn't mean that budget deficits don't matter - they do but there is a trade-off in times like these.
What should happen is like the saying goes "save for a rainy day"? This means that when the economy is growing - government works to pay down debt and deficit. This did not happen during the Bush years (in fact I wonder if it happened at all under Reagan and Bush I).
My point is sure the budget deficit is dangerously high but if government spending is the only game in town what do you do?
Nice chunk of change, but it's trivial in comparison to their revenues.
We also have some Senators making noise.
Lawmakers including U.S. Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, have questioned the Bear Stearns and AIG contracts with BlackRock, which were awarded without competing bids.
BlackRock, which manages $1.3 trillion in assets, reported about $5 billion in revenue last year. About 88 percent came from investment-management and performance fees.
The article says the knowledge of what is going where to who and when, general information via these toxic assets is the real gold mine.
Just because these guys duck out for a few years in government jobs, don't think they become invisible to the industries from which they made millions before and stand to make millions after. Consulting relationships, board seats, they do not want to piss in the well. We will never be able to reclaim our country until we stop putting these people in charge. Doesn't anybody else have a Ph.D. in economics? Just how do you define integrity anywhow? Our goal should be to shrink the size of the "financial sector," not shovel taxpayer's money into it. These are the guys who spent your retirement on AIG and similar bad investments.
A college buddy of mine works at Comcast, the cable company. When you called them up, one used to hear that oh-so-familiar South Asian voice (you know the country). Then all of a sudden, it changed and you heard an American voice. Well as I brought it up to my pal, whose an installer for the company. There was a flyer about Comcast and "commitment" towards the domesitic economy..yadda yadda yadda. They were one of those companies, that many news services highlighted a while back closing up support in Asia and touting how "the jobs are returning back to this hemisphere." They did bring the jobs "back," when you call you get Alberta, Canada. I asked why there? A lot in fact have asked. They were told because they "sound American."
that stink was about representing GM competitors who have plants in those states.
Well, you can see what KIA has done for that town, I agree, foreign investment yeah, rah! Esp. because a "US corporation" is so benedict Arnold, many don't even pay taxes, so what difference does it make?
Take Acer for example, they have customer support in the U.S. which is more than one can say for HP, who is still busy offshore outsourcing every job possible (or insourcing too).
However, people should be aware that southern politicians speak with fork tongues when they cry about bailing out GM when their states are giving huge tax subsidies to transplants.
I am starting to think that it is basically coming down to this: Do we lower our standards to emerging/developing countries or do they increase their standards to our level. Which is more likely?
If don't like those choices then MNC will only respond to use of a stick (or club).
Corporations have no reason to think about environmental conditions until they are traded says one section about 38-40 minutes in.
Is this the idea behind cap-and-trade, because corporations won't pay any attention to fines, but if the costs are up front they might do something to mitigate those costs?
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
which the WSJ amplifies....is how the nature of employment in the United States has changed. Ex. are the perma temp, massive part time, the new "unpaid furloughs", which skew the data enormously.
I was fairly shocked to see WSJ weigh in frankly but this post amplifies some strong points on the green shoots/brown weeds argument/analysis all over the blogs.
That on job loss, we're now back to 2001 levels- wiping out *every* gain of the expansion since then- I think you're right about that. Technical recoveries are only recoveries if you got in at the top of the pyramid. Most people didn't.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
The paper profits and huge leverage created by Greenspan and the financial sector masked the structural deficiencies in our economy.
If we don't do something to increase wages then any 'jobless recovery' will be just as illusory as the last one.
but I can't keep track of all of this....if GS leveraged again...40:1, 50:1 to "trade" after the crisis....
I also noticed many saying GS still has massive toxic waste on the books and were asking what happened with that in the various video interviews I watched.
Here's another issue I have with TBTF, if it takes a forensic team from hell and still no one can figure out what is going on with various funds, finances in a company (and seriously we must have thousands of interested parties pouring over GS at the moment).....
yes I intentionally mixed it up. I have always believed there are fundamental structural problems with the economy for a long time and these problems really came to light around 2001 time frame.
So, this "side" is easy for me to pick, because I disagree that the economy recovered from 2001 time frame.
I think it was masked.
Now, there are some technical indicators abounding which imply we have hit a bottom, but in my mind, no one, anywhere should say the words "jobless recovery" period and that is because I am middle class focused.
I do not believe one can claim there is a recovery under the terms "jobless".
All of this said, my views do not invalidate the many "green shoots" analysis on there looking at various EIs. You can have a technical recovery, based on EIs which really isn't a "recovery" in fact due to the middle class squeeze.
Or rather, I am.
