Mitt Romney: Let Detroit Go Bankrupt

[donsutherland1]

For those who are interested, the emerging auto assistance plan entails among the following elements:

• Funding would come from Section 136 of the Energy bill.
• Only companies that submitted plans to the Congress by December 2 would be eligible. This effectively shuts out foreign companies that have manufacturing facilities in the U.S.
• The auto companies need to submit a viability plan to the President's designee by March 31, 2009. The deadline can be extended by 30 days.
• The viability plan must be consistent with federal efficiency and fuel economy standards.
• The government loans would be senior debt.
• The government would receive warrants.
• Executive compensation would be restricted in a fashion similar to that in the TARP [$700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program]
• Companies that fail to submit a viability plan would lose eligibility for further federal assistance.

More details can be found at: Vote on Automaker Bailout Nears

 

[Ethereal]

Not sure if anyone has posted this image but whatever...

 

[donsutherland1]

Early in this thread, I noted that restructuring of the auto industry "would require painful decisions including elimination of some models/plants, compensation reductions, and some pension benefit reductions for retirees. The UAW has indicated that it is unwilling to make any additional concessions. Hence, a Chapter 11 reorganization would be needed to give the company the leverage it needs to restructure."

This evening, a tentative compromise in the Senate collapsed precisely because the UAW was unwilling to make the wage and benefit concessions by next year to help make the Detroit 3's cost structure competitive. Instead, the UAW insisted on leaving the existing contract in place until it expires in 2011. The Associated Press reported:

A $14 billion emergency bailout for U.S. automakers collapsed in the Senate Thursday night after the United Auto Workers refused to accede to Republican demands for swift wage cuts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was "terribly disappointed" about the demise of an emerging bipartisan deal to rescue Detroit's Big Three...

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the GOP point man in the talks, said the two sides had been tantalizingly close to a deal, but the UAW's refusal to agree wage concessions by a specific date in 2009 kept them apart.

In my opinion, the UAW simply does not understand the situation in which its rigidity has placed the U.S. automakers. Instead, its leadership has put preservation of its existing contract ahead of the larger interests of trying to save the Detroit 3 and safeguard the U.S. economy from the adverse consequences should a disorderly liquidation ensue.

Barring a legislative compromise, Chapter 11 reorganization will loom for at least two of the automakers and financing from the private sector could be unavailable. Under Chapter 11, the UAW and its members risk losing far more than they would have, had the UAW shown the flexibility, if not courage, necessary to sustain the tentative compromise. In addition, the UAW has potentially set the U.S. economy up for another substantial shock, albeit not a systemic one, that could ripple well beyond the auto industry and its supplier-dealer complex.

In my view, barring its ability to find another compromise formula, the Senate's adopting legislation along the lines of the tentative compromise achieved between Senators Dodd and Corker and imposing the appropriate sacrifices on the UAW and its members would be preferable to abandoning the effort altogether. Given the extent of deleveraging underway that saw an unprecedented decline in mortgage and total household debt in the Third Quarter, the nation may be just one significant shock away from descending into a destructive episode of deflation.

 

[Gladiator]

In my view, barring its ability to find another compromise formula, the Senate's adopting legislation along the lines of the tentative compromise achieved between Senators Dodd and Corker and imposing the appropriate sacrifices on the UAW and its members would be preferable to abandoning the effort altogether. Given the extent of deleveraging underway that saw an unprecedented decline in mortgage and total household debt in the Third Quarter, the nation may be just one significant shock away from descending into a destructive episode of deflation.

One problem with Democracies is that leaders get elected, and re-elected, by making promises.

Bush created a whipsaw effect by announcing the illegal immigrant worrkers were needed to do jobs Americans woulnd not do, and advocated Amnesty and worker visas. Then in March 2006, when polls were showing republcans in trouble for not enforcing the Mexican-US Border, Bush Promised to enforce the Borders and Immigration laws. Congress defeated immigration and worker visa reforms. Illegals got the message, and 1.5 Million illegal workers went home, and the housning prices peaked and declinse, which created a cascade downward effect, through leveraged mortgage guarntees.

