One of my thoughts is do car makers really need to come out with new models of every car/truck every year? Seems very inefficient to me, especially if there's no significant change.

I'd like Peter Schiff to sit down with each of the millions of families who would have their lives turned into the most grim and depressing economic nightmares if the auto industry were to collapse, and tell them

"Sorry. But my concept of proper free markets requires that you and your family enter a bleak economic meltdown, the likes of which you may never recover from. I know there are no jobs to replace the ones you have, but that's just tough shit. Money is more important than you and your kids are."

Listening to upper-class white men pontificate about the lives of people who are already struggling to live, is pretty shite.

All good things must come to and end.

Sure you can prolong the inevitable. But it will still come.

Imam: Have you heard anything I've said?
Riddick: You said it's all circling the drain - the whole universe. Right?
Imam: That's right.
Riddick: Had to end sometime.

The money for the auto industry is coming out from the 700 billion that is to be allocated for the bank/lending industry. AT LEAST THERE IS A TRANSPARENT MONEY TRAIL TO THE AUTOMAKERS. Whoops, had the caps lock on.

The hope is, the leverage the Bush administration, and soon the Obama administration will now have due to the stake in ownership this deal provides, will allow corporate and project restructuring towards greener and more fuel efficient cars, which will be more competitive domestically and worldwide. I'm not holding my breath though.

I do share Schiff's concern that the US dollar will rapidly and abruptly depreciate as inflationary pressure or risk over unsustainable federal governments debts or the foreign debt causes a massive and sudden shift away from it as the currency of choice for international trade. I mean for all intents and purposes the US is stuck in limbo, its manufacturing sector is being dismantled while struggling against overseas competitors in countries with significantly lower wages, standards of living and additional health care, pensions benefits; whereas its service sector while growing and in many ways highly successful is simply not large enough to sufficiently substitute the prior.

So I guess I agree that something has got to give.

volumptuous:

You do realize, that "I know there are no jobs to replace the ones you have..." is one of the most ignorant statements one can make in economics, right? You surely must realize that there are always, ALWAYS, A-L-W-A-Y-S enough jobs for every man, woman, and child who has ever lived or ever will live. In FACT, the world has always, only, ever been in a desperate need for MORE men, women, and children, as there are an unlimited number of jobs which go undone every minute of every day.

Everyone must eat. The earth will always yield her fruit to those who labor upon it.

The coercive actions of the government can only damage and inhibit the process of labor allocation, never aid it.

^ Yeah, whatever.

There are so many jobs in this country that we have the largest unemployment rate in 25 years.

What kind of crack are you smoking? North Carolina, just one state, now has a 7.8 percent unemployment rate. The highest in 27 years.

Where are all these awesome jobs you claim? McDonalds?

I never commented on the nature of quality of the jobs available, so I must remonstrate to the 'awesome' adjective.

Not every job that needs to be done in this world is offered by a corporation. In the bitter end, should all the higher industries in life be undone by their monetary folly, men still have the ground to till. Become a farmer, or begin working for a farmer. Food will never be obsolete.

If those theories are beyond your reckoning, then consider a practical application. Out of work? Check craigslist.

In the end, unemployment is ALWAYS a deliberate CHOICE of the unemployed. Anyone who would claim otherwise is either lazy himself or has been deceived by the sluggard. Moreover, who says mankind must always stay employed 100% of the time? Is the acquisition of money the chief end of man? If I save enough before entering unemployment, I may have no need for support during that time. What if I DO want to be unemployed? Am I to be forced into a job against my will?

Of course it's a choice, of course anyone can in theory become a successful entrepreneur but that's irrelevant.

The function of government is to perpetuate a modicum of stability, whether it be in employment, economic growth or a myriad of other areas. You're paying taxes partly to ensure that you won't have to restudy or retrain in a new profession, take a 50% pay cut or move to another city or country to make an honest living. Of course this can be taken to the extreme, agricultural subsidies in the US have made many farmers utterly dependant on, and pressure from lobby groups ensure tax payer dollars continue to support an inefficient industry. The same risk exists for the current auto industry bailout, but the hope is the industry can be retooled to be efficient, if it cannot perhaps the industry will be dismantled, but gradually enough that it does not put thousands out of jobs, and massively destabilise the economy.

But to say that "the government can only damage and inhibit the process of labour allocation, never aid it" is bland wing ideology at its finest.

A government that props up a failing industry is socialist. It takes from others to give to those with political influence. Maybe it is good for some people for a short period of time, but it will not be good for the country in the long run. Of course it sucks to be out of work, but in order for those people to remain employed, it means the rest of us will pay more in taxes and inflation. While it would be hard for many people, it would be better for the country to let the poorly run companies die, and let the healthier companies take advantage of the larger labor pool (along with emerging companies trying to get off the ground). It's a cold way of looking at things, but when you run a country, you should be looking at the larger picture. Nobody is doing that right now. At least, nobody in power is doing that.

The problem is, large disruptions ripple through the economy. Consumption and consumer demand takes a hit, the exchange rate takes a hit and social unrest rises, among many other detrimental effects which contribute to a sense of economic uncertainty and discourage investment. This affects numerous industries and corporations, some of which are highly competitive, and does not put them in a position to immediately start hiring the laid off workers, quite the opposite if anything. Workers who remain unemployed for extended periods of time becomes discouraged which again worsens the situation.

Up vote sniper007 comments, well put.


Not his point, but the his word usage.

What volumptuous means, what I gather from his view point, is that there are not enough jobs for the skills that certain people may have. Therefore not enough jobs for those people.

What sniper means is that there is always something that needs to be done. So if you have to take a job putting up fences, and painting houses then that's what you have to do. There is always work to be done.

When the corporate parenthood crashes down, there will be an influx of manual laborers.

>> ^Sniper007:
In the end, unemployment is ALWAYS a deliberate CHOICE of the unemployed.

^ That is Absolutely the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

"Some 533,000 jobs disappeared from the economy in November, the worst month since 1974. In South Carolina, a government panel is predicting that the state’s unemployment rate could reach 14 percent by the middle of next year."

btw: To all those claiming the big-3 are the only auto manufacturers who are sucking, it was announced today that Toyota is now in the red.

IT MUST BE THOSE FAT UNION WORKERS AT THE TOYOTA PLANTS, RIGHT? OR IS IT THEIR SHITTY CARS???

puke

"What sniper means is that there is always something that needs to be done. So if you have to take a job putting up fences, and painting houses then that's what you have to do. There is always work to be done."

Can't paint a foreclosed house, nor put a fence around it.