The US Federal "Cash for Clunkers" Program

[John Ranalletta]

That's all there is to it.

 

That's what those clowns inside the beltway seem to keep thinking...

That's all there is to it, a billion here a billion there... Hell, we lose that much in just rounding up the numbers to talk about it. Nobody will ever notice, and we'll look like GODS to "those people."

 

Don't sweat it, man! It's only numbers in a computer. Oh, in case it's not obvious, a Fed balance sheet asset is money taxpayers owe the Fed.

[upflying]

Last night, I spoke to woman who took advantage of the clunker program as she stood proudly next to her new Dodge Journey.

She said she got $9,000 off MSRP and purchased it for $14,000. She had a 14 yr old car she traded in. She said the $9,000 included the $4,500 clunker cash and a $4,500 rebate from Chrysler.

Noticeably missing was the customary "dealer discount" in her description of the deal. I didn't ask her about that.

I think dealers are using the clunker money as a substitute for offering a "dealer discount". As far as the dealer is concerned, they sold the Journey for full MSRP. I would never accept a deal like that.

I noticed my local car dealer lots are now barren of fuel efficient cars. Unless you want an SUV or pickup, there is nothing left in the inventory.

Someone is making a lot of money!!

 

[chrisolson]

... Someone is making a lot of money!!

 

Sounds a lot like the economy got stimulated Hard to blame the govt or the dealer for a consumer who doesn't bargain. I'm not sad that dealers might actually make some money during this program because that means the folks who work there still have a job and can pay their rent and bills.

[upflying]

Yep, short term consequences is the economy is stimulated. Long term consequences is high inflation and high taxes.

[Lawman]

Yep, short term consequences is the economy is stimulated. Long term consequences is high inflation and high taxes.

 

I wish that were the only long term consequences...

[Bill_Walker]

Yep, short term consequences is the economy is stimulated. Long term consequences is high inflation and high taxes.

 

And a bunch of low-mileage, high-pollution vehicles were replaced by higher-mileage, less-polluting vehicles.

[John Ranalletta]

Yep, short term consequences is the economy is stimulated. Long term consequences is high inflation and high taxes.

 

And a bunch of low-mileage, high-pollution vehicles were replaced by higher-mileage, less-polluting vehicles.

If destroying cars before their useful life is over is beneficial, then shouldn't we just start destroying all kinds of useful assets in order to stimulate new purchases? Why don't we destroy all of our useful assets before they are worn out and rebuild from scratch. That would generate immense need for new purchases... true. Yet what is forgotten is that it would annihilate our aggregate amount of existing productive assets. And that's what those who fall into this logical trap miss. They forget to think about changes in the amount of existing productive assets, staring only at new purchases.

 

With Cash for Clunkers, Team USA is destroying its own productive assets, cheering the resultant growth of new economic activity (all the talk of multiplier effects on the economy) while forgetting the reduction in aggregate existing productive assets caused by the destruction. There are far more intelligent ways to have new economic activity via new purchases of productive assets, without annihilating our existing assets.

Let's blow up a coal-fired power plant today if green is your goal.

[tallman]

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing.

...but, you're not subsidizing him to burn down his old house.

 

 

They wouldn't burn it.

Instead they would fill it with concrete, then demolish it, and then turn it into an OAR.

Here is the 136 page rule set dealers must understand and follow.

 

Hmmm...If it take 136 pages of rules to cover trading a car, the proposed government health plan enrollee manual will have more pages than the LA phone book.

 

 

Got a sneak peek at some of the proposed Health Rules.

They're going to fill sick people w/concrete and then sink them offshore creating more OAT's. (Offshore Artificial Reefs).

Expensive, but very few patients will return for follow-up care which will save a bunch of money in the long run.

[Lawman]

Yep, short term consequences is the economy is stimulated. Long term consequences is high inflation and high taxes.

 

And a bunch of low-mileage, high-pollution vehicles were replaced by higher-mileage, less-polluting vehicles.