The UAW has promised it workers pensions. The US has promised retirees Social Security and Medicare.

GM's problems with Debt are largely with Pensions for past workers.


The GMAC minimum score is still 700, 12/12/08 so GM cars are not being sold, even though there is more demand.

The bank bailout has not worked, and the Banks are using this crisis to buy other banks, that won't lend money, instead of using the bailout money to lend money.


"...establish a funding mechanism that will protect your retiree medical benefits – at current levels – through establishment of a Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (VEBA).

A VEBA is an independent trust fund, similar in many respects to a pension trust. Money contributed to the VEBA can only be used to provide your health care benefits. It can never be used for any other purpose. Even if GM were to someday file for bankruptcy, the money in the VEBA would be secure.

"• A financial instrument, backed by GM, called a “convertible debenture” or “convertible note.” This note will have a face value of $4.3725 billion, and GM will be required to pay annual cash interest on this note for the benefit of the VEBA. In the event that the price of GM common stock increases above a certain level, the VEBA trustees may convert the note to GM stock"


A MESSAGE TO UAW GM RETIREES - UAW/GM Contract 2007


The Eastern custom of the children taking care of the elderly has had an adverse effect on the World competitiveness of US Corporations because the Western ideas of Pensions and Social Security as a means of taking care of the elderly.

As people are living longer, though still losing worker effectiveness at an average of age 65, the elderly require more years of care. As medical technology advances, The cost of health care for the elderly has gone up. Much of the medical expenses for he elderly, mayge 89%, is spent during the last 6 months before death.

The Western Values, (Western Family Values) are putting US companies at a comparative disadvantage to corporations in Eastern Countries, with Eastern Family Values, with children caring for the elderly.

But this subject is not being discussed by leaders in Dempcracies, because discussing the realities of aging will not bring votes for Re-Election.

The Christian Right still controls the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats, and Congress, so Family Planning funding is still being neglected for the poor. It may be a lot cheaper to provide Family Planning services for the poor, than to provide Social Security and pensions for marginally poor workers. But that concept is not even being published, let alone being discussed or debated by politicians.

Western politicians are still making promises to take care of the poor elderly for life, but funding is drying up, as the US spends more money on wars. How many more Dollars have been printed, for which ther is no value, but to devalue the US Dollar? Who knows how many US Dollars are in circulation Now, as compared with 2000?

States Provide Limited Help For Poor Elderly | ElderWeb


..

 

[Gladiator]

Another part of the problem is the the Fed, under Greenspan, kept interest rates artificially low from 2000 to 2006, which let a number of businesses survive, that maybe should have failed; and let some companies avoid downsizing, that should have cut back. Maybe like the Big 3 could have planned better for downsizing.

Greenspan acknowledged some mistakes, but did not admit his overall mistake, that created the current problems for the savings for retirement and pensions.

 

[Gladiator]

I don't get the idea that GM has needed to restructure for years.

2002 Profits were OK

GM profits down, earnings up in 4th quarter | Deseret News (Salt Lake City) | Find Articles at BNET

2005 was profitable, but a little less so.

GM profits to hit speed bump - 01/14/05

GM profits did not fall till 2007.

G.M. Profit Down 90% From 2006 - New York Times

Losses did not occur til 2008.

GM: Huge loss leaves it almost out of cash - Nov. 7, 2008


G.M. Profit Down 90% From 2006 - New York Times



The credit problems and economic down turn were unpredicted,

It seems the system of GM Mardket research, design and production were functioning until the drying up of credit and the economic downturn.


..

 

[conquer]

I don't get the idea that GM has needed to restructure for years.

2002 Profits were OK

GM profits down, earnings up in 4th quarter | Deseret News (Salt Lake City) | Find Articles at BNET

2005 was profitable, but a little less so.

GM profits to hit speed bump - 01/14/05

GM profits did not fall till 2007.

G.M. Profit Down 90% From 2006 - New York Times

Losses did not occur til 2008.

GM: Huge loss leaves it almost out of cash - Nov. 7, 2008


G.M. Profit Down 90% From 2006 - New York Times



The credit problems and economic down turn were unpredicted,

It seems the system of GM Mardket research, design and production were functioning until the drying up of credit and the economic downturn.


