Pres. Obama's "original sin" is his "failure to demand a reckoning from the moneyed interests...


Pres. Obama's "original sin" is his "failure to demand a reckoning from the moneyed interests who brought the economy down," Frank Rich asserts - a simple explanation for the current troubles but not accurate, Derek Thompson counters. "Unemployment suffers today not because of, but independent of, Wall Street's success. That is the simple, boring truth."

Comments (138)
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    His original sin is the same as Chauncey Gardner's from the movie "Being There", he is clueless. President Present thought it was going to be all state dinners and endless rounds of golf. Only after he was in office did he see it was not that way, so instead of leading he voted "present" again and assigned the task of leadership to Pelosi and Reid. Leaving two of the most hyper-partisan liberal leaders our country has seen in my generation. Unemployment suffers because of this administrations endless regulation and a fear of the unknown. The unknown being just how far will the EPA and Justice Department go before something reigns them in. It is quite apparent they don't have a clue on what to try next to get our economy moving forward again.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    I know you would like to see Obama as another Jimmy Carter ("Being There" is from 1980) but here's the problem. We really do have an energy problem today.

     

    I'm not saying Obama has fully recognized it. But your denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    Our current energy problem is Obama's fault, and it is you who are in denial. I don't care who gets rich on domestically produced oil, I care that we make Saudi princes rich because of our shortsighted energy policies. To hell with green technology and all the libtard talking points, the US is going down and whether it was the banks or government regulators on the take that brought us here. Someone has to step up and be the adult in the room, Obama is now trying to convince us he is switching from a partisan hack to a bi-partisan healer, the problem is no one believes him because of everything else he has done. I'm not an ideologue, I was democrat who voted for Clinton the first time but not the second. The Democrat Party is now not something that I can support because I no longer believe they are going to make the country better for my children and grandchildren.
    5 Jul 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • 7footMoose
    , contributor
    Comments (2229) | Send Message
     
    I loved that movie. I used to work for a guy who epitomized the principal character in the movie. From now on I will be haunted by the idea that Obama forever has that role.
    5 Jul 2011, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, sport.

     

    The Bush Administration was owned, lock, stock and barrel, by the oil interests. How did that work out for ya'?

     

    Not that we don't have some common ground. I agree that the President has not made a War Against Oil his key priority. I agree that Keynesianism is not an answer to our present problems.

     

    But there is nothing remotely adult in the crazy. "Bush was a flaming liberal" and "we don't have to pay his debts" is as crazy as Abbie Hoffman was.

     

    No party is going to make the country better for your children and grandchildren. Only you can do that. So stop blaming Washington and start looking for opportunity.

     

    I think you'll find that opportunity in increased efficiency and energy harvesting. There are trillions to be made in both.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • icandoitdon
    , contributor
    Comments (626) | Send Message
     
    and your solution is to put in office who? the all war all the time as long as a republican is in office" party? or maybe the "billionaires should pay the same tax rate as secretaries" party. or how about the "not paying principal amount due is not a default" party?

     

    your republican friends have joined the lunatic fringe, my friend. that ain't a rational choice.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    We are not talking about Bush here. Obama was elected on his promise he would fix what Bush broke, and all he did was move the broken pieces around on the floor, has not even found the dustpan yet.
    5 Jul 2011, 10:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    That's not true at all. Obama got the car out of the ditch, and put us back on a path to growth. The problem is that path is blocked by oil prices. And our dependence on oil only grew under Bush.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    Unemployment suffers because these greedy corporations sent jobs to overseas.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (602) | Send Message
     
    Of course they did, people have to have cheap flat screen tv's, a new iphone every six months, and stockholders want max return. You won't get any of that paying a premium for American work and the accompanying pensions, health insurance, sick time, vaca pay. There's no free ride my friend.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    Europe and Asia gets one month of vacation right after starting a new job.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • itsAme
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    Very nice stat. That one month of vacation is probably why they can riot in the streets all month long. Those Europeans have it so good!
    5 Jul 2011, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    tigersam
    Unemployment suffers because these greedy corporations sent jobs to overseas
    ======================
    Europe and Asia gets one month of vacation right after starting a new job.
    ======================...
    In summary these greedy corporation are shipping jobs with vacations
    5 Jul 2011, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Of course they are. Why would any corporation stay here when it is so anti-business. And why should they hire people here when all the new economic growth is overseas?
    5 Jul 2011, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    So they get a month vacation time upfront in Vietnam, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc?

     

    That would be news to them.
    5 Jul 2011, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • AnchorMan
    , contributor
    Comments (115) | Send Message
     
    free ride? Working 50 hours a week in corporate America and essentially making the same wage as my counterparts 30 years ago but at twice the productivity doesn't earn me a few shitty benefits?
    5 Jul 2011, 11:02 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The U.S. has the lowest tax rates and lowest regulatory burden in the western world. Yet other western countries continue to grow. Canada grows. Germany grows. Scandinavia grows.

     

    The excuse that we can somehow bugger the middle class into Chinese wages and working conditions while putting all our wealth into a few hands is stupid.

     

    Americans have a very bad habit of assuming that our competitors know best. In the 1930s too many businessmen were fascists. Too many McCarthyites sought to copy the Soviet Union's tyranny in the 50s. Too many sought to copy Japan in the 1980s. We have too many religious fanatics trying to make us into Iran today.

     

    I'm different. I believe in America.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (602) | Send Message
     
    "The U.S. has the lowest tax rates and lowest regulatory burden in the western world"
    A simple google search will show you that's simply not true, the reverse is. Try searching under "US corporate tax rates vs the world"
    6 Jul 2011, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    The US "used" to have the lowest regulatory burden in the world now it comes in at number 5 and still dropping. www.doingbusiness.org/...
    6 Jul 2011, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Most U.S. corporations don't pay any tax. GE paid no tax. How do you get lower than zero?

     

    Nominal rates matter less than what is actually paid.
    6 Jul 2011, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    If you want to move to Singapore or Hong Kong, please be my guest. We're very competitive by any measure. And the measures used in the chart you displayed are very very limited.
    6 Jul 2011, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Blankenhorn,

     

    You should provide data before making such claims.

     

    GE is a special case due to prior losses.

     

    Profitable Companies pay plenty of Taxes, I can assure you.

