What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Auto-Bailout Casualties
By John Berlau & Mark Beatty, NRO
August 6, 2012

In the Obama auto bailouts, jobs were not all created equal. The administration moved heaven and earth to save the jobs and generous benefits of General Motors and Chrysler workers who belonged to the United Auto Workers, ripping up the contracts of bondholders and secured creditors to give the UAW an enlarged stake in the new companies. “As a result,” notes Amy Payne of the Heritage Foundation, “even after the reorganization, GM still has higher labor costs ($56 an hour) than any of its foreign-based competitors.”

But non-UAW workers affected by the bankruptcies were not so lucky. At a former GM subsidiary, Delphi, which manufactures automotive parts, 28,000 UAW workers were paid full pension benefits that GM had promised, but 41,000 other workers were not. As Todd Zywicki, professor of law at George Mason University, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Had new GM treated Delphi’s UAW and non-union employees equally, the Treasury could have paid $1 billion less for the GM bailout. Instead, some workers became more equal than others.”

And perhaps no workers were less equal in the bailouts than the employees of GM and Chrysler dealerships. About 100,000 mostly blue-collar jobs — a number approaching the total work force of GM and Chrysler, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer — were put on the chopping block by “Team Auto,” the Obama administration’s auto-bailout task force, which insisted on extraordinarily rapid closures of auto dealerships during the government-organized bankruptcy proceedings.

Mitt Romney’s new ad highlights the impact of the closures on one dealership in Lyndhurst, Ohio. The owner, Al Zarzour, speaks of having to lay off “30-some” employees when his Chevrolet dealership was put on the GM closure list in 2009.

Obama supporters as well as right-leaning Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin cried foul, claiming that the dealer closings were necessary for the automakers’ viability and that virtually no dealership jobs would exist had the auto companies gone into a normal bankruptcy. But an acclaimed new book, Bailout, by Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), shows that the first half of this critique is false and the second half highly tenuous.

Details at: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/313125

Meanwhile, the Obama administration, as I noted on NRO last year, continues to overestimate the number of jobs “created” by the bailout, shamelessly including jobs at foreign auto dealerships such as Zarzour’s new shop and at the domestic plants of foreign manufacturers. But Ohio governor John Kasich points out that, of the 73,000 jobs created in his state since 2011, only 700 were “direct jobs” in auto manufacturing. PolitiFact, which examines campaign claims, largely backs up Kasich on this matter.

And then there are the jobs not created and businesses not opened because of the shabby treatment of GM’s bondholders and Chrysler’s secured lenders. The Obama administration designed a restructuring that disregarded two centuries of bankruptcy precedent to give disproportionate ownership stakes to the UAW and, in Chrysler’s case, Fiat.

George Mason’s Zywicki summed it up eloquently in the Wall Street Journal: “By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation.”

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sargent’s own newspaper is at the center of the confluence of Obama attack ads and messaging — and news stories on which they feed. Consider the attack on Romney for being an outsourcer of jobs during his years at Bain. He wasn’t, of course, but why let a four-Pinocchios rating for your ad bother you when winning is what matters? A malicious Washington Post attack on Romney appears — and an Obama ad is on the air a few hours later. Could the campaign have known the story was coming? Hmmm.

The same pattern has been seen over the last few days. The Brookings Institution undertakes a study and issues a report on the Romney tax plan, which involves rate cuts and the elimination of tax preferences written into the code. Can you guess who asked them to “score” the plan? Brookings does not know the details of which preferences will be eliminated, so they make assumptions. They conclude the rate reductions will result in a loss in revenues. That is not a great surprise, even if economic growth rates accelerate some from the changes. Of course, revenue losses from tax policy have never been a big subject of worry for the administration. They have asked for them in the original stimulus, in the payroll tax cuts the last two years, and in many other proposals over Obama’s term. In fact, giant deficits have never been a problem for the Obama team. That is why federal spending is now a four percent larger share of GDP than it was four years ago and why the total federal debt has grown by over five trillion dollars due to trillion dollar plus annual deficits.

But composing a study that shows Romney’s rate reduction plan is not revenue neutral is not the real purpose. The Obama team needs more — namely, that the rich (meaning Romney himself) will get richer and the middle class will have to pay more in taxes to make up for it. So the Brookings study assumes that the rich will get their tax rate cut but that it will be paid for somewhere else — by the middle class, of course, which will suffer the impact of a disproportionate loss of their tax preferences.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-the-obam...inglepage=true

[eyer]

“The U.S. is the best-looking horse in the glue factory,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist in Lexington, Massachusetts, for IHS Inc. “We have our problems, but the rest of the developed world has far, far worse problems.”

Rogoff Sees World Wishing It’s America Year After S&P Downgrade

Global investors can’t get enough American securities a year after Standard & Poor’s Corp. downgraded U.S. government debt.