If destroying cars before their useful life is over is beneficial, then shouldn't we just start destroying all kinds of useful assets in order to stimulate new purchases? Why don't we destroy all of our useful assets before they are worn out and rebuild from scratch. That would generate immense need for new purchases... true. Yet what is forgotten is that it would annihilate our aggregate amount of existing productive assets. And that's what those who fall into this logical trap miss. They forget to think about changes in the amount of existing productive assets, staring only at new purchases.

 

With Cash for Clunkers, Team USA is destroying its own productive assets, cheering the resultant growth of new economic activity (all the talk of multiplier effects on the economy) while forgetting the reduction in aggregate existing productive assets caused by the destruction. There are far more intelligent ways to have new economic activity via new purchases of productive assets, without annihilating our existing assets.

Let's blow up a coal-fired power plant today if green is your goal.

 

:rofl:

 

If it was really about stimulating the economy the government could just pay my income taxes for me and my wife could easily put that amount back into circulation...

[John Ranalletta]

So far, auto buyers in the U.S. have signed contracts to trade in 358,851 clunkers for new vehicles, stimulated in large part by government rebates of up to $4,500.

 

AP reports that most of the trade ins have been pickups/SUVs. And what are they driving ff the lots in exchange?

 

1. Toyota Corolla

2. Honda Civic

3. Ford Focus

4. Toyota Camry

5. Toyota Prius

6. Hyundai Elantra

7. Ford Escape (front-wheel-drive)

8. Honda Fit

9. Nissan Versa

10. Honda CR-V (four-wheel-drive)

 

Interestingly, there are 3 Hondas, 2 Fords, 2 Toyotas — but no General Motors or Chryslers on the list . . .

So, 358k people who probably had little or no car loan balance, now have a car payment.

 

And that helps the economy how?

[Boone60]

So far, auto buyers in the U.S. have signed contracts to trade in 358,851 clunkers for new vehicles, stimulated in large part by government rebates of up to $4,500.

 

AP reports that most of the trade ins have been pickups/SUVs. And what are they driving ff the lots in exchange?

 

1. Toyota Corolla

2. Honda Civic

3. Ford Focus

4. Toyota Camry

5. Toyota Prius

6. Hyundai Elantra

7. Ford Escape (front-wheel-drive)

8. Honda Fit

9. Nissan Versa

10. Honda CR-V (four-wheel-drive)

 

Interestingly, there are 3 Hondas, 2 Fords, 2 Toyotas — but no General Motors or Chryslers on the list . . .

So, 358k people who probably had little or no car loan balance, now have a car payment.

 

And that helps the economy how?

 

Right off the top, isn't the Toyota Corolla built in California?

The Green Bay, Wisconsin Toyota dealership is locally owned (just spent $30 million on a new building) and employs local residents.

I suppose if they have good sales, then the local economy will benefit.

[Dave McReynolds]

Right off the top, isn't the Toyota Corolla built in California?

 

It was in the news the other day that Toyota will probably close their one remaining auto plant in CA (which I believe is also the only remaining auto plant in CA, of any brand).

[Bullett]

"Honk if I helped pay for your car"

 

HONK HONK HONK

 

Here is my latest purchase from BMW.

 

 

Thank everyone who was willing to get my old pick up off the road.

 

You're welcome, Bud. Nice ride, BTW.

[motoguy128]

So far, auto buyers in the U.S. have signed contracts to trade in 358,851 clunkers for new vehicles, stimulated in large part by government rebates of up to $4,500.

 

AP reports that most of the trade ins have been pickups/SUVs. And what are they driving ff the lots in exchange?

 

1. Toyota Corolla

2. Honda Civic

3. Ford Focus

4. Toyota Camry

5. Toyota Prius

6. Hyundai Elantra

7. Ford Escape (front-wheel-drive)

8. Honda Fit

9. Nissan Versa

10. Honda CR-V (four-wheel-drive)

 

Interestingly, there are 3 Hondas, 2 Fords, 2 Toyotas — but no General Motors or Chryslers on the list . . .