     

    Since people like you always claim the poor pay taxes via their Soc Security withholding, how 'bout the millions in Payroll taxes Companies pay on behalf of their employees, even if they are not profitable?
    6 Jul 2011, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Most??

     

    Care to document that assertion?

     

    And you can get lower than zero.
    6 Jul 2011, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The idea that companies invest because of nominal tax rates, or that people work harder or less hard due to marginal tax rates, is false.

     

    I'm not interested in your ideology. I'm more interested in making money.
    6 Jul 2011, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Blankenhorn,

     

    You keep spewing your opinion based on ideology without providing any data to support your claims.

     

    If I had a dollar for every time an employee of mine turned down overtime pay because of taxes, I would already be rich and not have to trade stocks.
    6 Jul 2011, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (602) | Send Message
     
    In the 1400's the world was round, no supporting data needed. In the 1600's, the Earth was the center of the solar system. In 2011, the US taxes corps at the lowest rate of any country; that's why we don't have companies offshoring to take advantage of lower rates.
    6 Jul 2011, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    US Corporate tax rates have become higher than most in recent years.

     

    Since everbody like to make unsubstantiated claims,

     

    Here is some data.

     

    www.taxfoundation.org/...

     

    Effective rates can be lower due to thousands of special interest loopholes however,
    6 Jul 2011, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Companies aren't sending work offshore for lower taxes. They're sending work offshore for lower wages and to capture fast-growing markets.
    6 Jul 2011, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Companies would not benefit, if people would buy more domestic manufactured goods.

     

    Ironic how the more liberal biased states that love to bash and tax corporations, have the highest percentage of sale of imported autos.
    6 Jul 2011, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, that is probably why GS is moving 1000 people to Singapore, because we are so competitive.
    6 Jul 2011, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    1980

     

    I would be interested to see the data behind your assertion "Ironic how the more liberal biased states that love to bash and tax corporations, have the highest percentage of sale of imported autos."
    6 Jul 2011, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Speaking of autos, who bailed out the auto industry? And who opposed it?

     

    Also, define "imported." Many foreign nameplates actually assemble their goods here, and even use some American parts. There's a Kia plant in West Point, GA, Mercedes in Alabama, Toyota in Tennessee.

     

    Which is why many southern congresscritters, who happen to be Republican, were so dead-set against the bailout, and did all they could to prevent it.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (602) | Send Message
     
    Didn't say sending work offshore, was referring to relocating the corporation's base or setting up dummy companies.
    www.asset-protection-i...
    Still waiting for some documentation on your end....
    6 Jul 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    CBC, I can already tell you before I follow up with data, it's a fact.
    Liberals love to bash America and all things about it.

     

    California has highest percentage of foreign nameplate auto registrations.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    CBC,

     

    Data,

     

    Since I already knew of my claims, as to my awarness of the auto sector along with my personal experiences, I was confident I could produce it.

     

    It did not take me very long either.

     

    www.washingtontimes.co.../

     

    It's just another one of those subliminal ways that liberals, bash America.

     

    They think they are punishing "America" by limiting their contribution to the economy.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    1980

     

    Thanks for the info I was having trouble finding any data of the kind. Gotta run but will check into it later. Thanks again.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    If you would read anything outside your ideological sphere, you might learn something.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    "Twenty-two percent of liberal Democrats say they would never consider an American car, according to a recent Gallup poll, the highest of any group..."

     

    And these are the exact same folks that time after time post about how "American companies are shipping jobs overseas".

     

    Hypocrisy in action for sure.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Blankenhorn,

     

    Bailouts are only successful if one is willing to support the company after the fact.

     

    Your comments only further support hypocrisy.

     

    So, spend the money only to waste it?

     

    btw, most foreign autos are not assembled here.

     

    www.nytimes.com/intera...

     

    And, Assembly is only one component in the 'Money Chain"

     

    I am frequently amazed at the postings on SA, by some that have know knowledge on the subject matter in which they comment.

     

    That said, I have no issue with those that by what is best for themselves in a free market, after giving fair consideration to domestics.

     

    Unlike Obama who is trying to force choices via Unrealistic industry regulation.

     

    Funny how some of our Parents would buy from a country 40 years after bombing us, due to a few problems in the domestic industry (mostly in the 1970's)

     

    Yet their same children refuse to even consider a domestic car forty years after their parents had a few problems.

     

    Ironically, most of the current generation actually knows little about cars. Unlike the past generation would servce their own.

     

    They only know what the press drills into them like sheeple.

     

    It is a state of mind to hate America, and a big part of the problem.

     

    The words to this song Pretty much sum it up

     

    www.youtube.com/watch?...
    6 Jul 2011, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    I don't have to buy from a company after a bailout. I don't have to put my money into Goldman Sachs because of TARP. That's loony.

     

    Fact. The U.S. auto industry is back on its feet. Fact, it's only alive because of the bailout. Fact, many southern Republicans (with foreign-owned assembly plants in their states) opposed said bailout.

     

    You can have your own opinion, but please don't insist on having your own facts.
    6 Jul 2011, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • 2PP
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    Blankenhorn, you sound like a blowhard, sport.
    6 Jul 2011, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (602) | Send Message
     
    Ford didn't take bailout money, so you can only say GM and chrysler. GM then used their bailout money to build an engine plant in Mehico.
    mcauleysworld.wordpres.../
    Some way to pay back the taxpayers, huh?
    6 Jul 2011, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Bankenhorn,

     

    First you bragg that your side of the aisle votes for the Bailouts, then you say you will turn your back.

     

    Then why spend the Money? Or is that all the left can do, spend Money and waste it?

     

    I presume you support unions too? Fair wages etc, etc, given your beliefs, Yet, you only buy cars from foreign companies that pay non-union wages.

     

    Please provide data to correct anything I portrayed as FACT in my comments.

     

    As far as Bailouts. Ford was in fact Bailed out, only privately as they essentially failed first before the Credit Markets froze up due to the economic Crisis.

     

    www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2.../

     

    The reasons and timing are too extensive for me to explain here, to somebody that does not want to educate themselves.

     

    You just keep digging youself deeper with comments on subject matter in which you have no knowledge
    6 Jul 2011, 04:45 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    The idea that companies invest because of nominal tax rates, or that people work harder or less hard due to marginal tax rates, is false.
    ---------------

     

    I'd have to disagree strongly with that assertion. Might be true for fortune 500 firms - but small business? Throw in dealing with government regulations and bureaucrats and I can tell you first hand that I've made many choices to not pursue new business opportunities because its just not worth it.