The dollar has outperformed its peers in the past 12 months, rising by 10 percent against a basket of six currencies. U.S. stocks have been the best performing equity market in terms of dollars, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average advancing 14 percent. (INDU) Treasuries also have done better since the S&P action late on Aug. 5, 2011, returning 6.7 percent to investors compared with 6.1 percent for other government bonds.

“We’re seeing negative data come in from a lot of parts of the world,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a professor at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. “The rest of the world is looking at the United States and saying, ‘I wish we were the United States.’”

With the largest economy and deepest financial markets, the U.S. is seen as the safe haven for investors at a time when Europe is struggling to contain its sovereign-debt crisis and Chinese growth is slowing. Low yields -- 10-year Treasuries fell to a record 1.379 percent on July 25 -- show that most money managers have faith the government will meet its obligations, in spite of S&P’s decision to strip the securities of their AAA rating.

...U.S. businesses are benefiting from the rush into American securities by global investors. Fifteen of the top 20 companies worldwide in terms of market capitalization are American, led by Apple Inc. (AAPL) and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), according to data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s up from 11 a year ago. New to the top 20 from the U.S. are Coca-Cola Co. (KO), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), Procter & Gamble Co. (PG) and Pfizer Inc. (PFE)
Safety Preferred

U.S. corporate bonds also reflect investors’ preference for safety at a time of global economic trouble. Dollar-denominated bonds of high-grade borrowers have returned 8.4 percent since Aug. 5, 2011, exceeding the 7.8 percent return in the 12 months before S&P’s downgrade, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. Investment-grade corporate debt worldwide has returned 7.6 percent in the past year.

Companies are taking advantage of the record low bond yields, selling $103 billion of debt last month, the busiest July on record, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY), Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB) and Morgan Stanley all raised $2 billion each, the latter with its first fixed-rate 30-year debt in a decade.

Full story @

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...downgrade.html

[4est_4est_Gump]

We are trying hard to catch up to them.

[RobDownSouth]

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

Four Different Viewpoints on Employment; Reflections on Biased Reporting

Yes, AJ, first-world countries are evolving away from a manufactured-goods-driven economy. Deal with it. Or don't. I don't care.

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

Poor argument. First you mean since the creation of Fiat money, a recent development on the economic scene.

Note how AJ cannot or will not answer the question posed, so he redefines the question to tell us what we really meant to say.

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

Auto-Bailout Casualties
By John Berlau & Mark Beatty, NRO
August 6, 2012

Yet another installment in the "Oh how those poor bondholders suffered back in 2008" saga. *yawn*

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

http://pjmedia.com/blog/how-the-obam...inglepage=true

Yes, the Brookings Institution made assumptions. Do you know why they made assumptions? They made assumptions because Rmoney refuses to give the American public details about how he is going to pay for his across-the-board tax cuts which will end up costing the middle class more and give the 1% moar money.

It's also worth noting that the Brookings Institution calculated several different cutting scenarios and chose the scenario that most favored Rmoney, the "best case" scenario. This is a fact that you conveniently left out of your diatribe.

[busybody]

Chart Of The Day: Garbage Shall Set You Free... From GDP Manipulation
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/06/2012 09:53 -0400

Gross Domestic ProductLehmanRailcar LoadingsRealitySPY


It is no secret that just like the Achilles heel of China's goalseeked GDP number is the country's ever declining electric output, so the best coincident indicator of what is really going on behind the scenes with US GDP is railcar loadings of waste and scrap: i.e., garbage. As Bloomberg explains: "One closely watched economic indicator is the rail car loads of waste and scrap materials." Logically: "The more we demand, the more waste is generated by that production." In other words, if one is seeking validation that numbers reported by the BEA are even remotely credible, the best place to turn to is railcar loads of garbage. However, not surprisingly, such validation will not be found in the actual data. As the chart of the day, courtesy of Bloomberg Brief, demonstrates, if garbage is the benchmark, the US economy is now contracting faster than it has at any one point in the past 3 years and is on pace to recreate the economic collapse last seen after the Lehman bankruptcy. Perhaps another reason why central planners have latched on to stock markets and will just not let go.



Some more from Bloomberg:


Two railroad companies made mention of this weakness. Norfolk Southern talked of “reduced shipments of municipal solid waste,” while CSX claimed “aggregate and waste shipments will remain challenged.” Waste Management talked about improving volumes, but said it would remain soft while residential business is still negative.

One wonders just what would happen if at some point reality is once again allowed to peek into and set the "market" prices of assets. Sadly, if the JPM CIO's precedent is any indication, where the endless push on IG9 actually meant keeping spreads for single name intrinsic credits far tighter that where they should have been (the same as what the ES and SPY are doing with all the intrinsic stocks) this will never again be allowed to happen

[mercury14]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

It's also worth noting that the Brookings Institution calculated several different cutting scenarios and chose the scenario that most favored Rmoney, the "best case" scenario. This is a fact that you conveniently left out of your diatribe.