My one and only reason for being on the "brown shoots" side is that I hope if I yell about it enough I'll be wrong (from all the people working to prove me wrong).
It's the theory of the self-defeating prophecy- people will only avoid the bad stuff if they can see it coming.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
We often overlook these and focus on the TARP money. FDIC agreed, through the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, to guarantee the unsecured debt of participants.
I wonder if this is what Goldman Sachs was really after. They issued $2 billion in FDIC guaranteed debt which was rated 'AAA'. I am sure they leveraged that $2 billion nicely.
Remember, Goldman Sachs was not "forced" to accept TARP funds. They actually applied and were approved in record time to be a bank holding company.
Stimulus expanded to public infrastructure AND skills retention projects.
In other words, if there is anything we used to make in America that we don't make any more, and there is still demand in that market, we should be paying some college somewhere to open up an On The Job Training Factory, partially financed by selling the output of the factory.
There should be NO excuse, when the diplomatic situation calls for war, to fail to go to war because the other country makes something we need.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
Foreign investment to me seems like a HUGE national security risk- kind of kin to me allowing Chase to remain my mortgage holder just because they bought out Citibank who bought out Ameriquest who bought out Countrywide.
Instead, I'm shopping for a local bank who is less likely to commit fraud merely because he is local and has ties to the community. The same should be said of any other business. Businesses that don't have ties to the community WILL find a way to suck your community dry in their search for bigger profits.
If you're not a superpower equal to the MNCs, then your people are just slaves to be used and abused. It's time we started actually letting the government compete with the MNCs directly instead of just rolling over in this war and playing dead.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
on specifics with the Stimulus and I did a huge analysis when it passed (and said at that time we're in trouble). Looks like we need an update post on specifically where the money has gone.
This type of government spending should be targeted. Strictly to public infrastructure projects. I admittedly don't know every detail about the $787 billion stimulus package but I believe some of the stimulus was in the form of grants and subsidies to corporate entities - this is a big mistake with this type of stimulus.
households and firms that require balancing or more like balancing mechanisms to offset spending excesses or deficiencies in the rest of the economy?
A classic economic question. If government spending is needed to fill the void of other sectors then it seems that the budget deficit has to take a back seat for the time being. That doesn't mean that budget deficits don't matter - they do but there is a trade-off in times like these.
What should happen is like the saying goes "save for a rainy day"? This means that when the economy is growing - government works to pay down debt and deficit. This did not happen during the Bush years (in fact I wonder if it happened at all under Reagan and Bush I).
My point is sure the budget deficit is dangerously high but if government spending is the only game in town what do you do?
BlackRock to Earn at Least $71 Million to Oversee Maiden Lane.
Nice chunk of change, but it's trivial in comparison to their revenues.
We also have some Senators making noise.
The article says the knowledge of what is going where to who and when, general information via these toxic assets is the real gold mine.
What independence?
Just because these guys duck out for a few years in government jobs, don't think they become invisible to the industries from which they made millions before and stand to make millions after. Consulting relationships, board seats, they do not want to piss in the well. We will never be able to reclaim our country until we stop putting these people in charge. Doesn't anybody else have a Ph.D. in economics? Just how do you define integrity anywhow? Our goal should be to shrink the size of the "financial sector," not shovel taxpayer's money into it. These are the guys who spent your retirement on AIG and similar bad investments.
A college buddy of mine works at Comcast, the cable company. When you called them up, one used to hear that oh-so-familiar South Asian voice (you know the country). Then all of a sudden, it changed and you heard an American voice. Well as I brought it up to my pal, whose an installer for the company. There was a flyer about Comcast and "commitment" towards the domesitic economy..yadda yadda yadda. They were one of those companies, that many news services highlighted a while back closing up support in Asia and touting how "the jobs are returning back to this hemisphere." They did bring the jobs "back," when you call you get Alberta, Canada. I asked why there? A lot in fact have asked. They were told because they "sound American."
--------------------------------------------
www.venomopolis.com
that stink was about representing GM competitors who have plants in those states.
Well, you can see what KIA has done for that town, I agree, foreign investment yeah, rah! Esp. because a "US corporation" is so benedict Arnold, many don't even pay taxes, so what difference does it make?
Take Acer for example, they have customer support in the U.S. which is more than one can say for HP, who is still busy offshore outsourcing every job possible (or insourcing too).
being a part of our overall Industrial Policy.
However, people should be aware that southern politicians speak with fork tongues when they cry about bailing out GM when their states are giving huge tax subsidies to transplants.
I am starting to think that it is basically coming down to this: Do we lower our standards to emerging/developing countries or do they increase their standards to our level. Which is more likely?
If don't like those choices then MNC will only respond to use of a stick (or club).
Pages