So, 358k people who probably had little or no car loan balance, now have a car payment.

 

And that helps the economy how?

 

There are 3 Toyotas on the list.

 

 

That list closely represents the best selling vehciles in the compact, sub compact, midsize and compact SUV class of over the last few years. I don't see any controversy. The few GM products that qualify, are not top sellers, and don't get as good of mileage as most of those listed. I don;t think Chevy has enough Malibu's in inventory to get onto that list. Sadly, the Chevy Equinox came too late and in too small of numbers to make the list as well.

 

 

For Honda, the Civic and the CR-V are on the same basic platform. the CR-V is made in 3 different factories for Norht America. It was probably easy to adjust production runs to accomidate. The Civic is already their higest volume vehcile and has been a top 5 seller for a while.

 

The Corolla has been in the top 5 for some time now. I think they assemble them in Canada and other in Japan. The Camry is assembled in the US and has been the #1 selling car the last couple years.

 

 

Chrysler sells very few vehicles that qualify... (Caliber and Jeep Compass???), and none are top sellers.

 

 

I just traded in my Versa. I really wanted to like it, but ultimately decided it was a cheap piece of crap, that was CLEARLY built in Mexico... but it still had it's merits. I bought myself a CR-V to replace it. Huge improvement...although it is twice the price, it clearly shows in every detail.

[Selden]

There are 3 Toyotas on the list.

 

That list closely represents the best selling vehciles in the compact, sub compact, midsize and compact SUV class of over the last few years. I don't see any controversy. The few GM products that qualify, are not top sellers, and don't get as good of mileage as most of those listed. I don;t think Chevy has enough Malibu's in inventory to get onto that list. Sadly, the Chevy Equinox came too late and in too small of numbers to make the list as well.

 

For Honda, the Civic and the CR-V are on the same basic platform. the CR-V is made in 3 different factories for Norht America. It was probably easy to adjust production runs to accomidate. The Civic is already their higest volume vehcile and has been a top 5 seller for a while.

 

The Corolla has been in the top 5 for some time now. I think they assemble them in Canada and other in Japan. The Camry is assembled in the US and has been the #1 selling car the last couple years.

 

Chrysler sells very few vehicles that qualify... (Caliber and Jeep Compass???), and none are top sellers.

 

I just traded in my Versa. I really wanted to like it, but ultimately decided it was a cheap piece of crap, that was CLEARLY built in Mexico... but it still had it's merits. I bought myself a CR-V to replace it. Huge improvement... although it is twice the price, it clearly shows in every detail.

The auto industry is basically international, and "where manufactured" is an almost meaningless term. The Ford Focus and Fusion are built in Mexico. Chrysler minivans in Canada. Kia and Hyundai have plants in Georgia and Alabama, while BMW and Mercedes have plants in South Carolina and Alabama. Although assembled in the USA, almost every single component in a Buell motorcycle is manufactured in other countries.

 

The big question mark now about the CARS program is what will happen to sales for the rest of the year. If it really worked, a moribund industry was jump-started; if it didn't, then sales of 750,000 vehicles were shifted forward to July-August.

[Quinn]

How many products that people buy at Walmart are made in the US? We're in the buying and selling business, not the manufactoring business. The dealers and their staff made money, the distributors made money; we're happy. The home office overseas made money and got big bonuses and they're happy too. Maybe we can buy some of their stock in our mutual fund mixes and get happy as well.

 

 

[David]

Actually, we manufacturer far more than China does!

[John Ranalletta]

How many products that people buy at Walmart are made in the US? We're in the buying and selling business, not the manufactoring business. The dealers and their staff made money, the distributors made money; we're happy. The home office overseas made money and got big bonuses and they're happy too. Maybe we can buy some of their stock in our mutual fund mixes and get happy as well.