     

    And I don't believe I'm alone. I'm at a point in life where I'm not really concerned about making the next dollar - its more about what is interesting, enjoyable, challenging. And I can tell you that dealing with bureaucrats will suck the life out of you. People who have never done anything in their life show up and start demanding that you produce this, prove that, produce this permit, show this paperwork, etc, etc, etc. Oh, and if you've made even the smallest mistake - well be prepared to fill out a whole new batch of forms and expect that to take another week, month, 3 months etc. AND if the government makes a mistake? Well tough luck, you still have to fill out a whole new batch of forms.

     

    What people often miss is that the small business owner is often in a position to simply say - hey, my life is pretty good - I earn a decent income - I'll stay up to date and keep innovating - but I'm not going to put in the same effort as I did 20 years ago. And in practical terms that means that I hire fewer employees, don't start other new businesses, and am economically less active than I otherwise might be (which has a spillover effect).

     

    If that is how you get to a better economy then I guess things must be grand.
    6 Jul 2011, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Blankenhorn,

     

    It's alive now due to positive sales and earnings since the "Bailout"

     

    No,

     

    You don't have to buy.

     

    But soon Obama will be telling you not only what you have to buy, but what type of fuel and from whom you will have to buy it from.

     

    You will be "having to buy" the health insuance he thinks is best for you too.

     

    You really need a wake-up call.
    6 Jul 2011, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (602) | Send Message
     
    All I can get out of that article is that they took out a line of credit from JPM etc using their assets and company as collateral.
    6 Jul 2011, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Kcr357,

     

    The article explains the timing.

     

    One has to go back to the ramp up in gas prices (2005) along with Ford's pathetic Product line up and pipeline at the time that virtually relied solely on profits fron the Explorer along with other SUV's and trucks.

     

    Tanking sales on them along with the Firestone Tire/Explorer debacle and Ford was toast.

     

    They Mortgaged assets and maxed out on irrevocable credit lines to avoid bankruptcy.

     

    Had their misfortune taken place two years later, when the markets froze up) they would have been in same situation as the others.

     

    That said, Bill Ford was smart by "Manning" Up" and admitting he needed some help and was over his head, thereby hiring Mulllally.

     

    The rest we all know.
    6 Jul 2011, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    He did not say "imported", he said foreign nameplate.
    6 Jul 2011, 07:24 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    1980

     

    Interesting data. Some interesting anomolies as well but all in all your statement was correct. I even checked into the states with highest corporate tax rates and it all fit. I do wonder about liberals punishing America though. That seems a bit out of line. Bite the hand that feeds......

     

    My first new car was a ford pickup. Clutch went out at about 20,000 then had to replace an oxygen censor soon after. After my wifes BMW needed the original oxygen sensor replaced after about 280,000 miles (model 1980 320IS) I decided to go foreign. Never had a reason to look back. Bought Toyota's and they were excellent pickups. That Ford was so comfortable and nice to drive though. I always tried to buy American tools. I was a builder. But often Japanese and German tools found their way into my boxes.

     

    I am a pretty conservative guy. Obama gotta go. Gov needs to be smaller. Spending has to decrease. Free markets need free reign. I still drive foreign cars. Maybe I will change when I have more confidence. I have been hearing good things about Domestic cars.

     

    Try to avoid the liberal stereotyping.. it serves nobody. One thing I have learned thru the years is stereotyping stops us from listening and trying to understand the other side. Until we understand each other we will get nowhere. More than ever in our country we need to stop fighting with each other and start working together to rebuild what we have lost. We have plenty of competition outside our borders. Try to remember we are all Americans and that should be enough, no matter how much we disagree and no matter how foolish some of us are.
    6 Jul 2011, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Do you background checks on all posters who claim "American companies are shipping jobs overseas" or what. Do these same posters finish that statement with "I am a liberal Democrat". Avoid the generalizing it makes you look foolish and from most of your posts I know you are not a fool.
    6 Jul 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Cbc,

     

    Agree,

     

    You can't disagree when you see some of the data though.

     

    Using one label is perhaps a bit simplistic, true.

     

    But we do have a few that seem to love Bashing the US no matter what.

     

    Just read the comments on this one.

     

    money.cnn.com/2011/07/...

     

    BTW: the Buick Regal is a re-badged Opel Insignia built in Germany (for the Time being) Canadian production expected to come.

     

    Even GM is frustrated by the anti-US sentiment.

     

    Good luck to you.

     

    You seem to have a fair and balanced approached to the issues.

     

    No Fox News Pun intended.
    6 Jul 2011, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Good point, it is more common from the Left, but hardly only them.
    6 Jul 2011, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    I apologize for that appearance. I have strong opinions and tend to state them in a very forthright manner, often without enough respect to those who disagree.

     

    I will try to moderate this in the future, but be warned I have fought to do this in the past and have often been unsuccessful. (Although you should have met me in my 20s -- boy was I an arrogant schmuck.)
    6 Jul 2011, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Both recipients of bailout money are alive. Neither would be alive without it. That's my entire point.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    I know you like to build straw men, twisting others' arguments so you can knock them down, with your big-headed little avatar. I am just a writer using my own name on everything I do and say.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Again, note the straw man. "Soon Obama will be telling you not only that you have to buy, but what type of fuel and from who you will have to buy it from."

     

    Evidence please. Rather than argue with a point, you twist the point into something you can argue with, then argue that.

     

    Political arguments should not be just about winning and losing. They should also be about the public interest, and America's best interests. All Americans.

     

    Straw man arguments benefit no one, although they make those who make the arguments feel better about themselves and their belief systems.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    There are all sorts of bureaucracy. Any organization that scales winds up being bureaucratic. This is true for all types of organizations, public and private.

     

    Equating the term "bureaucracy" wholly and only with government, and thereby branding all government action as antithetical to the peoples' interests, while ignoring what private and non-profit bureaucracies do routinely, is just ideology.

     

    As to your point about aging, I share it. I think we all change our attitudes as we age, in just the way you describe here.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Actually,

     

    Much of the history of the domestics outsourcing to Mexico is a direct result of Government Policies.

     

    You see CAFE regulation allow auto makes to calculate their imported fleet differently that their home domestic models.

