Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Aranince, Feb 19, 2009.
CNBC's Rick Santelli Rants, Calls For "Chicago Tea Party"
This was on Chicagoist's twitter feed...
It's pretty great (you have to watch the video).
First Michael Steele and now this.
Exactly how many full moons are out tonight??
That was amazing, I laughed when that guy piped up
That trader / random guy / whoever that was standing kind of in front of him was hilarious.
The best thing I have seen, and he is right too.
The Japanese recession does suggest this too (for some of the things he said)... and basic economics suggests that going to extreme lengths to keep people in homes in which they do not belong will not work. If a person who had a large earning potential had some kind of life blip and you kept them in the home that was consistent with their earning level, they could ultimately return back to their earning level and re-establish a balance. But here people are in homes no one should sensible have allowed them to move into.
Keeping people in homes that are threatened by joblessness in locations where industry can be quickly revitalized is a good idea. Keeping people in homes they have only because of subprime irresponsibility is another matter.....
Ironic these things were being said on a trading floor... hardly a bastion of people who were uninvolved in this whole mess.
I was wondering, rather than giving the autos bailout money, why not give that money to consumers to put towards a new car. At least that way the money is passing through the tax payer.
I also saw that this (yesterday now) morning. I have to say that I agree with them 100%! Obama's "stimulus" plans aren't going to do any good. All that they will manage to do is increase our national debt, and give the Chinese more leverage over us. If you don't believe me, go ask Alan Greenspan.
Who do you ask if you don't believe Alan Greenspan?
Instead of giving money to the owners of dead industries it should be used to help people people thrown out of work by these changes. Let the car industry go. Its time is over...
The big problem with this attitude, and how this situation is in my mind not analogous to the housing situation, is the replacement plan.
If these houses are foreclosed and these individuals are forced to move downstream into more affordable housing, the expensive housing will be sold on the market at reduced prices and people now in lower quality housing will move into most of the good units. Although this will create some hardship in the form of individuals having to "lower" themselves back to the standard of living they can maintain, the net result is that, the faster this is done, the more likely that in the long term, most of the better new housing remains on the market and in use, and if any housing becomes redundant, it will be at the bottom of the economy, and the quality of housing occupied by Americans will improve in a net sense.
With the automotive industry, when these companies fail, there has been no good plan in the United States to move workers into jobs that maintain overall quality of living in the US. The service sector jobs that replace the manufacturing jobs are far inferior in pay and benefits. There are manufacturing jobs, true, such as the ones the transplant auto industry brings, that, while they pay less, don't pay catastrophically less, but this would require a fairly massive migration of laborers for which we have no real plan, since these jobs aren't going where the US auto manufacturing strength lies.
If, in the long term, you can really draw the conclusion that the US automakers cannot recover and become competitive, then fine -- it's better to rip the band-aid off, let them perish, and start getting on with the work of fixing things -- sink the money into non-automotive growth in Michigan and Indiana and Ohio instead. Pick anchor projects that have the potential to grow job sources over several decades in that part of the country, if there's evidence this might work.
But, is it really fair to conclude they can't become competitive? Ford isn't the best example, as it isn't asking for a bailout anyway, but they had blockbuster profits only eight or nine years ago. It's been only about 15 years since they had the dominant midsize car on the American market. If they can be made competitive again, given that they proffer a higher standard of living than readily available alternatives... I'm not that big a fan of letting the Midwest of our country just fall into a giant black hole. It's easyto suggest from the outside, but these are our people....
On the other hand, I'd be open to a much more aggressive plan, like picking one target US automaker that can survive and putting all the resources into making their supply chain become globally competitive while letting the other two die. I'm not particularly impressed by what GM and Chrysler have put on the table as "plans" to dig their ways out of this mess....
He was on the Chicago Board of Trade floor in that clip, they deal in commodities and futures.
YESSSS!!!! Exactly. While it sounds good to 'save these poor people' we're really doing them a disservice in the end. We're really just patching the bubble so it can grow larger and do more damage in the near future. Taking money from one group of people, giving it to another group of irresponsible people so they can keep their big house is unsustainable at best, social re engineering at worst.
The housing market needs to auto-correct, but unfortunately the administration and Democratic leadership continue to push the broken idea of government interventionism and manipulation of the market... which is the biggest reason we got into this mess in the first place. (fannie, freddie, fed interest rate manip, housing bills, etc.)
What's their solution to this problem? Giving more money to fannie and freddie. Allowing the Fed to continue and leave interest rates at rock bottom. Continue to put money into the banking system, telling the banks to "LOAN MONEY" apparently to people they don't want to loan to... It has to be the most backwards thinking I've ever seen.
Synopsis: Sign me up for the tea party.
Ah yes, the very people that drive the price of goods and services up, without contributing anything in return.
The Don't Go Movement is getting involved. #teaparty is a trending topic on Twitter now.
Who the hell is Rick Santelli, anyway? Is he like the Italian version of Rick Santorum? He seems about as big a douchebag.
Why aren't they driving the prices up now?
#teaparty: bought new trousers!
#teaparty: is having a few beers after work.
#teaparty: is rallying against the stimulus package.
#teaparty: wishes their washing would dry more quickly.
Your entire post was the most sensible thing I've read all week.
The only thing I have qualms about is letting automakers die. I understand the rationale behind what you said, and who knows, it may come to that. But in my lifetime I've seen so much competition killed off -- mostly by mergers and acquisitions -- that I'd hate to see our choices reduced further still.
I think everyone will acknowledge that American, European and Asian cars each have their own "flavor" or style, and as someone who prefers the way American-designed cars look, I'd hate to have my choices whittled down to...one.
Again, I'm not arguing with the logic of your stance...just that it would be a pity.
As far as Obama's mortgage plan...my understanding is that it will help those who have conventional mortgages, have normally paid, and have only fallen a bit behind (through recent job losses, for example); and those who have subprime loans for which the terms can be reasonably adjusted to keep them in their homes. It does not apply to those who have mortgages greatly in excess of the actual value of their homes, and these folks would be the ones who are forced to move "downstream", as you put it.
You said it. Those guys make used car salesmen in loud plaid suits look trustworthy by comparison.
That'll happen about the same time Hillary implements her secret plan to win the 2008 Democratic nomination.
But you certainly wouldn't resort to any violence against person or property in this tea party, now would you?
The point is they make money in any event, by adding their cost to whatever is being traded. They don't have to "bid-up" the product, like someone holding a stock.
But if someone bought an oil contract when it was at $100 per barrel, how can they charge more than that now? So I don't think they make money no matter what and they don't have a significant impact on prices. They make money speculating and they lose money that way too. There are some people who make money on spreads and I think that's what you're talking about. I'm not sure how it works but I think they make the money between the supplier and the guys on the floor in that video.
In attempting to make money for their clients, they add their overhead to the cost of the commodity being bought/sold.
It is all a greed issue.
Of course a lot of their clients are institutional investors, which affect you and I in our benefits/pensions/etc.
How hilarious. A bunch of trader *******s whine about government promoting "bad behavior" by "subsidizing the losers mortgages", yet they have absolutely no problems with the government promoting their bad behavior by subsidizing the losers banks! Where is there outrage at that?
Some people need critical thinking skills.