 

Happy? Here's happy: Dealers have filed for about $2.58 billion dollars that the US government has to "borrow". Since we know the government never pays down its loans, let's assume a steady interest rate of 4.26% (current 30-yr bond rate).

 

If paying China $ 109,908,000/year interest forever which essentially transfers the next American generation's wealth offshore makes you happy, you should be ecstatic.

 

[upflying]

The government does "pay down" it's loans, debts and obligations through inflation. Standby.

[John Ranalletta]

The government does "pay down" it's loans, debts and obligations through inflation. Standby.

Oh, you mean 4% isn't the highest interest rate we'll pay?

[Lawman]

We create subprime mortagages so people that can't afford houses can buy one. We confiscate money from those that work and use it to keep bondholders whole. We refuse to force bondholders to swap debt for equity in the failing companies they finanace. We are unable to confiscate enough money so we sell bonds which are promises to confiscate more of our kids money once they start working. Now we use more confiscated money to subsidize the purchase of new cars for people that can't afford them and then we'll be surprised when repossessions skyrocket next year creating losses for those who financed them. We tell people they are entitled to the best health care money can buy even though they can't pay for it...

And then we blame capitalism for these problems and convince people that it doesn't work and and that the government can provide better. We deserve what we get.

[decorbin]

Latest thing today....the jobs created or saved by this "innovative" program. Wonder if they will point out that the jobs are lost when sales drop for the rest of the year?

[motoguy128]

We create subprime mortagages so people that can't afford houses can buy one.

Nearly half the workforce simply can't earn enough combined with over inflated housing markets and lack of affordable housing. Greedy developers convince local governments to build more profitable, larger homes because they will have a larger tax base.

 

Further, we perpetuate a system that undervalues unskilled labor, and fails to create incentives for people to work instead or live off entitlement programs. Some folks want to reduce entitlement (which I support), but yet are unwilling to raise minimum wage and cite free market principals or supply and demand. Yet on the upper 10% of the pay scale, I question whether the same supply and demand is followed when wages are determined. I seriously doubt that if a corporate CEO was offered 1MM instead of 10MM, that it would be impossible to find anyone qualifed to fill that position. What ever happend to doing a job because you enjoy it, and the sense of accomplishment and prestige it brings. This concept is well understood by teachers, law enforcement and military.

[John Ranalletta]

Latest thing today....the jobs created or saved by this "innovative" program. Wonder if they will point out that the jobs are lost when sales drop for the rest of the year?

Here

[EffBee]

Nearly half the workforce simply can't earn enough combined with over inflated housing markets and lack of affordable housing.9

So, if 70% of Americans own a home, where do you get the 50% figure? As for those who currently can’t afford a new home, prices haven’t been this low, nor the selection this great, in 15 years. They’re just waiting or, if not, then many could earn their down payment if they would work more than 40 hours a week, or took a second job. I worked 66 hours a week at two jobs for 5 years, and lived in extreme modesty in order to save the down payment for my first home, and I made damned sure that the down was enough to bring my payment down to something I could afford. Additionally, I didn’t buy my “ideal” home in my “ideal” neighborhood. That is a process that is earned, one growth step at a time. But why earn it if somehow the government is going to “give” it to you?

 

Greedy developers convince local governments to build more profitable, larger homes because they will have a larger tax base.

Like any other product, houses are built to meet demand. If a demand is not being met, that means there’s a perfect business opportunity for someone such as you to move in and provide what the market wants, while simultaneously securing an even greater financial future for yourself and your family. Oh, but that would take risk, and people who complain about the successes of those who take risks are usually not themselves risk takers. They’re simply, uh, complainers.

 

Further, we perpetuate a system that undervalues unskilled labor

The value of unskilled labor is set by the free market, i.e. are you gonna pay me $150/hr to dig a ditch, or are you going to pay the lowest price that will get the job done to your satisfaction?

 

and fails to create incentives for people to work instead or live off entitlement programs.