     

    That is why many automakers had produced their lower MPG models in foreign markets, such as Ford with the Crown Victoria.

     

    Ironic Heh? Government punishes business for providing what people want, only to be forced to produce outside the US in order to do so.

     

    Your Elected officials at work.

     

    Before you criticize business, one need to know the rules they have been forced to live with.
    6 Jul 2011, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    We don't know that for sure. They would have been a lot different, and possibly under foreign ownership, but I doubt they would have gone under.
    7 Jul 2011, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    One of the seldom mentioned objectives of more trade with Mexico is to help solve the illegal immigration problem. In theory, a better economy in Mexico will reduce the huge difference in wages between the US and Mexico, but what ended up happening is that nearly all of the build up in economy was right on the border, very little translated into the interior of Mexico (except for the drug trade).
    7 Jul 2011, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    I am a little tired of the self-righteous meme that if you dare criticize anything about what a business is doing you're "anti-business." Sometimes you're just fighting crime. And by assuring a sound, level playing field, supporting honest businesses over dishonest ones.

     

    Some conservative heads are going to explode once liberals start calling them "soft on crime." My guess is it's coming.
    7 Jul 2011, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Evidence Please?

     

    Are you kidding?

     

    Apparently you have not heard.

     

    Less than 2 years after Automakers, Feds and California agreed to very strict uniform MPG/emissions regs (that have not even been phased in yet) , they have now upped the Ante going for 56 MPG.

     

    Since even a Toyota Prius presently does not achieve such,

     

    What do you thing your choices in the showroom are to look like in a few years?

     

    Certainly not like anything you are used to, or perhaps that you may want or like.

     

    Not to even mention the possible costs and safety ramifications.

     

    I will not bother posting links as this is all been in the Mainstream media the last few weeks.
    7 Jul 2011, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The message of the market is for higher mileage. The "Big Three" have not made a public comment on the 56 mpg proposal. My guess is they were consulted on it -- the original thought was to go for 60 mph.

     

    Pushing for high mileage is the way to win in international markets, too, where gas prices aren't subsidized as they are here.

     

    Personally, I believe in America. I believe in the transformative power of American business. And I think that's the kind of message that always wins politically, not doom-and-gloom.
    7 Jul 2011, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Yes they have commented and are not happy.

     

    In fact GM's CEO said a couple mos ago he would like to see a gas tax.

     

    That way MPG improvements could be more market driven.

     

    BTW Ford GM and Toyota are suing the Feds as to the comming E-15 fuel mandates.

     

    Another choice you will not have, the fuel you wish to buy and put in your car with your own money.

     

    Gas "subsidized?"

     

    Ethanol has been, but that's an entirely different discusssion.

     

    No, not taxed like many other places.

     

    Taxed about $1 per gallon on average in the US with Fed and state taxes combined.

     

    I'm not quite sure how you call that subsidized
    7 Jul 2011, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    No, the message of the GOVERNMENT is for higher mileage. Not quite the same thing as the market. And I suspect that unless gas goes to $10 a gallon, the "market" - buyers - will not be happy. If you really look at the proposal, which includes light trucks and other vehilces - you would have to have some vehicles in the 80-100 MPG range to get the average down. Otherwise consumers will be able to buy nothing but micro cars.

     

    It is one of things that can be done, but do you really want to.
    7 Jul 2011, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1707) | Send Message
     
    And there are no laws regarding polution...
    8 Jul 2011, 04:41 AM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    I agree whole heartedly with what's being said here. As an ex Wall street employee i too have become very troubled by whats going on. How is it possible that those that almost brought down our economy get off scott free? Less than 1 year later while we are still in a recession wall street bonuses are at all time highs.
    So they made Huge money while taking us close to a recession, they are bailed out by government and then make HUGE money as the market rallies because of a tax payer sponsored bail-out.
    At the end of the day this whole thing smells bad. WHAT happend to our country??
    It's time the people of this country get their heads out of their asses..
    5 Jul 2011, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • apberusdisvet
    , contributor
    Comments (3104) | Send Message
     
    Thompson is just as wrong as he thinks Rich is. The TBTFs are not lending, because their balance sheets are still loaded with red ink, and they really should be euthanized before they totally destroy the world economy. How can they ever unwind $2400 Trillion of derivatives? The answer is that they cannot, but they will certainly bring everyone else down before they cry uncle.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Monetary and fiscal policy have nothing to do with our current troubles. It's not "Obama's wrong and Republicans are right." It's "Obama's wrong and Republicans are more wrong."

     

    Here is where Obama is wrong. Aggregate demand is not falling. It's growing. Developing economies like China, India and Brazil are developing, and their demand for products and services is growing. So the problem is not what it was during Keynes' time.

     

    But treating ourselves as bankrupt, as Republicans insist we do, is more wrong. We're not bankrupt. It's very, very clear that eliminating the Bush tax cuts of 2001 puts us on a glide path to a balanced budget by 2016. And cutting spending is cutting spending -- unemployed teachers and firemen are just as unemployed as unemployed steelworkers.

     

    The problem is energy. Each time the economy starts to grow, oil prices spike, and growth disappears. We need a thumb pressing down on that energy price. Renewables give us that. Drill baby drill doesn't.

     

    Drill baby drill just replaces a Saudi billionaire with a Texas billionaire -- the price still goes up as we try to grow. Solar and wind and geothermal energy replace energy we get from burning with harvested energy, and there's abundant energy to be harvested all around us. Efficiency is another cheap way to put a thumb on energy prices -- when you save a barrel of oil in heating, or moving goods, services or yourself around, you reduce demand. Fortunately we have more of this "Free Energy" around than anyone else. Drill that.

     

    What we need, in short, is a true War Against Oil. Not a war against oil producers, but against our dependence on hydrocarbons for energy.

     

    This is a war we can win. We just need to commit to it and, within a very few years, we'll put out enough supply, and reduce demand sufficiently, that there will be a permanent thumb pressing down on hydrocarbon prices.

     

    Result. Prosperity.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Barry Crocker
    , contributor
    Comments (450) | Send Message
     
    Agreed 100%.
    5 Jul 2011, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    Your analysis of "it's just energy" is a bit short.... energy is a big one but the overall equation to a successful economy has many variables, and so many other things are just as, or more important than energy alone.

