quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub
Once banks had the ability to package and sell MBS they could not keep up with the global demand for investment returns and it was downhill from there.

True.  Mortgage-backed securities (and the fake "insurance policies" sold with them) are the root of the financial crisis (not FreddieMac/Fannie Mae, which were less than 10% of the problem).  They caused the downfall of Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., and the subsequent collapse of the bank credit market. 

Who's responsible for this legislation allowing these?  None other than John McCain's economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas).

(a Republican helping out his banking buddies...what a shocker)

Excuse me, but the relaxation of regulation of FNM and FRE  by the democrat Congressperson Barney Frank and HUD head Andrew Cuomo is what took the 1977 Carter legislation to the level of  irresponsibility.  Combined with a total disintererst in over-sight of these two GSE's the dye was cast for todays financial debacle. 

quote:

As far as Lehman and the other investment bankers, why were they allowed, where was the oversight, when they took their balance sheets to 30-35X debt to equity?  Yea...those guys were greedy, but it was the liberalization of requlation that nurtured the destruction of their balance sheets.  . 

quote:

As far as Phil Graham goes, you are absolutely correct in his contribution to the mess we are in today.  But if we are to have an honest dialogue here...you must also admit that there is enough and specific name responsibility on the democrat side of the aisle. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

so now its the JOB of Government to care for business?!
its alwayws been wrong that GOV gets involved in pvt affairs

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

...BUT "now is not a good time"  doesnt wash.     now is never a good time.  


the final say in the matter is the market- people are not buying SUVs like they used to. when gas went up many got stingy with the $. ...I owned a 89 which got better mileage then 1998. same model.

they had ample time to get with it.   and now every car they make is....as good as an Edsel.   lol 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Well I guess it's time for me, on page three to get the topic somewhere near on track if possible.

While I fully agree that this is not a good time for stricter controls on emissions, ignoring problems forever is what got us here, so consider the folowing.

Those standards apply to all cars sold in the US, therefore all must comply. That includes the foreign firms.

CA has had stricter than federal standards for decades, look an car manuals back to the 1970s, there is a US version and a CA version of the emission control system at the very least. The laws really got out of hand, I mean to the point that enthusiasts could get street legal headers and oversized exhaust, but only if they used certain camshafts. It didn't matter if they actually lowered the emissions on their own car, the part design had to be tested independently to assure that it inherently lowered, or at the very least would not increase emissions. That is not good, because the net effect was probably to stifle individual creativity and innovation in the field.

However on the flipside of course is the fact that CA actually needs to be a bit stricter because of the population density and the lay of the land. I can accept that, but the red tape they created for such people was an overall negative. People would actually buy a different new car because they found that they could buy more street legal aftermarket performance parts for it. 

In Infernoland, which is a paperback adaptation of Dante's Inferno, hell is described as "too much too late". Perhaps this applies here.

Now let's forget about market rules for now, and focus for a moment on market LAWS. Let's say the government imposes restrictions that no auto manufacturer can currently meet. What would happen ? There would be no cars for sale. Any bailout, bankruptcy or anything else that works has to be achievable. The idea is to get the auto industry moving again, even in light of the fact that foreign makers are having alot less trouble with dealing here. For the auto industry to get moving, there has to be some cars for sale, that people can afford. Market LAW might just make the gov back off a bit.

And none of this solves the problem, but alas we can't expect them to really think can we ? Put it this way, you reduce emissions to zero from cars, that does nothing about factories, pickling and other chemical based processing plants, nothing of the sort. Add to that the fact that even if there are a bunch of cars on the road that meet current standards, one car with one bad spark plug puts out more pollution than at least ten cars running right. And that's even if you take all the catalytic converters off and things like that.

Also, from one who has dabbled quite a bit in performance/emissions issues for a long time, the converter does nothing for a perfectly tuned engine. Now they actually have to detune the engine to fuel the convetrter. That costs efficiency, so where's the logic in that ?

I would say that the impetus for this stricter emission control is (at best) to make it behoove them to advance in hybrid and electric technology. However even if the intentions are the best, the government will almost always apply it the worst way.

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Decent wages are different than over paid. When someone standing or sitting in an ergonomically correct work station running an ergonomically correct tool, and can miss 100+ days of work a year and not get fired, and is making 3 times more than a teacher. Not to mention have way better benefits. Then yes, they are greedy bastards that are looking for more money than they are worth.

Sorry, you will soooo not sell me a sob story on union employees in this country. I've seen far too much to buy to that pitch. Far too much.

As far as I am concerned, they priced themselves out of a job and are now reaping what they sowed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

so now its the JOB of Government to care for business?!
its alwayws been wrong that GOV gets involved in pvt affairs

It`s a partnership.

It takes a village.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are some who feel that society serves the economy.

And there are those who feel the economy,should serve society.

That`s one of the differences between liberals and conservatives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub
Once banks had the ability to package and sell MBS they could not keep up with the global demand for investment returns and it was downhill from there.

True.  Mortgage-backed securities (and the fake "insurance policies" sold with them) are the root of the financial crisis (not FreddieMac/Fannie Mae, which were less than 10% of the problem).  They caused the downfall of Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., and the subsequent collapse of the bank credit market. 

Who's responsible for this legislation allowing these?  None other than John McCain's economic advisor, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas).

(a Republican helping out his banking buddies...what a shocker)

Excuse me, but the relaxation of regulation of FNM and FRE  by the democrat Congressperson Barney Frank and HUD head Andrew Cuomo is what took the 1977 Carter legislation to the level of  irresponsibility.  Combined with a total disintererst in over-sight of these two GSE's the dye was cast for todays financial debacle. 

"Excuse me", but as I pointed out, that was less than 10% of the problem.

quote:

As far as Lehman and the other investment bankers, why were they allowed, where was the oversight, when they took their balance sheets to 30-35X debt to equity?  Yea...those guys were greedy, but it was the liberalization of requlation that nurtured the destruction of their balance sheets.  . 

You've got it backwards.  It was Sen. Phil Gramm's legislation that prevented the oversight.  This lack of regulation allowed Lehman, AIG, etc. to write bad policies that guaranteed the financial collapse, when the investors called in their chips.

quote:

As far as Phil Graham goes, you are absolutely correct in his contribution to the mess we are in today.  But if we are to have an honest dialogue here...you must also admit that there is enough and specific name responsibility on the democrat side of the aisle. 

Considering that Gramm (R-Texas)'s legislation was responsible for over 90% of the problem, okay fine, that leaves less than 10% on the Democratic side.  I'll accept that.  I for one would be much happier with a <$70 billion bailout than a $700 billion one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub
I'm a little slow on this....could you explain to me or show me a link to anything that show Phil Graham had legislation approved by Congress and signed by the President that eliminated any need for oversight?  You are sayting that the  the SEC, SIPC, Federal Reserve, OFEA, and other government agencies had no responsibility to report to Congress...(as they did)...and Congress had no obligation to conduct oversight hearings (As the did).  Was it a "secret" that investment banks, the banking industry in general and FNM and FRE had leveraged their balance sheets with sub-prime loans?? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

so now its the JOB of Government to care for business?!
its alwayws been wrong that GOV gets involved in pvt affairs

It`s a partnership.

It takes a village.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are some who feel that society serves the economy.

And there are those who feel the economy,should serve society.

That`s one of the differences between liberals and conservatives.

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -



--  Ronald Reagan
 
Keep drinking the kool aide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

That would be the ones with  medians.....

So I`ve been told.....