Get rid of the entitlement programs. Problem over.

 

Yet on the upper 10% of the pay scale, I question whether the same supply and demand is followed when wages are determined. I seriously doubt that if a corporate CEO was offered 1MM instead of 10MM, that it would be impossible to find anyone qualifed to fill that position.

Business is about profits. Available corporate executives are overlooked and bypassed daily because they are not considered “qualified.” The ones who are, come at a price. Life-saving heart surgery for your child. Do you want someone who will do it for $1 or do you want someone whose track record says he’s worth $10? The rest of the argument is just zeroes.

 

What ever happened to doing a job because you enjoy it, and the sense of accomplishment and prestige it brings. This concept is well understood by teachers, law enforcement and military.

Would you do your job for less money, and just for the enjoyment? How much less? Are you willing to tell your boss? And how about that last raise you were offered (or pursued). . .the one that elevated your standard of living based on your performance and accomplishments, and further separated you from those who chose not to put their noses to the grindstone, go into tuition debt and pay it off in the long term in order to become engineers? Did you turn it down?

 

 

[Boone60]

Since we know the government never pays down its loans, let's assume a steady interest rate of 4.26% (current 30-yr bond rate).

 

We were paying down about a decade ago:

 

[Boone60]

Nearly half the workforce simply can't earn enough combined with over inflated housing markets and lack of affordable housing.9

So, if 70% of Americans own a home, where do you get the 50% figure? As for those who currently can’t afford a new home, prices haven’t been this low, nor the selection this great, in 15 years. They’re just waiting or, if not, then many could earn their down payment if they would work more than 40 hours a week, or took a second job. I worked 66 hours a week at two jobs for 5 years, and lived in extreme modesty in order to save the down payment for my first home, and I made damned sure that the down was enough to bring my payment down to something I could afford. Additionally, I didn’t buy my “ideal” home in my “ideal” neighborhood. That is a process that is earned, one growth step at a time. But why earn it if somehow the government is going to “give” it to you?

 

Greedy developers convince local governments to build more profitable, larger homes because they will have a larger tax base.

Like any other product, houses are built to meet demand. If a demand is not being met, that means there’s a perfect business opportunity for someone such as you to move in and provide what the market wants, while simultaneously securing an even greater financial future for yourself and your family. Oh, but that would take risk, and people who complain about the successes of those who take risks are usually not themselves risk takers. They’re simply, uh, complainers.

 

Further, we perpetuate a system that undervalues unskilled labor

The value of unskilled labor is set by the free market, i.e. are you gonna pay me $150/hr to dig a ditch, or are you going to pay the lowest price that will get the job done to your satisfaction?

 

and fails to create incentives for people to work instead or live off entitlement programs.

Get rid of the entitlement programs. Problem over.

 

Yet on the upper 10% of the pay scale, I question whether the same supply and demand is followed when wages are determined. I seriously doubt that if a corporate CEO was offered 1MM instead of 10MM, that it would be impossible to find anyone qualifed to fill that position.

Business is about profits. Available corporate executives are overlooked and bypassed for higher positions on a daily basis because they are not considered “qualified” for those positions. The ones who are, come at a price. Life-saving heart surgery for your child. Do you want someone who will do it for $1 or do you want someone whose track record says he’s worth $10? The rest of the argument is just zeroes.

 

What ever happened to doing a job because you enjoy it, and the sense of accomplishment and prestige it brings. This concept is well understood by teachers, law enforcement and military.

Would you do your job for less money, and just for the enjoyment? How much less? Are you willing to tell your boss? And how about that last raise you were offered (or pursued). . .the one that elevated your standard of living based on your performance and accomplishments, and further separated you from those who chose not to put their noses to the grindstone, go into tuition debt and pay it off in the long term in order to become engineers? Did you turn it down?

 

 

I agree with you about the housing situation.