     

    Even though the "equation" for a prosperous economy is multi-faceted a couple of things (like energy) going in the right direction would make a world of difference.
    5 Jul 2011, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • LaughingTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (242) | Send Message
     
    The problem with renewable energy is, of course, storage. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources. To replace oil and gas you need a way to economically, efficiently and portably store the harvested energy. That technology does not exist, and all the wishing and HOPEing doesn't CHANGE that. Today's battery technology, while better all the time, is nowhere near up to the challenge. Until we crack that nut renewables will remain a niche energy source totally dependent on government subsidies to even marginally compete with burning hydrocarbons.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Energy is the biggest industry there is. By far. It's the elephant in the economic room. Cut energy costs and you create jobs and prosperity.

     

    You can't do it by drilling. You can't do it by excavating. All you can do that way is trade one oligarch for another.

     

    You can do it with efficiency. You can do it with energy harvesting. And you don't need the government to make it happen. It's going to happen anyway. The question is who makes it happen, who profits, and who creates prosperity.

     

    You can make that you or you can whinge and make that some Chinese or German entrepreneur. Your choice.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • Poor Texan
    , contributor
    Comments (3527) | Send Message
     
    "Drill baby drill just replaces a Saudi billionaire with a Texas billionaire -- the price still goes up as we try to grow."

     

    So if we get rid of the oil billionaires we won't have solar billionaires to replace them? No free lunch. Human nature demands that somebody gets their hand in the pie.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    Dana Blankenhorn
    You can't do it by drilling. You can't do it by excavating. All you can do that way is trade one oligarch for another.
    You can do it with efficiency. You can do it with energy harvesting.
    ======================...

     

    why energy harvesting is better than drilling
    why drilling creates oligarch
    why energy harvesting does not create oligarch
    is it possible for oligarch to do energy harvesting

     

    and finally
    oligarch is not efficient

     

    because of this E=m*(c in pow(2))
    or because of that Ek = m*(v in pow(2))/2
    5 Jul 2011, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    There are many technologies for storing, moving, and making up for alternative energy. Batteries are not the only answer by any means.

     

    We can store it underground as compressed air. We can store it above ground as lifted water. We can store it by turning it into hydrogen.

     

    The nonsense that we "can't store it so we shouldn't do it" is an excuse to just keep burning stuff that gets more scarce every time we burn more of it.
    5 Jul 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Solar energy doesn't work like oil energy.

     

    Solar energy is manufactured by devices. We don't have to pull it out of the ground and burn it.

     

    Once you own enough solar equipment to fuel your own self, you don't have to care about any billionaires, Texan, Saudi or otherwise. Yes, you'll be creating fortunes among those who saw the opportunity and took it, but if you're for capitalism that's supposed to be good, isn't it?
    5 Jul 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • LKofEnglish
    , contributor
    Comments (4385) | Send Message
     
    actually you could use the grid itself. it's called "selling back the electricity"! BO won't instigate policies that do that though--in fact his solar strategy is in fact that exact opposite--nor will that be presented by you or anyone else pining for their "strongman." what i want to know is "are there any independents left?" even an "independent thinker"? methinks you like all the rest will keep screaming "Batista! Batista!" long after whatever it is you think has been seen by all a vapid, unoriginal and lacking in any ability or inclination in how to fix anything at all.
    5 Jul 2011, 09:35 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Speaking of energy storage. Heres a link to an interesting project in the canary islands that uses elevated water as storage. Now, not every where has the ability in the terrain to utilize this system but it can be used in many places. The possibilities for efficient use of renewable energy do exist and when we put our minds to it we can and will reduce and eventually eliminate the need for fossil fuels.

     

    www.greenbang.com/proj...
    5 Jul 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    We had great prosperity in the 90's and energy didn't drive it.....

     

    Again, energy is important but de-regulate it if you want to fix it.

     

    People are greedy - tax'em on consumption that'll light up the economy.
    5 Jul 2011, 10:15 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Compressed air storage is extremely inneficient - it actually takes more energy to store it than you get back. Same with Hydrogen, but more so because hydrogen is much harder to store.

     

    Same with water but to a much lesser extent - and only possible in a few area with large hydro dams (this has been done for years btw when power demand is low and you need to keep the turbines running). It is inefficient but the power has to go somewhere or shut down. That only works when you have energy that would otherwise be wasted - in other words over-capacity.
    5 Jul 2011, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    You can already sell back power to the grid in most of the US and Europe. Been that way for quite a while, so not sure what your complaint here is. But that is not storing energy, it is just moving it.
    5 Jul 2011, 10:58 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    That only works if you have energy that would otherwise be totally wasted. By the time you spend 100 watts to send the water uphill, and then back down again, you get around 20-25 watts max.
    5 Jul 2011, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    No it does not - you cannot pour it into your gas tank. If all you make is short trips around town, then you can use an electric car, but for everyone else - including trucks and trains - you could not possibly carry enough batteries. Nor would you have enough raw materials to build enough batteries.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:02 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Dana Blankenhorn

     

    And BTW, What's your solution for Nightime?
    5 Jul 2011, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Mike8599

     

    "We had great prosperity in the 90's and energy didn't drive it....."

     

    Are you saying $18 per BBL oil had nothing to do with it?

     

    It had EVERYTHING to do with it.

     

    BTW, you made up the entire cost of the Gulf War with one single fill up.

     

    www.poetpatriot.com/ti...

     

    About $26 was your bill.

     

    How's that fcor return on equity?

     

    Clinton's "Economic Success" was due to it.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2814) | Send Message
     
    Dark matter will be harvested. It's a new, emerging green industry.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:27 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2814) | Send Message
     
    Dana Blankenhorn, the physics are just not with you and you know it. You have a degree in journalism and you are well trained in your art.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Spald_fr,

     

    Yes, very effective investment too.

     

    Both AONE and HEV down 80% or thereabouts in the last two years or so.

     

    Despite massive government subsidy money.

     

    Thanks for the Stimulus.

     

    My children appreciate the Debt.

     

    Obama will appreciate the votes.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    You have to pull the materials to make those solar devices out of the ground.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    There are many. Storage is one. Systems like Ivanpah, where salt is melted during the day and produces energy by night, is another.