..

A wild thought...

Did you remember Oldsmobile? Such a good brand of cars which disappeared because...because...simply because people decided not to buy them anymore.

There was nothing wrong with those Oldsmobile cars, on the contrary, those were very good cars, but buyers weren't attracted to them anymore. Is this event carrying a "tail"?

Is this current crisis with the manufacturers of other brands made by american car companies the continuation of such a trent in reference to cars coming from GM?

 

[donsutherland1]

I don't get the idea that GM has needed to restructure for years.

2002 Profits were OK The credit problems and economic down turn were unpredicted...

Profits are only one metric of performance. One has to go into much greater depth. Many issues need to be explored. For example, how stable was GM's revenue? Was GM able to maintain its market share? How did GM's revenue growth compare with that of its rivals? How did GM's cost structure compare with those of its rivals?

If one compares GM's financial data over the past 10 years with that of, let's say Toyota, one finds a chronic loss of market share, greater volatility in revenue, a persistently higher fixed cost structure, etc. All of that information suggested greater vulnerability vis-a-vis Toyota should market conditions change.

It seems the system of GM Mardket research, design and production were functioning until the drying up of credit and the economic downturn.

The above-noted vulnerability suggested that should market conditions change, the company would be more severely impacted than Toyota. Indeed, through 2007 Toyota has continued to generate net income. It remains in line for a profit in 2008, as well.

With respect to the unfolding economic challenges, few expected potentially the worst recession of the post-WW II era. Neverthless, some economists who understand the impact of collapsed asset bubbles i.e., Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller, long argued for a more severe downturn than most were forecasting.

Of course, while one could not expect prescience--humans simply lack anything close to perfect foresight--rigorous sensitivity analysis would have provided a glimpse of the impact a variety of scenarios could have.

Key risks that an automaker should continually assessed include (1) fuel prices (the price of crude oil can be highly volatile) and (2) recessions (the business cycle is a fact of life). If one used sensitivity analysis that measured performance against all the post-WW II recessions, one would at least have had an idea what a 1973-75 or 1981-82-style recession could have. If one considered the two 1970s era energy shocks, the company could reasonably expected that larger vehicle sales would be decimated under a similar scenario. An examination of the company's own historic experience, particularly that which concerned the challenges faced by the company during those periods, would have provided important clues where things went badly, where a rapid response could be needed, etc. That kind of analysis would have helped GM better understand the impact of the above-described vulnerability.

Finally, it should be noted that its financing arm, GMAC (now 51% owned by Cerberus and 49% by GM), shifted its focus away from its core purpose of automobile financing. Instead, it shifted aggressively into the real estate market, including the highly risky subprime and Alt-A niches. CNN reported:

In the past few years, GMAC moved away from a focus on auto finance. By 2005, mortgage lending and insurance accounted for 57% of its income. Before the housing bubble burst, GMAC made a big push into subprime lending and so-called Alt-A loans, those made to borrowers who did not provide full documentation of their income.

Needless to say, such a diversion is not without precedent. For example, when the call money (callaboe loans for financing the purchase of stock) rates rose to 12% during the 1929, corporations began shifting excess funds into call money. John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in his The Great Crash 1929:

In Montreal, London, Shanghai, and Hong Kong her was talk of these rates. Everywhere men of means told themselves that 12 per cent was 12 per cent. A great river of gold began to converge on Wall Street, all of it to help Americans hold common stock on margin. Corporations also found these rates attractive. At 12 per cent Wall Street might even provide a more profitable use for the working capital of a company than additional production. A few firms made this decision: instead of trying to produce goods with its manifold headaches and inconveniences, they confined themselves to financing speculation. Many more companies started lending their surplus funds on Wall Street.

Source: John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash 1929—2nd Edition, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961, pp. 26-27.

Business literature is filled with bad experiences for companies that strayed beyond their core purpose. Today, largely on account of the decline in the real estate market, GMAC is struggling for survival. As a result, its ability to provide auto financing is impaired. Should GMAC go bankrupt, GM could lose up to 40% of its dealers.