 

There are some variables in the labor market that don't allow it to actually be a free market. We have a fixed number of jobs available and a variable labor supply supplemented by foreign workers here legally or illegally. Government involvement that buys jobs for a particular area through local taxation special deals and tax incremental funding, tax policy that allows easy transfer of jobs to low-cost foreign nations, Government funding of harbors and a Navy to help facilitate the shipping of products to the USA, and Federal Reserve policy that has been used to control inflation including the expense of wages.

 

The large amounts of stockholder money being paid for corporate wages is due to a lack of effective recourse available to the stockholders.

[Whip]

Fixed it for ya...

 

[John Ranalletta]

Not so fast, Whip. This deficit's got elephant footprints all over it. It's not a "dem" vs "us" problem. It's a failure by both parties to put the punch bowl away before the party-ers imbibe too much.

 

If we'd let people simply pay for their mistakes w/o bailouts (corporations included), we'd not have this problem as often as we do.

[Lawman]

Fernando,

You are so old hat...That way of thinking is dead and gone...You'd better get with the new program or you'll find yourself in serious trouble..

[russell_bynum]

Further, we perpetuate a system that undervalues unskilled labor

The value of unskilled labor is set by the free market, i.e. are you gonna pay me $150/hr to dig a ditch, or are you going to pay the lowest price that will get the job done to your satisfaction?

 

That whole argument has always cracked me up.

 

I worked for minimum wage for a while...in my first couple of jobs. I was unskilled and I knew it. The only thing I had going for me was my work ethic. Other than that, they could bring in anyone off the street and after a couple of days training them, they'd know what I knew. That was my incentive to bust my ass that much harder. One job, I left because they started hiring illegals and paying them in cash under the table and giving the legal workers really bad schedules so we'd quit. (The illegals took more money home than me, and the business paid less than they paid me.) The next job...they recognized my work ethic by giving me a raise shortly after I started.

 

That's why I had absolutely no sympathy for the supermarket checker/baggers and their sleazy labor union when they went on strike a few years ago out here. They were getting better than minimum wage and health benefits despite being completely unskilled and easily replaceable by just about anyone off the street with minimal training. You're not getting more because...wait for it....wait for it....you're not worth more. If you want to be worth more, develop a skill that people are willing to pay for. I pay the guy who designed my landscaping more than I pay the guy who pushes the lawn mower around the yard once a week because the landscape designer has skills that are worth more.

[Whip]

Not so fast, Whip. This deficit's got elephant footprints all over it. It's not a "dem" vs "us" problem. It's a failure by both parties to put the punch bowl away before the party-ers imbibe too much.

 

If we'd let people simply pay for their mistakes w/o bailouts (corporations included), we'd not have this problem as often as we do.

 

 

 

No arguement here.

 

Time to clean house.

 

 

[EffBee]

I agree with you about the housing situation.

 

There are some variables in the labor market that don't allow it to actually be a free market. We have a fixed number of jobs available and a variable labor supply supplemented by foreign workers here legally or illegally. Government involvement that buys jobs for a particular area through local taxation special deals and tax incremental funding, tax policy that allows easy transfer of jobs to low-cost foreign nations, Government funding of harbors and a Navy to help facilitate the shipping of products to the USA, and Federal Reserve policy that has been used to control inflation including the expense of wages.

Of course. I couldn't (and won't) go into all of the nuances in these overall discussions. Besides, nuance is the habitat of those who would argue and study indefinitely, shaking in their boots at the prospect of actually having to DO something and be judged by the results. Better to see how cleverly they can parse something into argumentative oblivion. The old intellectual circle-jerp.

 

The large amounts of stockholder money being paid for corporate wages is due to a lack of effective recourse available to the stockholders.

Bring that Town Hall Meeting attitude to a Stockholder meeting and see how ineffective it is. It's pure laziness that makes them ineffective. Additionally, if they don't like it, don't put money in it. Of course, it's not their fault, poor babies.

[steve.foote]

Further, we perpetuate a system that undervalues unskilled labor...