     

    There are solutions. And there will be more of them. A lot of what caveman burners call problems are, in fact, opportunity calling.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The carrying cost of the stimulus is minimal in the out-years. It is being paid for in jobs that would not exist without it, and taxes paid on that economic activity. Even Republican economists now acknowledge the stimulus worked as intended.

     

    What isn't being paid for is the lost revenue from the 2001 tax cuts or the wars we started in the last decade. Bring rates back to 2000 levels and we're on a glide path to balance by 2016. Get out of the wars and we can get here even sooner.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    There are many sources for solar device materials. Silicon is one. Rare Earths are another. Organic compounds don't require mining at all.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The physics are very much with me. The Earth gets enough sunlight in just a few hours sufficient to power the whole world for a year. And it's not the only form of energy we can harvest.

     

    One of the most under-utilized forms of renewable energy is geothermal power. You may not have noted this, but we all live on a skim coat atop molten rock.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    Your right but that is the point of the whole configuration and is why the talk about storage in reference to battery technology is not always relevant. Remember, in the scenario in the Canary islands there will of course be excess energy and it will be used to pump and provide storage capacity. Wind supplementing Solar and vice versa. Get it?

     

    Also, from wikipedia "Pumped storage recovers about 75% of the energy consumed, and is currently the most cost effective form of mass power storage." So the 25w from 100w sounds incorrect, but maybe I am just wrong.

     

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    6 Jul 2011, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    The efficiency depends on the scale of the pumping system. Large ones - like the 48" & 60" lines used by Los Angeles - are much more efficient. A small one can be much worse.

     

    But I don't believe that 75% figure for most systems, unless you are pumping straight up into storage. In modern pumps, about the absolute best is in the 75-85% range. But then you have to get the water back down to the generator, which has around 80-90% efficiency. You also have to consider friction losses in the lines, which can be anywhere from 5% to 50%.

     

    So I would say that 60-65% is achievable, 75% would be a stretch. But all that said, a typical battery is around 85-90% efficient, and it is easier to store a million gallons of water than 1000 tons of battery.
    6 Jul 2011, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • cbc
    , contributor
    Comments (411) | Send Message
     
    What do I not understand? 60 -65 % is achievable but you get 25 watts of recovery power on 100 watts of pumping? That is not a 25% return?
    6 Jul 2011, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Typical in a small system is 20-25% - we have set up a few micro hydro systems that pumped up to around 300-400 feet more. As I noted, in larger systems you can approach 65%+.

     

    But the obvious problem with pumping water back up the hill is that you need (a) a hill, and (b) lots of water. Not all places have that. I suspect that in the future the most viable large scale solar will be thermal, as it can be stored somewhat effectively. But that might also be expensive - digging large underground storage chambers for molten salt in granite will not be a cheap project.
    6 Jul 2011, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    There are systems like the one you describe, using compressed air, already operating in the American South.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Yes there are - two of them. I never said they did not work, I said that they are not very efficient - on the order of 25% or so at best.

     

    Around 1910 when the Jacobs wind generators were in wide use on rural farms, someone came up with a tower and pulley arrangement to lift heavy weights to replace batteries, and it worked, sort of.
    7 Jul 2011, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    1980 - energy didn't do it.... globalization and tech did. If you remember the great Alan Greenspan popped the tech bubble and sent us into a recession in 1999 when he raised the interest rates at the same time gas prices went up - genius. Unfortunately Clinton didn't do anything but play with interns, and work on his re-election. If Clinton had the magic bullet we'd probably be in much better shape.
    7 Jul 2011, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    The tech bubble would have popped with or without Greenspan, and he had little or nothing to do with "leading us into recession". The end of "irrational exuberance" is what popped the bubble.
    8 Jul 2011, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The precipitating event was Time Inc.'s acquisition of AOL, which put a top price on Internet assets. Just as the Facebook IPO will end the social bubble to Earth.
    8 Jul 2011, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    I disagree - if you are right Greenspan's reaction to the beginning of the recession in '99 which occurred before Bush took office was to raise interest rates - genius.

     

    His reaction drove us deeper and gave Bush the tax cuts he wanted.
    8 Jul 2011, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Mike8599

     

    Recession in 1999?

     

    Are you serious?

     

    Ever heard the term,

     

    "Party like it's 1999?"

     

    How old are you, or not?

     

    Were your born in 1985, or did you die in 1999?
    8 Jul 2011, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    Greenspan started making corrections that led to the recession in early 2000's look it up.

     

    Try to the keep the name calling and negative comments to a minimum - it tends to show immaturity and I'd like to believe I'm speaking with someone who can converse intelligently.
    9 Jul 2011, 08:17 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    mike8599,

     

    No name calling, just a little humour mixed with my confusion as to your claims.

     

    Funny every time there's a bubble, people blame the Fed's cheap money policies (Both Greenspan & Bernanke) yet everytime the Fed acts to slow a bubble, they get blamed for causing it to burst thereby ending the party.

     

    I would not call the end of irrartional exhuberance ( Internet/Tech bubble) a recession.

     

    The tech bubble deserved to burst and should have been no surprise to anybody.

     

    That combined with the Events of Sept 11, are what may have led to a real recession rather than the acts of the Fed.

     

    Not saying the Fed has not been subjected to much deserved criticism on many issues.

     

    But to blame every swing in the economic business cycle would be Immature.

     

    Kids always want more Kool-Aid, then always cry when it gets taken away.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:52 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Those corrections of Greenspan did NOT cause the recession. They may be sped up when it started, but it would have happened anyway with the massive bubble bursting.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    Windun33,

     

    Thank You,

     

    My point entirely.
    9 Jul 2011, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (589) | Send Message
     
    I would not, and have not blamed the fed for every recession - not sure why you would elude to that. The original comment was talking about prosperity of the 90's and my mention that I believe Greenspan caused the end. All in all it is fairly obvious cause and effect scenario, if you remember the time - Greenspan lamented on the tech sector for quite some time before raising rates at the same time energy prices jumped. It was one of the biggest blunders I ever saw, although an easy play. One reference is:

     

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

     

    And the fact that you don't believe it doesn't make it so.... but I admire your tenacity.
    9 Jul 2011, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    8599,

     

    My comments mostly related to dates vs events.

     

    "The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001"

     

    "From 2000 to 2001, the Federal Reserve in a move to quell the stock market, made successive interest rate increases"

     

    Above quotes from your link.
    Just don't see any 1999

     

    It was downhill after that (2001)

     

    As far as energy prices.