In sum, precisely because the challenges faced by GM, as well as the rest of the Detroit 3, are so complex, restructuring is urgently needed. Simple bridge loans might alleviate some of the headwinds confronting the companies, but they would not begin to address the root causes that left them so vulnerable to the present economic turmoil.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't get the idea that GM has needed to restructure for years.

I do.

Read this article, from 2004

RealMoney.com: GM Sputters Toward 2005 Breakdown

Essentially GM was making vast sums of its profits (read > 80%) from its financing arms. They sold expensive, high profits SUVs and Trucks by financing. It's no wonder they are in the mess they are now. No sales of high profit vehicles, no profits from financing on those vehicles. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

 

[Gladiator]

So GMAC needs to restructure to a Bank Holding Company.


"GMAC needs to reach $30 billion in capital in order to qualify as a bank holding company. It was looking to do that by offering investors holding about $38 billion of its notes the opportunity to exchange their bonds for new notes and preferred stock, and a limited amount of cash. The preferred stock would have counted towards its required capital.

So far the offer, which has been extended through 5 p.m. ET Friday, has raised only about $8.3 billion in new capital. The company had $9 billion in capital on hand at the end of the third quarter.'

"GMAC does not believe it has the ability to make further changes to the (offer) following the new deadline," according to the company's statement. "If GMAC is unable to successfully convert to a bank holding company ... by December 31, 2008, it would have a near-term material adverse effect on GMAC's business, results of operations, and financial position."


GMAC coming up short in effort to get Treasury, fed dollars - Dec. 10, 2008


So one restructuring is for GMAC to become a Bank Holding Company allows it to apply for TARP funds. I did not hear the GM Executives appologize for getting into sub-prime and Alt-A mortgage loans.

But what is GMAC's long term viability, given its continuing obligations for further mortgage forclosures? What is the range of furhter potential losses for GMAC in mortgage loan failures?


"Outlook

The global capital and credit markets remain disrupted and general economic conditions have deteriorated. GMAC's business continues to be affected by these conditions and has led the company to take several actions to manage resources during this volatile environment. These steps include:

-- Aligning auto originations with available committed funding sources in the U.S. and abroad
-- Streamlining operations to suit the current business plans
-- Growing GMAC Bank within the regulatory guidelines
-- Reducing risk in the balance sheet
-- Divesting select non-core operations such as GMAC Global Home Services and GMAC Reinsurance

GMAC is focused on pursuing strategies to increase flexibility and access to liquidity with the primary focus of continuing to support automotive dealers and customers"

GMAC Financial Services Reports Preliminary Third Quarter 2008 Financial Results - Nov 05, 2008


GMAC has apparently sold some home loans. Midland has apparently bought some GMAC loans.

My GMAC mortgage sold to Midland - Loan Modification Forum - Loan Safe


Here is a link for a forum on solving mortgage problems:

Loan Modification Forum - Loan Safe - Powered by vBulletin








..

 

[justone]

In my opinion, the UAW simply does not understand the situation in which its rigidity has placed the U.S. automakers. .

This is what the UN has been saying all day long. I don’t really know why you have been trying to avoid my main point. The only difference is that I would advice you not to take them as stupid.

In my view, barring its ability to find another compromise formula, the Senate's adopting legislation along the lines of the tentative compromise achieved between Senators Dodd and Corker and imposing the appropriate sacrifices on the UAW and its members would be preferable to abandoning the effort altogether. Given the extent of deleveraging underway that saw an unprecedented decline in mortgage and total household debt in the Third Quarter, the nation may be just one significant shock away from descending into a destructive episode of deflation. .

I have been trying to understand the game. It looks to me that the CEOs - applying for the bailout- have been counting that the attention WILL BE attracted to their main problem – the UAW. On other hand it is clear that their chance is slim, as the UAW and other Unions count on BHO and his party, who are all in the bed with Unions. What the UAW understand and you are not willing to understand, is that the UAW counts on your buddies who will take taxpayers money and give it to lazy and uneducated union workers in exchange for political support. If a bunch of UNs were available in politics for election and one of them was coming instead of BHO, then the UAW would understand totally different things.