 

ROTFLMAO

 

That there just might be the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. Thank God we're not OVERVALUING unskilled labor.

 

Oh yeah, we are.

[steve.foote]

The large amounts of stockholder money being paid for corporate wages is due to a lack of effective recourse available to the stockholders.

 

This must be National Ridiculous Day. One effective recourse to stockholders who think too much of their money is being paid for corporate wages is to...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...wait for it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...SELL THE DAMNED STOCK!

[russell_bynum]

The large amounts of stockholder money being paid for corporate wages is due to a lack of effective recourse available to the stockholders.

 

This must be National Ridiculous Day. One effective recourse to stockholders who think too much of their money is being paid for corporate wages is to...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...wait for it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...SELL THE DAMNED STOCK!

 

That's crazy talk.

[Boone60]

The large amounts of stockholder money being paid for corporate wages is due to a lack of effective recourse available to the stockholders.

 

This must be National Ridiculous Day. One effective recourse to stockholders who think too much of their money is being paid for corporate wages is to...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...wait for it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...SELL THE DAMNED STOCK!

 

That's crazy talk.

 

Like telling somebody that if they don't like how this nation is being governed, then they should leave.

 

Actually voting in new politicians is easier than changing a board, something public school teachers tried unsuccessfully to do in Milwaukee a few years back. They brought in around 55% of the votes and were unable to remove a board member of a Electric company that had voted for a million plus salary.

 

Now with mutual funds, the possibility of a large block of shareholders converging to vote is going to happen when?

[Matts_12GS]

Like telling somebody that if they don't like how this nation is being governed, then they should leave.

 

I feel better since at least one person has done it...

 

In fact, I encourage it...

 

 

Get of my lawn!

 

 

Eff Bee, I think you've hit two out of the park in recent posts on this thread, I'd like to buy you a cold one of your choice at the UN next year, if not before.

 

Well said, sir!

[Lawman]

Like telling somebody that if they don't like how this nation is being governed, then they should leave.

 

I feel better since at least one person has done it...

 

In fact, I encourage it...

 

 

Get of my lawn!

 

 

Eff Bee, I think you've hit two out of the park in recent posts on this thread, I'd like to buy you a cold one of your choice at the UN next year, if not before.

 

Well said, sir!

 

Free beer for Eff AND FRIENDS and I'm buying..

[steve.foote]

That's crazy talk.

 

Yeah, I know. There must be something wrong with me.

 

Or Right.

[steve.foote]

Like telling somebody that if they don't like how this nation is being governed, then they should leave.

 

Actually voting in new politicians is easier than changing a board, something public school teachers tried unsuccessfully to do in Milwaukee a few years back. They brought in around 55% of the votes and were unable to remove a board member of a Electric company that had voted for a million plus salary.

 

Now with mutual funds, the possibility of a large block of shareholders converging to vote is going to happen when?

 

Boone, you may not be aware, but individual actions (those things acted upon by individuals) are still allowed in the US. If someone thinks something stinks, they have the right to hit the exit even if everyone else wants to stay. It's called "choice." Well, except with regards to government where choice is as likely as winning the lottery, back-to-back, without buying tickets.

 

I don't get the whole teachers trying to remove the electric exec thing, but with regards to your mutual fund example, who cares? As long as the individual has the right to cash out, it doesn't matter what the rest of the herd does.

[russell_bynum]

Like telling somebody that if they don't like how this nation is being governed, then they should leave.

 

Actually voting in new politicians is easier than changing a board, something public school teachers tried unsuccessfully to do in Milwaukee a few years back. They brought in around 55% of the votes and were unable to remove a board member of a Electric company that had voted for a million plus salary.

 

Now with mutual funds, the possibility of a large block of shareholders converging to vote is going to happen when?

 

Boone, you may not be aware, but individual actions (those things acted upon by individuals) are still allowed in the US. If someone thinks something stinks, they have the right to hit the exit even if everyone else wants to stay. It's called "choice." Well, except with regards to government where choice is as likely as winning the lottery, back-to-back, without buying tickets.