     

    Road trip to Florida Mar 1999.

     

    Fuel stop in SC 0.549 cents per gallon, the lowest I have ever paid in my adult lifetime.
    Less than the 1970's despite 25 years of inflation

     

    If you belive Greenspan caused the recession, was it because he allowed the internet bubble to propagate, or tried to slow it down?

     

    Are you saying the internet bubble was sustainable had he never raised rates?
    9 Jul 2011, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    STOP bLameing OBAMA, We put him there!!!
    WE are losing to the world.
    WE have made an INDUSTRY of education and our kids today are not being educated the ones that want to learn can't afford the damn tuition.
    WE stop making things in this country, everything is made elsewhere. I remember people use to buy MADE IN AMERICA today no one cares..
    So before we blame OBAMA, two things need to change. EVERYONE that wants a top flight education should be able to get AFFORD one.
    Colleges Shouldnt be UNAFFORDABLE, AN EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO OUR FUTURE PROGRESS.
    ANY Corporation, that produces over seas, pays HIGEHR taxes on PROFITS and GET NO tax BREAKS.
    IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN COMPANY MAKE IT HERE..
    WE HAVE THE PEOPLE...
    WE NEED A TOUGH PRESIDENT TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS.
    OBAMA SO FAR HAS FAILED AT BEING TOUGH.
    IT"S 3AM and he is not picking up the phone.
    WHAT WOULD HILLARY DO, IF WE choose her???
    5 Jul 2011, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Big boats take time to turn around. Every crisis President in our history was attacked for timidity. Conservatives hated Nixon, liberal Democrats were exasperated by FDR, true progressives were mad as hell at TR, and radical Republicans hated Lincoln.

     

    It's the nature of a crisis.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2814) | Send Message
     
    ["Unemployment suffers today not because of, but independent of, Wall Street's success."]

     

    A president promotes the health of labor. A politician promotes the health of labor unions.
    5 Jul 2011, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4296) | Send Message
     
    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
    But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
    Julius Caesar (I, ii, 140-141)
    5 Jul 2011, 07:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    So you say you want a revolution? Well, we know. We all want to change the world.

     

    Oh, heck. Lennonists unite! www.lyrics007.com/The%...
    5 Jul 2011, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
     
    Rich is correct. Although there are several factors that contribute to the total unemployment problem, the lack of any type of justice is certainly at the top.

     

    It discourages foreign direct investment. It discourages small business owners (who know they will never "own" congressmen). And most importantly it discourages the national belief of "hard work and fair play".

     

    Thirty years ago I believed that the only thing necessary for success in the USA was hard work. Today I believe that we live in a very corrupt society and the government is determining who will enjoy the fruits of "success". The financial elite, government bureaucrats, and politicians are the chosen ones.

     

    Our government has been captured by the very rich, corporations, public unions and corrupt politicians. And those three groups have no vested interest in seeing mainstreet America do anything other than survive.

     

    I don't blame Obama for the financial crisis. I do blame him for totally mishandling the crisis he inherited. And quite frankly he deserves the blame. Larry Summers? Mary Shapiro? Tim Geithner? This was change we can believe in? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi handing out political favors disguised as stimulus? Proposing budgets that borrow 40 cents of every dollar to be spent?

     

    Total lack of justice, total lack of using common sense. Thats what has put Obama in the mess he's in. But he has nowhere to look other than the bathroom mirror for his predicament.

     

    I go back to one of his more straight-forward campaign promises - closing Gitmo. Its one that I didn't agree with, but its also something that could be accomplished if the President gave the order. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he had followed through and closed it. It just appears that he is a well meaning law professor that found a clever way to become elected president. How someone with a law background could allow no prosecutions of guys like Fuld, Mazzillo, the London AIG guy, etc is beyond my comprehension. I think it just comes down to being tough enough as opposed to being "smart".
    5 Jul 2011, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • Jason Rines (iThinkBig)
    , contributor
    Comments (2229) | Send Message
     
    Well put David. Best of luck to you and yours over the next decade.
    5 Jul 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The President said he'd be Reagan and turned out to be Nixon.

     

    Boo-hoo.

     

    You don't go directly from Bush to a liberal Reagan. The boat takes time to turn around. Nixon is an absolute necessary step. Just as we needed McKinley to get to Teddy Roosevelt, and Nixon himself to get to Reagan. (Oh, and the FDR of the first term wasn't nearly as liberal as folks make him out to be -- the accumulated deficits of his first two terms were relatively small compared to those created to fuel the war.)
    5 Jul 2011, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    If things are so bad here in the US, then why do a million people a year from 175+ countries get US citizenship? And why do less than 30,000 a year leave - the majority to Canada?

     

    Any recent immigrant will tell you that the US has become a nation of whiners - and you just proved that.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Look, most of the growth and job gains over the past decade were in:

     

    1) Finance 2) Real Estate

     

    Neither one of these were genuine organic economic engines, they were artificial bubbles blown, engineered, and then popped. Financial engineering does absolutely nothing for society other than siphon away money away from productive endeavors, and into black pools where it gets shuffled back and forth and the top skimmed off. I don't want to hear the typical nonsense about market makers, arbitrage, price discovery, and providing liquidity.

     

    Wall Street is there to ASSIST the economy, not the other way around. It is not the epicenter of the universe. Instead of holding clowns accountable, they are courted and feared.

     

    We need our kids to grow up to become engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs, because they are the true drivers of REAL economic growth. Not some spoiled hedge fund brats or the clowns sitting at the prop desk trying to figure out ways of scamming their own clients.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Every recovery is different. The last decade was about real estate and finance. The previous one was about technology and the Internet. The one before that was based on oil and financial manipulation.

     

    The next recovery won't be driven by consumers. It will be driven by producers of energy conservation and of harvested energy. Put a thumb down on the price of oil and the problem is solved.

     

    That is happening, despite the policy claims of the Republicans and the policies endorsed by Democrats. That's happening, organically, within the economy. Our choice is to either slow it down and avoid recovery for a while, speed it up and get recovery quickly, or do nothing and watch it happen by itself over the course of this decade.
    5 Jul 2011, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • neutrinoman
    , contributor
    Comments (700) | Send Message
     
    The current failure of "stimulus" policies is Obama's fault. But that's not the deeper root of it.

