Tuesday:*sigh* I know what rice wine is....it was Czuch's change of wine from champagne to "saw-kee"

***Bernice: It's called sake....saw-kee.***

Artful Dodger: So... the USA being a big company of sorts should never be bailed out......

Guess those loans better be called in then.

And many banks failed or are just scraping by, and many people lost their life savings. Have no pensions from the results of what's happened. Like those who invested with Madoff.

And yes.. many small businesses fail, but that is normal and not relevant to the current situation. The current situation is not normal.

Ok, say we let you make the decision that all the automotive businesses in America should go under.. And then stand in on a podium in front of all the workers, look them in the eye and say "Your jobs are gone".

(V): the US is not like a big company. And no, it shouldn't be bailed out. California is a good example of this. They are a government. They operated against sound economic principles. They are a very liberal State and they simply gave too much money away. YOu can't offer free this and free that to people that don't contribute and then scratch your head when the money runs out. No bailouts for California. They dug their own hole even while they were being warned. They ignored the warnings. You touch the hot stove, you get burnt. Deal with it.

As for the auto industry: if they fail, they fail. More people have lost their jobs in small businesses than could ever lose their jobs in the auto industry. Big business doesn't make the US. It's the small ones that do. The big ones suck up to the government. When "Ma Bell" was dismantled, competitive businesses sprung up everywhere. Sure, thousands lost their jobs when the telephone company split. Many more thousands found jobs as a result of newly developing businesses.

On Banks: if they are insured, you get your money back. If not, oh well. It's not the job of the government to bail out people who make bad investments.

As to Bernie Madoff: The government was warned over and over about that man and the government ignored it. Seriously, he should be hung in the city square for all to see, along with any others who were participants in the theft.

But bailouts? No. Who is going to give me the thousands I've lost when the market lost money? No one. That's the way the ball bounces.

(V): The current situation is not normal.

Just because something hasnt happened in your lifetime, doesnt make it paranormal...


Yes, some people will always suffer when jobs are lost and certain industries fail, and some jobs will gain when new industries rise....


You dont seem to care about oil jobs being lost, since they are causing global warming, its no different from a car company that isnt keeping up with the times.

Czuch: Back in 85 I lost my job due to the government's intrusion into AT&T's business. They split up the phone company and I lost my job along with 24,000 other workers. No one bailed me out. Thousands more lost their jobs after the breakup. I was 34 and had two children. Along with my wife's help, I put myself through college, landed a teaching job, and started a new career. I went on to get my master's degree and that put me way up on the pay scale. No government help. No bailouts.

And what of all those workers who also lost their jobs? If they looked, they found new work. As a result of the breakup of the phone company, many more businesses were formed. Some grew at fantastic rates!

So here's the government breaking up a "BIG" company on the one hand, and then helping a "BIG" company on the other.

Let the market take care of it. After the phone company breakup, new business started. More jobs were created than were lost. I don't recommend it because it was government intrusion that caused the problem (and I could have my stats wrong). Either way, the government should do it's job and ONLY its job. Follow the mandates of the Constitution and stay out of our lives. They try to RUN everything but they RUIN it instead.

Big government = less freedom = less quality of life = less potential = weakness.

Artful Dodger: Btw.. a service being split is not the same as a company busting through worldwide economic depression. Such a comparison is not relevant.

We've had services privatised or put into competition (rail travel, post, etc) and a certain amount of rearranging is normal. People will lose jobs, jobs will be created.... That is a normal event well known to those who've studied economics and not the same as a depression related collapse.

Do you understand this?

(V): not the same as a depression related collapse.




Its NOT a depression created collapse!!!! Its a I cant keep up with the times or run a business correctly related collapse You put out too many loans to too many people who cannot afford to pay them back, thats just a poor business decision.... not anything to do with a depression!

Again, AD already told you examples where many banks are doing just fine.... why do you ignore these facts?

(V): "a service being split is not the same as a company busting through worldwide economic depression. Such a comparison is not relevant."

It's relevant because thousands of jobs were eliminated because of government intrusion. You are right that new jobs were created as a result and this point supports my position. The car companies are allowed to fail and new companies would spring up. There's always someone waiting to jump in.

But bailout a failing company? No. How will that help in the long run? It won't. History will show this bailout of car companies to be a huge blunder.

Czuch: No. I'm saying No country is perfect...

"dont even know what a doctor is?" please... They use both western and chinese medicine And if you are in China dial 120!!

And please what about our own pasts as mentioned? Us British invented the concentration camp I believe during the Boer war, we massacred Iraq's before Saddam was even born. British Imperials stole Rhodesia off the native African people and worked them just as we had slaves as your country did at one time.

You've ignored this. I was making a point about history and that we are all descendants of conquerors and those who did terrible things in the past.

Even our country's main religions (as in USA and UK) hands are stained in blood.

"snot eaters" ........... is that what you call Chinese people??

Tuesday: Well. to call a people downtrodden and names in the same breath...