 

I don't get the whole teachers trying to remove the electric exec thing, but with regards to your mutual fund example, who cares? As long as the individual has the right to cash out, it doesn't matter what the rest of the herd does.

 

I would even go the other way and say that the group voting power of mutual funds probably puts quite a bit of pressure on companies to keep their stock prices up. There is competition in the mutual funds market and if my fund isn't performing, I can move my money elsewhere in a matter of minutes. Fund managers are under tremendous pressure to keep their funds performing and that means not sticking with a stock that isn't working.

[steve.foote]

Hmmm, more crazy talk.

[EffBee]

Hmmm, more crazy talk.

Exactly. Who need choice when we can have the government, that bastion of PROVEN efficiency, PROVEN personal attention and PROVEN results make those pesky choices for us and, of course, in OUR best interest since they know me, my needs, my family and their needs even better than I do. Thank heaven for them, or I'd never have the time to watch the next episode of Survivor. It's real, you know.

 

[steve.foote]

Thank heaven for them, or I'd never have the time to watch the next episode of Survivor. It's real, you know.

 

Now that there is funny, FB.

[EffBee]

Thank heaven for them, or I'd never have the time to watch the next episode of Survivor. It's real, you know.

 

Now that there is funny, FB.

Perhaps it is, in the sarcastic way in which I intended. Unfortunately, it is too frighteningly close to the reality of the surrender in some peoples' lives and it has opened the door for opportunists to move in, under the veil of what's good for us, and try and take control. And that IS real.

[Boone60]

I would even go the other way and say that the group voting power of mutual funds probably puts quite a bit of pressure on companies to keep their stock prices up. There is competition in the mutual funds market and if my fund isn't performing, I can move my money elsewhere in a matter of minutes. Fund managers are under tremendous pressure to keep their funds performing and that means not sticking with a stock that isn't working.

 

Or if a mutual fund votes against a board, the board retaliates by removing retirement accounts from the mutual fund.

[Boone60]

[boone, you may not be aware, but individual actions (those things acted upon by individuals) are still allowed in the US.

 

Patronizing remark.

 

 

If someone thinks something stinks, they have the right to hit the exit even if everyone else wants to stay. It's called "choice." Well, except with regards to government where choice is as likely as winning the lottery, back-to-back, without buying tickets.

 

If you are unhappy with this country you can leave.

 

If you are unhappy with the paid help of a corporation you partially own, you can leave.

 

Both actions would be a surrender.

 

I don't get the whole teachers trying to remove the electric exec thing, but with regards to your mutual fund example, who cares? As long as the individual has the right to cash out, it doesn't matter what the rest of the herd does.

 

The vote I referred to required a supermajority to make a change.

 

Stockholders shouldn't care how their corporation is ran?

[Pilgrim]

and we all see how silly this is, but sooooo many are willing to let the same guys that wrote this take over banking, building cars and running healthcare...

Yes, all of government is really handled by the same six people.

 

Well, the same people DO make all the laws.

 

More than six, but in a nation of 300 million, the statistical difference is negligible. See HERE.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

Yes and no. We had septic systems most of the places where I grew up. Govt regulates that, but you can choose your tank, and your service company and there IS competition.

 

But, as population gets more dense, some sort of centralized solution seems like a more efficient (cheaper) way to go. I dunno, though...could it be like the phone company where multiple companies are competing for your business? Multiple sewer lines under the street and when you switch companies, the new company just plugs you into their line?

 

God help me, I'm trying to read this whole thread...

 

But I couldn't pass up the chance to mention an opportunity in that respect, Russell.

 

Just as Ma Bell is (was?) required to share with other carriers the lines she laid, perhaps there could be various treatment plants that share a common network of nasty pipes?

 

And Greg, I have lived in places where an area had a neighborhood road maintenance association and a community well. It works at that scale.

 

Pilgrim