‘’unions are a school of Communism”’, - V.I.Lenin. It is no surprise that a Lenin’s follower pushes your thanks button.

As the issue of past decisions and choices came up in this thread, some excerpts from the December 6, 2008 edition of The New York Times are relevant:
Quote:
Time and again over the last 30 years, G.M. has spent billions of dollars on innovative ideas like its Saturn small-car company in the 1980s and the EV1 electric vehicle in the 1990s, only to then deprive those projects of further financing because money was needed elsewhere or because they were not delivering enough profit...

One such area is hybrid technology, an area where G.M. might be leading if it had encouraged the engineers who led its hybrid development as long ago as the 1970s, and continued building on expertise it gained with the EV1...

“We were late on hybrids,” George M. C. Fisher, the lead outside director on G.M.’s board, said in an interview this week. “Why were we late? We made a business decision as opposed to a marketing decision. That’s probably a mistake, in retrospect.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/bu...pagewanted=all

Mr. Fisher's explanation about the causes of GM's squandering its potential opportunity for hybrid vehicle leadership is a crucial one when it comes to innovation. Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen, who has conducted exhaustive research into innovation, wrote in The Innovator's Dilemma:

...the firms that were most successful in commercializing a disruptive technology were those framing their primary development challenge as a marketing one: to build or find a market where product competition occurred along dimensions that favored the disruptive attributes of the product...

If history is any guide, companies that keep disruptive technologies bottled up in their labs, working to improve them until they suit mainstream markets, will not be nearly as successful as firms that find markets that embrace the attributes of disruptive technologies as they initially stand. These latter firms, by creating a commercial base and then moving upmarket, will ultimately address the mainstream market much more effectively than will firms that have framed disruptive technology as a laboratory, rather than a marketing challenge.

Once an early lead is squandered, it can be difficult to regain ground for the company that lost its lead. In the case of GM, once the high oil prices of the twin 1970s era energy shocks subsided, GM essentially lost interest in its early hybrid vehicle work. Instead of building a market niche from the ground up and then using the experience gained from that niche to improve its hybrid vehicles, it renewed its focus on larger vehicles. Had it maintained sufficient focus on its early hybrid work, given its head start and the practical experience it would have obtained from cultivating a market niche, it might well have been producing hybrid vehicles that are magnitudes of order superior to those on the market today, both in terms of performance and cost. .

Again, you are ignoring my points and shifting the polls. It is a logical fallacy.

You submitted 3 new OPINIONS – of a Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen and The New York Times and George M. C. Fisher http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/business/yourmoney/21refresh.html?_r=1 . Neither can cause any respect from an UN. They are bare opinions not ever based on facts and numbers.

I see more sense in Bonnie1988 and conquer’s opinions, as they express a perception of some car buyers.

You are making a new point, - which is that, - #7? - after ignoring 6 previous points. It is marketing. It is quite certain that Toyota has been leading in building hybrid vehicles and electrical cars and all other energy savings innovations, while GM has made the decision to quit such a direction. Was it a mistake? We all know that hybrids and electrical are a pure deception, and that neither is chosen by a savvy buyer with a minimum common sense. On other hand Toyota has been counting on free and wide advertisement by all liberal media clogged with green environment enthusiasts, - they have been making the market of deception for free for Toyota and generalizing and spreading the same motive for other foreigners. As well liberal government regulations and AGW apparently facilitated Toyota’s bets.


Reliability is point #8. Service is point #9. Warranty is point #10.

The bottom line is that whatever are the problems of the 3 they will not be able to overcome and improve, until the contract with the workers and the governments including local ones are brought to the field even with foreigners. The bottom line is that your idol and Co will try to take the business from hands of CEOs.
So we are coming back to the same point Romney has made, - the cost of Unions and the gov-nt regulations.

 

[Gladiator]

The main comptetive disadvantage of the UAW is the pension programs. The pesnions are independently insured, so bankruptcy is not a problem for the UAW. But the Union concessions are not the total answer for the Big 3. UAW concessions are a small part of he picture, except to Southern Senators who want to bust the Unions.

