Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
You're making the assumption that the prices for used cars would have remained static or would have not climbed by that $700 value in your example over the same period. Would this be realistic in this environment where, you know, people would be more reluctant to sell their cars into the used market and opt instead to hang onto their vehicles indefinitely? That puts a chokehold on the supply in the used car market.
I wouldn't call the CARS program a rousing success, but I wouldn't call it a failure either.
|
If the Obama administration gave it as much thought as you did above I would be surprised. The primary point is that unintended consequences have to be accounted for, the costs of government programs have to be looked at, the Obama administration has a pattern of selling the benefits and ignoring the costs.
---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I don't know what your business does, Ace, but would you have vehemently opposed an Obama initiative that gave incentives for consumers to utilize YOUR business?
|
Yes.
I have no interest in being beholden to the government. If you talk to the car dealers who had to jump through the government hoops to get paid, many have said it was not worth the aggravation. I just want to pay my fair share of taxes, follow the law and be done with it.
---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
that would in all likelihood be understood as a self-defeating effort on the part of a state that is as it can only be which is misguided, fucked up, a mobile principle of irrationality, that would introduce distortions into the otherwise grandly functioning bidness empire that is ace's.
he's a supply-sider you know.
|
I am also a free market capitalist and think it is the best system for average people in an economy.
Let's play a game, let's call it who wins, corporate America or real middle class people.
Scenario #1
We have a closed economy called America, everything else is equal. The economy supports 100 car transactions per year at a price of $10,000. Corporate America handles the transactions and gets a 10% cut - that, $10,000 x 100 x 10%, which is $100,000. Now let's say the government causes prices to increase 35%. a few things could happen, including...
let's say transaction volume stays the same, but the costs go up to $13,500. Corporate America gets 10%, now they earn $135,000, with no increase in costs, who wins?
let's say transaction volume goes down 35% at the higher cost. Corporate American makes $877,500 at a volume of 65 transaction, they fire 35% of their work force, who wins?
And so it goes, Corporate America is chalking up record profits during an economic recession with no jobs growth, and people call it corporate greed, I call it short-sighted economic policy.
I am a supply sider, don't you know.
---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Who created the real estate bubble and the financial meltdown, then?
|
Easy credit, overly optimistic outlooks, secondary markets allowing risk transfer, mixed in with greed. We have had this combination of issues in the past and will see them again in the future, with or without Bush.
---------- Post added at 06:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
Bush was in office for eight years. During which time he implimented certain economic policies. As a result of those policies the economy tanked.
|
Using your logic was Clinton responsible for the Dot Com bubble creation and bursting? I would say no.
Quote:
|
Obama has been in office for one year. During which time he implemented certain economic policies. As a result of those policies the economy has started to recover.
|
That is the "rainman" argument that I alluded to earlier. If not for Obama the economy would not recover????
---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Um, wait. What has hurt more, Obama's "rhetoric and attack" or the financial sector's history of ludicrous credit practices coming to term?
|
I think the market could have handled the issues "coming to term", however, creating a panic can overwhelm what could have been an orderly unwinding of excessive risk and speculation in the market.
Quote:
|
The reason why banks aren't lending and credit is frozen has a hell of a lot more to do with the breakneck speed and heavy-handedness at which banks threw around their own money and the money of others. What is your opinion of Obama's recent move regarding how banks may or may not do business in the future?
|
I think banks will find away to make and grow profits. There are armies of people trying to figure a way to make more money compared to those in Washington trying to control it. What the market needs is openness, fair and honest disclosures - that should be the focus.