Oh well

Tuesday: oh... and I pronounce it like... saahkay

Czuch: and we pronounce it "sarkee"
I also have friends that have a chinese restaurant, I rang them and asked (they are chinese) and they pronounce it the same....
but I guess if you have a plum in your mouth you would pronounce it "saw-kee" kinda like being a snob.

Bernice: yep we pronounce it sarkee to

Imsoaddicted: Sah - Keh

Thats how we pronounce it here....

Tuesday: sorry... I just have an image of some poor Chinese kid, up to his thighs in rice paddy, runny nosed on a cold morning, thinking how wonderful his government is because they can afford to buy the debt of the US......

Tuesday: It's that there seems to be no recognition of history and economics that gets me, and that there is no understanding that a country is a big economy built of various segments of industry from various areas and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.

** and I refer everyone else to this answer in reply to their replies **

Saves me time typing

(V): and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.


This is your theory, maybe, but you have no proof, or historical record to back that up!

You just dont get that things are always in constant change.... the climate for one, but you just want governments to stop it anyway.

AD, just gave you a real life example of a huge industry change, when ATT split up... we recovered from that, and got stronger even.
You will push to stop burning fossil fuels, but you want to save the industry that makes cars that burn them?

Then, on the other side, you could care less if some oil exec. goes to the poor house, along with all his employees, right?

I just dont get it?

Czuch: No proof or history... ghost towns from the collapse of the local supporting industry when such towns population have been reliant on one industry. Never heard of this Czuch?

And AD's example is not relevant, it was not caused by a depression but a change in competition rules. If you cannot understand the difference then study economics

If the auto industries go under it's not just them that will suffer, but again you'd need to know economics to understand this... look under supporting and related industry and services.

"Its a I cant keep up with the times or run a business correctly related collapse"

Which has led to a depression. The causes I agree can apply to certain companies, but others have been caught up in all the mess and failed of no fault of their own.

(V): others have been caught up in all the mess and failed of no fault of their own.

You seem to believe we all have a God given right to be successful???

Thats where we dont agree... Success is a condition of many factors, some of it in our control, some of it not, like timing and luck.

Try to start a computer company during the great depression and you would fail... not because of the depression, but because the internet had not yet been invented, not a bad business idea really, but just not the right time in history.

Try to start one now, and you will likely fail as well... too late, bad timing, not the fault of a depression, should the government support you?

There are plenty of car companies thriving right now, and banks as well, the smart ones.....

Point is, we do not have any right, nor is it the responsibility of the government to make sure we are all successful

(V): ghost towns from the collapse of the local supporting industry when such towns population have been reliant on one industry.

You said it will lead to the collapse of the whole industry, not of a town... thats where you have no proof... there is no evidence to prove that if you let a few car giants die that the whole auto industry will collapse because of it, try to stick with one debate at a time

Czuch: In your first reply you missed the point, and in your second. I gave you examples.

It's called history of how some collapses have affected a town... another such example would be the dust bowl problem that happened in the USA in the 20th C.

And I am sticking to the debate, and what I'm saying is relevant and part of the debate as I learnt from economic classes at school and from observing economists talking on depressions and collapses of the past.

And you have no proof that the auto industry will not collapse... and are you willing to let all those jobs be put at risk with no evidence you are right? I've not seen you bring anything to the debate to support your opinion.

(V): So, you really believe that there is a chance that the whole worldwide auto industry will collapse????

I can bet you any amount of money that there is absolutely a ZERO percent chance that will or can ever happen, at least until we all stop driving cars

Czuch: I didn't say that. I never said that.

Please.. as you say keep to the debate.

(V): and that collapse of one segment can lead to the whole being severely weakened to the point of collapse.


That is your quote.... the collapse of on part can lead to the collapse of the whole.... explain then what that means?

To me it means that if you let part of the auto industry collapse, then it is possible the whole auto industry will collapse as a result... what else could your statement mean then?

(V): How about dinosaurs? They existed once, in great supply... you cannot blame humans for their demise nor any government could have saved them....

Its just the way of the world.... there might come a day when humans dont exist on this planet, talk about ghost towns!

You can have your governments keep putting their finger in thew dike holes, but just like that wont keep the dike from failing, your governments cant stop the world from changing as it is going to do

(V): "And AD's example is not relevant, it was not caused by a depression but a change in competition rules. If you cannot understand the difference then study economics"

The CAUSE is not relevant but the effect is. Therefore my example is more than relevant. We are talking about the effects of policy change. And in the same way ATT was split due to policy, so are the big car companies being bailed out due to policy. You can argue that the bailout policy is due to depression and you can also argue that the ATT split is due to a depression of sorts: smaller companies were economically depressed (or suppressed) by the big monopoly.

It's a relevant argument.

Artful Dodger: Nope.

(V): Its a waste of time to post a "nope" in my opinion. What?

gogul: Why keep repeating myself??? Nope.... not needed.

(V): Indeed.