AJ has spent several days refusing to comment on this. And he will continue to pretend that this fact doesn't exist.

[busybody]

Originally Posted by mercury14

AJ has spent several days refusing to comment on this. And he will continue to pretend that this fact doesn't exist.

Hey NIGGERPOONZANDI, your fellow NIGGER, NIGGERPOOP is talking ass umptions

HE MEANT YOU!

[Bad_Doggie]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth

Yes, the Brookings Institution made assumptions. Do you know why they made assumptions? They made assumptions because Rmoney refuses to give the American public details about how he is going to pay for his across-the-board tax cuts which will end up costing the middle class more and give the 1% moar money.

It's also worth noting that the Brookings Institution calculated several different cutting scenarios and chose the scenario that most favored Rmoney, the "best case" scenario. This is a fact that you conveniently left out of your diatribe.

Originally Posted by mercury14

AJ has spent several days refusing to comment on this. And he will continue to pretend that this fact doesn't exist.

Look AJ want’s Obama to win and may well vote for him, like he did last time, to teach America a lesson.

Woof!

[jeninflorida]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Is there any historical precedence for any government cutting spending in order to get their country out of a recession/depression at any point in history?


Bueller?


Bueller?

Prove where massive government spending has worked!

Prove where high taxes help stimulate the economy.

I'll wait...Bueller

Bueller?

Bueller !?!

Bueller!

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Is there any historical precedence for any government cutting spending in order to get their country out of a recession/depression at any point in history?


Bueller?


Bueller?

bueller won't help you lil fag chihuahua, but Harding did.

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by jeninflorida

Prove where massive government spending has worked!

Prove where high taxes help stimulate the economy.

I'll wait...Bueller

Bueller?

Bueller !?!

Bueller!

World War 2 ended the Great Depression.
Reagan ramped up the military in the 80's.
Bush ramped up the military in the 2000's.

We had taxes over 70% between World War 2 and the Reagan Presidency. They certainly didn't kill the economy and funding our schools to be the best in the world probably helped. NASA and the technology around it definitely stimulated the economy. The internet might be amongst the best things that ever happened to the world much less the economy. So the results of the taxes stimulated the economy and far beyond what we could have expected had the money stayed with the individual citizens.

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

World War 2 ended the Great Depression.
Reagan ramped up the military in the 80's.
Bush ramped up the military in the 2000's.

We had taxes over 70% between World War 2 and the Reagan Presidency. They certainly didn't kill the economy and funding our schools to be the best in the world probably helped. NASA and the technology around it definitely stimulated the economy. The internet might be amongst the best things that ever happened to the world much less the economy. So the results of the taxes stimulated the economy and far beyond what we could have expected had the money stayed with the individual citizens.

You may want to note they had jobs to raise taxes on.

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by koalabear

You may want to note they had jobs to raise taxes on.

True, but World War 2 had the government as the largest employer bar none for a few years, sure they ran the debt into the sky but they had jobs to raise taxes on.

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

True, but World War 2 had the government as the largest employer bar none for a few years, sure they ran the debt into the sky but they had jobs to raise taxes on.

We don't have the jobs now.

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by koalabear

We don't have the jobs now.

Make them, same way we did then. Government spending, did you not read my last post?

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

Make them, same way we did then. Government spending, did you not read my last post?

The robots make them now.

[VaticanAssassin]

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by koalabear

The robots make them now.

Then hire people to run laps around the city. Doesn't really matter much what they do. Last time we paid them to blow up Europe and a bunch of islands.

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

Then hire people to run laps around the city. Doesn't really matter much what they do. Last time we paid them to blow up Europe and a bunch of islands.

That worked well in Russia.

[Sean Renaud]

Originally Posted by koalabear

That worked well in Russia.

That's not what they did in Russia.

[koalabear]

Originally Posted by Sean Renaud

That's not what they did in Russia.

Drink you kool aid comrade and relax.

[koalabear]

Stocks rise on hopes for euro

[mercury14]

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

Auto-Bailout Casualties
By John Berlau & Mark Beatty, NRO
August 6, 2012



Details at: http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/313125

The UAW got a better deal than non-unionized workers because they were legally entitled to it due to their contract.

[mercury14]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

This doesn't make sense. In the US the stimulus wasn't passed until the second quarter of 2009 and didn't really go into full swing until 2010-2011. Why are we looking at the stimulus' impact in 2007-2009 when it didn't exist? The same goes for most of these other nations - you're judging the impact of their government spending by what happened preceding it. This chart is for very stupid people.

Hell, Bush was president at that time. Why are you looking at the impact of Obama's stimulus on the Bush years?