Hybrids and Electric cars are not market viable. The initial cost and maitnentnace are too high, to compete with internal combustion engines, except maybe when the price-riggers boost gasoline over $4.00 per Gallon, US. GM generally takes proven technology, and builds reliable vehicles. So the fact that GM is not leading in Hybrids is irrelevant, because Hybrids are not marketable, to any significant extent.

GM's problem is that GMAC branched out into Mortgages, and the Mortgage division tanked. Now GMAC cannot finance the cars that people with credit scores below 700 are ready to buy.

Bush has not figured out a way to get lending captial to Lenders who will make car loans for American cars. Bush has not figured out a way to gaurantee GMAC car loans. GMAC could probably make car loans if Bush could figure out how to gaurantee the newly generated, new US car loans.

Solving temporary, unpredicted problems of a capitalistic market system is not necessarily communistic.

Big 3 pay $70.00 per hour for labor. Health care costs are paid by the US companies, but Canada has free helath care.

Heritage Foundation: UAW Workers DO Cost $70/hr. | The Truth About Cars



..

 

[justone]

Solving temporary, unpredicted problems of a capitalistic market system is not necessarily communistic.



..

by the definition.









Solving temporary, unpredicted problems of a capitalistic market system is not communistic.

Solving temporary, unpredicted problems of a communistic market system is not capitalistic.

You should think what you are saying...

 

[Gladiator]

Is an occasional sprinkle of Communism, as a short bridge, that bad, really?

 

[MC.no.spin]

The question I have is "What determines if an entity is 'too big to fail' and why are companies and financial institutions allowed to grow to that size if it means taxpayers will have to underwrite them when they land themselves in trouble due to their over-leveraging irresponsibilities?"

This problem will never be cured with the kind of precedent the government is showing here. We're basically saying "we know you lost on your gambling adventures, and we're here to help." That is fundamentally flawed and will set us up for failure time and time again until we toughen up regulation and allow the market to push out those who don't measure up. It's rather Darwinian, but this slippery slope is so obvious it's disgusting.

 

[justone]

Sprinkle, sparkle (Iskra) was the name of the Lenin’s newspapers at the time of the preparation of the coup.

The slogan was on the first page – ‘’ blaze (flame) will be born by a sparkle.’’


A Russian proverb says, how would I translate - "a sprinkle of excrement will spoil a barrel of honey"

Ready to eat?

If you cut a little bit of liberty away all liberty will flow into this bit.

 

[Gladiator]

The question I have is "What determines if an entity is 'too big to fail' and why are companies and financial institutions allowed to grow to that size if it means taxpayers will have to underwrite them when they land themselves in trouble due to their over-leveraging irresponsibilities?"

This problem will never be cured with the kind of precedent the government is showing here. We're basically saying "we know you lost on your gambling adventures, and we're here to help." That is fundamentally flawed and will set us up for failure time and time again until we toughen up regulation and allow the market to push out those who don't measure up. It's rather Darwinian, but this slippery slope is so obvious it's disgusting.

Some banks that have received bail out funds are purchasing smaller banks.

PNC Aquires National City

Federal Reserve Approves PNC's National City Acquisition - MarketWatch


Bank of America buys a Chinese Bank

"TARP money being used to batter the US economy senseless. First Bank of America gets $15 billion of TARP funds, and issues $9 billion worth of bonds guaranteed by the FDIC, then it spends $7 billion to buy a big stake in a Chinese bank."

Firedoglake » Bank of America Spends $7 Billion on Chinese Bank, Then Lays Off 30,000 Workers


After this bail out period, there should be consideration of a TOO BIG TO FAIL TAX, for those corporations that receive bailouts in tough economic times. But these large corporations will have too much influence to allow government to impose effective taxes on the large corporations.

Does the Industrial Military complex actually rule the people?




..

 

[MC.no.spin]

After this bail out period, there should be consideration of a TOO BIG TO FAIL TAX, for those corporations that receive bailouts in tough economic times. But these large corporations will have too much influence to allow government to impose effective taxes on the large corporations.

Does the Industrial Military complex actually rule the people?

That's a good idea about the tax. They essentially grow to that size out of economy of scale interests, and the tax would no longer make it worthwhile to grow to that size.
Their marginal costs would be less at a smaller market share.

A simple remedy.

There are a couple of things to watch for by the next Congress and administration:
1) Do they set policies to prevent companies from getting too big to fail?
2) Do they overhaul the SEC and get it functioning and doing its job?

If the answer to either of these is NO, then they aren't really able to rise above corporate interests and serve the public good.

 

[Gladiator]

The problems for GM and Chrsyler have largely been created by the rising gasoline prices in 2006 to 2008.

Cato Institued acknowledges that the price of Gasoline may have been from market manipulation by greedy investors and rip-off artists..

Gas Prices Soar: Markets or manipulation?

Does Bush know that his friends made problems for GM and Chrysler by jacking up the gasoline and diesel prices? Is that why Bush is wiling to help bail out GM and Chrysler, because of the miliions his friends made ruining hte economy with excessive oil profits?

..

 

[Truth Detector]

Does Bush know that his friends made problems for GM and Chrysler by jacking up the gasoline and diesel prices? Is that why Bush is wiling to help bail out GM and Chrysler, because of the miliions his friends made ruining hte economy with excessive oil profits?

..

Bush's friends jacked up oil prices? Yet now they aren't Bush's friends who lowered oil prices?

Do you see the absurdity of such uninformed comments?

What fascinates me is this continuing "chicken little" world out there where everyone freaks out about HIGH oil prices and blames it on Bush and his invisible "oil friends", yet when prices drop to all time lows, the same credit isn't given.

Carry on; you were right about your analysis about the auto industry problems, but dead wrong on this one.

 

[Gladiator]

Bush's friends jacked up oil prices? Yet now they aren't Bush's friends who lowered oil prices?

Do you see the absurdity of such uninformed comments?

What fascinates me is this continuing "chicken little" world out there where everyone freaks out about HIGH oil prices and blames it on Bush and his invisible "oil friends", yet when prices drop to all time lows, the same credit isn't given.

Carry on; you were right about your analysis about the auto industry problems, but dead wrong on this one.

Oil prices came down around the 2004 and 2006 elections also. Oil prices started to come down after Congress held hearings in early 2008 about how oil speculators were driving up the oil prices. The oil companies had planned for the Republicans to win the 2008 election, but did not relaize that the bankers had leveraged the economy, so when housing priceds fell the house of cards collapsed.

The drop in World Demand has helped reduce the oil prices in recent months. The market shifted away from products and services that were driven by rising oil prices, but it took some time to shift, so prices and demand continuted to rise, because the market was slower to respond.



Brent Crude share price (BRENT): share prices, tips, news and analysis


Crude Oil Price Charts and Information

Pain from gas prices gets hearing in Congress, but little action likely - Business First of Columbus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25oil.html?pagewanted=print

..

 

[Truth Detector]

Oil prices came down around the 2004 and 2006 elections also. Oil prices started to come down after Congress held hearings in early 2008 about how oil speculators were driving up the oil prices. The oil companies had planned for the Republicans to win the 2008 election, but did not relaize that the bankers had leveraged the economy, so when housing priceds fell the house of cards collapsed.

The drop in World Demand has helped reduce the oil prices in recent months. The market shifted away from products and services that were driven by rising oil prices, but it took some time to shift, so prices and demand continuted to rise, because the market was slower to respond.



Brent Crude share price (BRENT): share prices, tips, news and analysis


Crude Oil Price Charts and Information

Pain from gas prices gets hearing in Congress, but little action likely - Business First of Columbus:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/business/25oil.html?pagewanted=print

..

I repeat: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Bush's friends jacked up oil prices? Yet now they aren't Bush's friends who lowered oil prices?

Do you see the absurdity of such uninformed comments?

 

[Voidwar]

Who the hell wants to manufacture something, out of steel, using American Labor, and under the U.S. Environmental law and OSHA ? ? ?

I mean, a smart businessman would never hire this overpriced overlitigious, underproductive labor.

We have legislated and entitled ourselves right out of competitiveness.

If all other labor is cheaper and lower risk, why would anyone manufacture anything in the U.S. anymore ?