(V): What I wanted to say, with a single "nope" written in a post you waste the time of those who can make up their own minds.

gogul: Maybe.

Tuesday: Yep!!

(V): we are all descendants of conquerors and those who did terrible things in the past.

... ahhh, so you are saying that the Chinese are on the correct path, just going through some growing pains, based on the fact that the US had some of its own???

(V): "snot eaters" ........... is that what you call Chinese people??


not really, I just made that up for effect, but I ate some snot before when i was a lad, out on a cold morning... its not very becoming

Czuch: Um... you do know that eating snot is comparable to eating a McD's.

Something about the flavour and make up of the fats and sugars!! Or so the scientists say!!!!

In response to these comments:

> I am sure if I had a billion people working for me who I could steal from
> (their productivity wise) I could assume a bunch of the US debt as well.

> I just have an image of some poor Chinese kid, up to his thighs in rice paddy,
> runny nosed on a cold morning, thinking how wonderful his government is
> because they can afford to buy the debt of the US

I heard this idea of "China buying US debt" being tossed around during the election. Barack Obama used it a lot more that John McCain.

There is a general lack of understanding about how China came to hold billions of dollars of "US Debt".

Back in the 1960s China was a nation in a state of collapse. Having come out of a bad revolution and a "cultural revolution" China found itself with almost no industry, no agricultural production and a lack of a good educational system and technology. Western economicsts knew that China did have one asset which was worth a lot. This was its people. With a high population China was sure to come out of its problems if China could channel all those people into industrial production.

Richard Nixon made that historic trip to China and later Deng Xiaoping (the communist leader educated in France) agreed to allow foreign investment in China. After the fall of the Berlin wall, western companies rushed to open factories in China because with an average salary of 800 USD per year China offered one of the lowest labour costs in the world.

Western companies have made trillions of dollars manufacturing goods in China. Rather than calling this "we are exporting jobs overseas" or "we are exploiting Chinese people", western economists invented a sanitized term: "Outsourcing".

The US has "outsourced" so much of its production to China that now the capital flow to China exceeds anything that they could afford to buy from the US by approximately 45 to 50 billion USD per month. American politicians cry fould saying that China has protectionist policies in place but the reality is that China does not need much along the lines of manufactured goods. China buys billions of dollars of grain and legumes from the US, but agricultural products are valued relatively low. American manufactured goods have become in essence luxury goods. The average Salary of Chinese workers does not allow them to buy cars or computers, so the balance of trade is out of whack.

Since the US debt is now growing at 40-50 billion per month in trade and capital exchange, the Chinese are not stupid and they are heavily hedging their holding of Us dollars by purchasing massive amounts of treasury bills and federal reserve bonds.

American politicians point the finger at China and the Chinese government, but the reality is that the debt is being fuelled by our consumption and the greed of large monopolies that have shifted all of the manufacturing to places like China, India and Vietnam. They do it because people in those countries are poor and when you are poor it is easy to be exploited.

Should the Chinese government raise their minimum salary? That would cause massive inflation in the US because the manufacturing cost would go up, and companies like Walmart oppose anything like that. Should the Chinese government take measures against foreign companies that exploit Chinese workers? The American government has already taken China to arbitration to the WTO when they tried to impose restrictions on foreign companies. Walmart fought tooth and nail to stop the Chinese government from passing a law requiring that Walmart employees in China join local unions.

Pointing the finger at China is unfair, because our side is as much to blame as theirs. I will believe in pointing the finger on the day when the American government (and other western governments) requires American companies to honor minimum salaries on a worldwide scale. On that day unfair labour advantage will end and American companies will pack up their bags and bring manufacturing back to the US, and the US will stop "selling its debt" to countries like China, India or Korea.

Übergeek 바둑이: Well said.....

Übergeek 바둑이: excellent post... reminds me of some friends of mine who say " That job(some type of labor) isn't worth X amount of money, A Mexican{ or illegal immigrant) will do it for Y amount,, Americans won't do this type of work anymore"

Übergeek 바둑이: Whats the solution then??? Government mandate wages paid? Maybe that US manufacturers should have to pay US minimum wages no matter who does the work? Then where will that leave us? What would the after effects be?

Czuch: No foreign cheap labour source ... basically no more "99c" stores.

(V): No foreign cheap labour source ... basically no more "99c" stores.

Okay, so everything would cost more, but nothing else would change, would it?

If manufacturing came back here, unemployment would go down, but wages would go up, then it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, even at minimum wage, so we would be right back where we started, except now, instead of 99 cent stores we would have 5 dollar stores!

Czuch: $5 stores... I doubt it, but prices on "Made in China" goods would go up, McD's would cost you more...

Also, if like us you've stuff done in India. Then if like us, you ban(ish) 'sweat shop' clothes made (if not already) then more price increases. Plus ... many dead and obsolete computers are recycled in India by hand... with the chemicals they use.

... another reason to make sure your hard drive is wiped 1000% before selling it, or getting it recycled!! .... etc.