     

    Has anyone here read Morgenson and Rosner's Reckless Endangerment? (Morgenson is a reporter for the New York Times, so you'd think Frank Rich and that debt-peddling witch doctor from Princeton would read what she writes.) The problem is the wall of denial created by the media, the liberals, and the Washington political class of both parties around the public institutions that, for a generation, enabled criminally starving productive parts of our economy of capital and massive overborrowing so we could live beyond our decaying means. These institutions are the Fed and Congress.

     

    It's government, under the sway of deranged politicians and phony gurus, that created our current system of crony, bailout "capitalism." Until people like Frank Rich get this, no real change. Maybe we need a revolution, or a glasnost-like leader, to do it.
    5 Jul 2011, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Horse hockey.

     

    The fiscal problem, so far as it exists, is caused by wars we didn't pay for and tax cuts that didn't stimulate. Do nothing and the budget balances in 5 years.

     

    You don't know what revolution is. It's violent. And you don't know what glasnost is, either. It's surrender. Don't toss around words whose meanings you don't understand, please.
    5 Jul 2011, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Stephen Alpher
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
     
    Brilliant essay. Good to have Frank Rich back.
    5 Jul 2011, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    My last comment for the day. I was ina coffee shop recently and listened in while a father explained to his son why he should choose whatever profession they where discussing. As i listened in, i heard the kid said i want to go to wall street! I listened intently as to what the fathers advice was and the old man gave his son the most profound thing i've heard in a while. He said "son, wall street is the major reason this country is in the mess we are in today, i want you to go on and do great things with your life, wall street creates nothing! choose a profession where you can impact peoples lives in a good way.
    Enough said. We have allowed WALL STREET to manipulate everything and we on main street are poorer for it..
    GOD BLESS US ALL......................
    5 Jul 2011, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic Knight
    , contributor
    Comments (3601) | Send Message
     
    Duke LLC

     

    I'm afraid you've got a point. Wall Street is one of the four big pillars of career aspiration of ours today. The other three being: federal government, military, and Hollywood (entertainment).

     

    What else have I missed, if any? The above 4 corresponds well with America's blazing obsessions: guns, sex, entertainment, and last but not least, politics.

     

    Have you seen the America's Got Talent lately? "Hey, YOU are going to Hollywood!".

     

    Cheers
    5 Jul 2011, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    To say that Wall Street creates nothing shows such complete ignorance that the guy should give up his kid for adoption.
    5 Jul 2011, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33,

     

    Please educate, what has wall street created but greed. The street creates wealth, but for whom? Also how much is too much. Trust me when i say this, i think many people feel the way this man did.
    There are lot's of honest, hard working people that are now forced to work longer than they expected to have to work. The culture of reward when things are good but no responsibly when things are bad has to stop.
    Tell me again why oil traders are allowed to speculate on oil futures on margin. While their speculation can force prices up with no real reason.
    So if you are here to educate please go ahead..
    6 Jul 2011, 12:06 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    Do you even know what "Wall Street" is or does? Do you think it consists only of a dozen or giant vampire squids? Last time I saw a list, for 2009, there were about 60,000 firms that called it home.

     

    Wall street did not "create" any greed - the greed was already there. And there was plenty of greed to go around, or the PIIGS and the Euro would not be in trouble.

     

    You apparently do not know how futures work, or what they are, or why with no futures you would have a real mess. While it might be good to raise margin requirements a little, futures would still have to exist in some form.

     

    The "Really Really TBTF" banks like GS should probably be broken up to seperate the functions so that you don't have them in the futures markets for metals and also owning the warehouses for those same metals. But to put out blanket indictments of Wall Street is just wrong.

     

    And if Wall Street went away, who would that help?
    6 Jul 2011, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    Wall Street takes more than it gives. It needs downsizing. It's getting downsizing.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3360) | Send Message
     
    DukeLLC,

     

    Just because you lost money on unviable Green Energy Investments does not make it the Fault of Wall St.
    6 Jul 2011, 12:18 AM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    1980XLS, Didn't lose money on anything for the most part i invest in mutual funds. What im commenting on is what im seeing and reading everyday. We are on the wrong path and wall street "too big to fail" and government is leading us down this path. Im an old man so hopefully i will be spared but for my kids and yours.
    May the force be with them, its only going to get much tougher.
    6 Jul 2011, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3554) | Send Message
     
    Think some people missed the part above where Duke said he was an ex Wall Street employee and he's disgusted by what his industry has turned into.
    6 Jul 2011, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    WIndsunn and i mean this with no disrespect, i wish in your long life you are as sucessful as i was in mine. I worked on wall street and was very involved during the tech boom and one day i woke up and i didnt know my kids, my family. It appears while i was concerned with the almighty dollar they grew up without me.
    So trust me when i say i know wall street, i was part of the problem then. I am no longer part of the problem, im just old enough now to see what is really going on, trust me when i tell you. More people need to start discussing these problems before its too late for our future.
    6 Jul 2011, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4431) | Send Message
     
    I am not arguing that many firms on Wall Street were not taken over by greed fever and utter stupidity - I am saying that the FUNCTIONS that Wall Street performs are needed. Kind of like you might think your local water company sucks, but either way people need the water - so fix the company, don't get rid of the water supply.
    6 Jul 2011, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Dana Blankenhorn
    , contributor
    Comments (13583) | Send Message
     
    The downsizing adjustment you speak of has begun, and most of it is being done by the industry. Now if we can just get more indictments against bad actors...and meaningful regulations to assure transparency for all market participants.
    6 Jul 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Duke LLC
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33, then we both are saying the same thing. I'm not saying wall street needs to go but it needs to be fixed. I left because to be honest, the money that i was making i didn't feel i deserved and no matter how big the house or vacation home i felt something was amiss.
    The street is all about money, they make money when they are right and some still make lots of cash when they are wrong.
    Are country used to be great, it's no longer as great. We need to change our focus and start helping those that can't help themselves, make sure that our GOOD teachers are compensated to continue excellent work, let's make sure our schools are once again number one and lastly let's take care of these kids when they come home from war. What's going on in this country can make a person cry.
    We are more about the KARDASHIANS then we are about that soldies who just came back home on one leg.
    LET 's all make this COUNTRY GREAT ONCE AGAIN..
    6 Jul 2011, 12:05 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs