quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

First of all if I am not mistaken we know about banks here in Cleveland. Cleveland Trust, look it up. They got big and moved out. My bank was Dollar Bank until a few months ago. Based in Pittsburg. Both cities are Fed reserve cities, like I fucking care anyway. They pulled out. How many Ohioans does Keybank employ ?

Fuck all of them. My sinister worked for those motherfuckers and back then she could change jobs at the drop of a hat. Not no more. They can all go to fucking India for all I care.

You know what's cool about this whole fucking thing ? American workers got tired of filling the bosses bags with bread. OK so now all the companies are in otgher places. Guess what, those people will eventually learn as well, and probably better because their nice and fresh and had a better education. They will fuck these suits way better than we ever could. Let those people breathe, and develop a nice healthy greed in them. Where are the companies going to go next, Antfuckingarctica ?

One of the few things that makes me want to live is to see this shit really come tumbling down. I really don't have much more to live for.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
Here's a link from the New York Times, which has several other links embedded.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/protectionism_trade/index.html

Protectionism generally is referred to in terms of tariffs and import duties levied against goods coming into the country. Where it rises its head in terms of jobs has been in a lot of the rhetoric concerning outsourcing. Back during the bailout days, there was a huge outcry over some bank receiving bailout monies but outsourcing core jobs overseas.

I don't have a lot of time this morning to hunt links but here's a couple

http://mikenv.hubpages.com/hub/Great-News-Bailout-Banks-Outsourcing-Jobs-to-India

http://www.outsourcing-weblog.com/50226711/lou_dobbs_the_auto_bailout_and_outsourcing_and_outsourcing_contracts.php

I'll look for the link when I have time where the discussion was over a fear of the US trying to keep more jobs here by making off shoring less attractive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Epytropos, there are two reasons why I believe that money in the hands of the lower classes will stimulate the economy more:

1. The velocity of money.  If someone goes and buys a pack of cigarettes or food, it will happen quickly. Thus, that money is returned to the economy, to be reused many times during a year.  If it goes into an investment vehicle, it will be held up for a while.
2. Investment money is vital to build corporate infrastructure.  But right now, we don't need more investment - we need more purchasing.  The reason that businesses are hurting and not hiring, is because people aren't buying.  We need more money used for buying, not for investment, and that's why I favor money going to the lower classes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MileHighM

To the OP.

To create jobs, yes, it will come from an American consumer willing to spend again. However, no amount of stimulus, tax breaks or investment is going to change that.

Someone stated earlier that if they got stimulus it would go to paying off debt, therefore it wouldn't stimulate the economy. That is the dirty secret behind all of this. There is warehouse full of toxic private US debt. As long as that debt is out there, it will continue to compound problems in the US economy. What is risky about tax breaks or stimulus spending right now, is that the only option for the government to pay its bills is to defecit spend. This only compounds our debt problem by adding to the public debt warehouse, without even mitigating the private debt warehouse. Even cutting government spending, which will be good in the long run for the public debt and future fiscal viability or the Gov't, will be disasterous in the short term. It would pour massive numbers of newly unemployed on to the scene and create more uncertainty in the business community.

Even if we engage in protectionist measures to try and haul jobs back to the shores of the US, I can't see that working considering that it won't stimulate consumer spending. Our Debts, private, public, whatever, has to be a priority. Until we can seriously restructure it and put restrictions back on it, to prevent it from growing again, we can never expect to get out of this malaze. All of the growth of the go-go 90's and the post 9-11 realestate booms was all bought on credit. The credit line is always reached eventually, and we reached it. Now, we are paying for it.

I am more worried about bad policy rather than good. I don't care if the gov't comes up with a fix. I don't think it can. I would rather it roll back a bunch of bad ideas and then get out of the way. I am more worried about it trying to fix the situation. I think we are so fragile that unless they hit a home run, they will only do more harm. And right now, I confidently don't believe either party can field a Babe Ruth. Therefore, call the rain delay and stay in the dug out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


At least some get it!

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

We need a moonshot- in this case, replacing fossil fuels.
A solid cheap energy source would do wonders for the economy..agreed


1) This will need deficit spending because there's not enough discretionary money in the budget. (Sorry Stephen-we're going to increase the size of the debt- no options at this point.)
The Reason for our economic weakness is debt, public and private, we have to figure a way to mitigate it.

2) It's going to require some "protectionism". Germany has had a rather successful economy in the past 15 years, and they've done it by protecting key industries. Why does this work? Because China does not respect other countries IP and they offer cheap prices for a limited time till they steal a technology. If we're going to figure out how to do more efficient solar cells, better transmission lines, fuel cells etc.- we can't do business with China. We can do business with other countries that guard our IP as zealously as their own. True... but first thing is first

3) The stimulus did work- it stanched the bleeding. It was also less than $1T. The next stimulus needs to be larger, but can't be based on "shovel ready" projects- we need longer term goals.
We are in so much debt now, the benefit from spending more will be whiped out by interest payments. If we had 10T less debt I might agree.

4) Arguably, the infrastructure spending during the Depression that did the most good was on airports- when the US went from being a second/third tier country to leading the pack in commercial aviation. But the DC-3 would have never been built if there hadn't been airports built in the US. The infrastructure we build has to enable other industries.
Back then we were more or less still a developing nation by global standards. We have a defined infrastructure now.....What do you suggest?

5) Governments should reward innovation by the marketplace. Rather than fund companies directly- which David Brooks points out with the recent Solyndra bust hasn't worked too well, we need to come up with gov't contracts. As an example if a company can produce a solar cell mfg'd in the US that beats 25% efficiency, the gov't will buy 10 GW worth per year at $1/watt. The gov't can use them to power federal buildings, military installations, and other state/federal facilities. We need similar programs for things like mail trucks (should be electrically powered and school buses as two off the top of my head. NYC taxicab fleet might also help- but we need federal contracts for electric vehicles. Rather than fund the companies directly- just put out the contract and let the capitalist system work.
I like the x-prize type mentaliyt of if it because that wouldn't outlay initial deficit spending. However, you need ot be aware of the scope of the problem. For solar to be competitive you need 25% efficiency at $0.50/watt wholesale. that is 66% cheaper than it is today and roughly 60% more efficient than it is today. You are looking at a decade or more before that is a real option.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

MHM

Well, we've been focused on cutting the debt and we've gotten more joblessness which effectively increases the debt unless we're willing to let people starve on the street. I find this unpalatable. Federal budgets have been cut- and state and city budgets have been feeling the pain of the ax. Doesn't seem to be working. No job growth, and interest rates are in the cellar. We can't cut our way out of this depression anymore than we could in the 30s.
In order to fundementally support public employees, we have to increase jobs in the private sector. Did I call for budget cuts? We need deficit cuts, in whatever way they come. Our problems vary from that of the past. We have so burried ourselves in debt during the good times, that we have no credit for the bad times. The old models are broken and we need to think outside the usual political boxes. It is unpalatable, but more failed policy isn't going fix it. You cannot use suffering as an excuse for more suffering. As I said in my OP, we don't need the consequence of dumping more people onto unemployment. But we have to figure out how to clear our debts. If we aren't paying all those damn interest charges we can afford the paychecks.

We weren't a developing nation by the 1920s, we were already a global economic powerhouse- or at least we had the potential with the tools in place, i.e. an educated workforce, and decent infrastructure. Superconductors or other technology to reduce transmission losses would be a good place to start so that we can get power from Oklahoma to the East Coast cheaply. There's already been some limited deployment- again, like a moonshot- time to think big.
We weren't nearly like Europe. Our infrastrucute was still a lot of dirt roads. The country was not completly electrified. FDR changed a lot of that with the WPA. Education? not really till after WWII. It wasn't until the boys returning home took advantage of the GI Bill that we truely had an educated workforce. Well, we need leadership for a moonshot. We need clarity in purpose and courage in resolve. We have no one politically capable of delivering it (either side), as of now. Hell we haven't even had an energy policy since about the days of Nixon. Kennedy was right with the moonshot, but who is the next Kennedy?

The point about having the federal gov't be the first customer is that they're willing to pay for performance. Airmail made no economic sense when it was first inaugurated, but it helped pave the way for commercial traffic. Electric vehicles are still suffering from lousy batteries- that's an area that's ripe for development.
As you said, they have to divorce themselves from picking winners and losers before the race is even run. What if battery operated electric cars aren't the answer? Private industry knows the value of battery technology. Everything today from cell phones to vibraters depend on them. Billions is being thrown at battery technology globally, from polymer batteries to nanobatteries. What makes you think letting a bunch of politicians grand standing it will suddenly make it work any better or faster? The difference between Kennedy and Obama/modern liberals is what Kennedy did the moonshot for. He did it for national pride and purpose. All of the solar/wind investment and stimulus spending has been focused on fufilling political ideology rather than whats best for the country. Kennedy didn't do it to prop up dying unions and political donors, he did it of the benifit of all Americans. Nor, was he concerned with forcing costly technology down the throat of Americans for the purpose of fufilling some idyllic change in behavior, he looked at as a way to forge a trail into the future.

Solar investment is skittish because of lack of long term commitments. Defined federal contracts would go a long way to reducing that skittishness. Nor should solar have to compete directly with existing technology which already has massive subsidies and has done grievous environmental harm. Solar could be significantly more expensive than coal fired power at the meter, but when all the economic and environmental factors are added in, solar comes out ahead. We need pricing for CO2 desperately- and it's got to be more than $100/ton.
Sounds great from an environmental standpoint, but it is a true economy killer to raise energy prices. When the majority of solar material is made off-shores, our solar subsities are going off shores then, we become dependant of foriegn silicon instead of oil, and we accomplish nothing economically. We need to loosen environmental regulation with regard to the refinement of silicon so we can become the number one producer of refined silicon as well as lower the price of the product. This is not to loosen the over all regulation but merely the litanany of permit requirements to build a facility in the US. Solar is 10x more cost competitive than it used to be in the 1970's. I believe it will be someday on parity with coal power generation, that is all about patience my friend. Finally, a CO2 tax? Do you intend to make that a global tax? If it isn't, watch every last job in the US be moved off shores, that is pure lunacy. China has already said we can take any notion like a CO2 regulation and shove it straight up our ass. They will tell even more businesses to come for the cheap power in China, because they will do anything to keep the price down and porduction up.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

MHM

Financial markets do not share your skepticism about US debt. If our debt were so dreadful, then there should be a premium to buy it. However, everybody still thinks that US treasuries are a good value- that's why long term interest rates are so low. They are in denial right now, if we go down the world goes down with us. They are praying it ain't true. The WSJ has been harping on this for years and has been shown to be wrong by the market. This means we still have room to maneuver. I do agree that we need a long term solution- however, as Krugman of the NYTimes has pointed out- joblessness had better be a short term problem.No arguement there.

We agree that the US hasn't had an energy policy in decades-however, Carter did a great start on it. This gave the US the lead in wind and solar energy during the 70s and up until Reagan- who promptly chucked the solar panels off the roof of the WH and cut funding to basic energy research. Agree as well that Obama's leadership has been sorely lacking. Disagree that solar/wind R+D has been political ideology- if we had used the fruits of this research well, we would have had domestic industries here- haven't you been paying attention to the global wind and solar buildout? I have, I work in the industry. They are cutting the feed in tarriffs and subsidies gloabally left and right now. Spain and others are burried in debt from it. The part that has been political ideology has been its premature implementation in economic sectors where it is just not viably being used. Yes I said it 'premature implementation' . However, those countries were more likely to ensure the jobs were created in house rather than in China. Something we were unwilling to do.

In terms of battery technology- go back and reread my prior post. I agree with you that the gov't doesn't do a good job of picking technological winners/losers-especially because that's the purpose of research and often the marketplace does a better job (not always- look at Microsoft.....) Hater... What about the xbox? The kinnect is a true piece of technological genius. I guess I could have used the phrase energy storage devices because capacitors have a potential role as well. However, show me where I picked a battery technology- I didn't. I'm not sure that lithium chemistry is the way to go- I've seen some theoretical work that's shown that other systems have higher theoretical energy densities but that might be metal/air batteries. But we do need some type of electrical energy storage to power our vehicles. Why does it have to be electric storage? Fuel cell technology already has the energy density to cut the mustard. Why do they have to be electric at all??????? The issue is energy efficiency and not energy type, storage, etc. you are missing the greater problem and looking at the shortsighted fixes. Even electric cars polute through the smokes stacks of the power plants that generate the juice.

In terms of raising energy prices- I have no idea where you come up with the notion that raising electricity prices kills an economy. Power costs are quite low these days- even a 50% bump wouldn't do much to most businesses. Furthermore, given that labor costs and capital costs are what businesses focus on, I'm not too worried about an increase in the cost of electricity-Then why haven't they already gone solar? CO2 tax is morelikely to destroy us in shipping an transport costs, where most is created and where energy cost are king. especially because it may help reduce health care costs- reduced CO2 emissions/smog etc improves health. Given health care costs, its quite conceivable that even doubling electricity prices might reduce overall costs if we get rid of smog in areas such as Houston.Pipe dream buddy. When you got fatty kids running around in hords and the leading cause of death in this country becoming obesity, converting the atmosphere into pure O2 aint going to do shit when people are stuffing the doritos down their cram hole.

I have no idea where you got the notion that environmental regulations have anything to do with silicon production. It used to be that solar cells were made from the rejected silicon from chip production, but when the solar market took off within the last few years, silicon production ramped up to meet demand which is why silicon PV prices have fallen as of late. Wrong: http://www.wikinvest.com/commodity/Silicon. Look at what has happened to the commodity price of silicon. It has risen. While it is on the decline currently because of the economic down turn, it is still high priced. And that ramp up in production has been mostly off shore (Look evergreen just packed up and left). The regualtions I speak of are in the permitting and construction of new facilities. These refineries are complicated installations with a lot of potential environmental biproducts. They are not being green lighted like in other nations.

China's already got cheap power, subsidized capital, and poor environmental protection. There are a lot of businesses that have migrated to China. Not that many of them have done all that well. Tell that to Wally world(walmart) This is a business problem, and stems from having too much of our economy depend on the financial services industry which can't focus beyond the next quarter. One of the big reasons we need to eliminate private debt. Europe is going to REACH regulations which are demanding accountability for everything in a product. I'm not sure this is such a terrible idea- it'll throw a monkey wrench into the China machine. In other threads I have suggested similar to Europe's REACH regs, I think it makes the playing field more fair.


Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Wilbur....

Again- if our debt was so dreadful, there would be a premium to buy it, and interest rates would be rising. In a certain sense- Europe's problems are irrelevant to the cost of US debt. Again, the financial markets do not share the doom and gloom of the debt situation you and MHM are making out. I do agree that some long term restructuring is necessary- but our first and foremost priority must be job creation to get the economy moving. Once it is, then focus on dealing with the debt. But long term priorities do not trump the short term priority here.

Education is a separate topic- although it's dismaying to realize that worker retraining programs often fail.

In terms of the autobahn- geez Wilbur, maybe you ought to try looking something up before posting. My recollection was that there was a massive movement to build the Autobahns under Hitler- its one of the ways he created jobs and Wikipedia agrees with me- coming up with a table that showed 108 km completed by 1935, but over 1,000 km completed within a few years.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
As far as I am concerned the jury is out on Germany. The country gets about as much solar insolation hitting it as Michigan. At least in Spain or the South West of the US, the Earth gets pounded by sun. Essentially, it costs 70% less to operate a solar panel in Madrid as it does in Berlin because of the level of insolation.


In terms of fuel cell technology- it's possible-but barely. Furthermore, the efficiency isn't that great for PEM cells-I think you might get 10% more overall efficiency than an IC engine, i.e. somewhere around 40% IIRC of converting fuel to electricity. I'm not sure Steven Chu was in error when he decided to ditch hydrogen- the storage is a nightmare and the transport is theoretically impossible- you can't use a pipeline. Fuel cells really do much better in co-generation facilities where you need heat and power- or you need to burn up nasty organics. Ford had a paint facility where they really liked going to a fuel cell- not only did it get rid of their emissions, they got power to boot! That was a bonus. Lithium ion batteries are really pretty good in terms of efficiency- the round trip is in the mid 90s or higher i.e. energy input for charging to energy output. There are some that are above 50% now, we are working with company that makes them. While batteries have the upper hand in efficiency (even lead acid perform above 90%) They are still way too heavy, need to be replaced with great frequency and are extremely costly. Look at the Tesla, to drive roughly 200miles on an overnight charge, you need 1000lbs of Li Batteries that would cost you over 40k....And if you think you actually get that 90% efficiency, what about the 60% of lost power used to transmit it to your house.

In terms of shipping and transport- hell, I'm not sure I'd mind if shipping costs go up- especially from China. Its arguable that we got into this mess because of cheap shipping costs.
Can you tax the carbon used in international waters? Good luck. Don't forget shipping includes you, your commute to work, your vactations, the cost of employees to get to work, mass transit, etc, etc....It all adds up. There are better ways than carbon taxing, because it will all go back to the consumer, the cash strapped I don't want to spend right now consumer. Want some cheap new energy? How about a prize of 250Billlion for the first company that can produce a renewable power source which can deliver power for $0.05kWh wholesale, while maintaining profitability in a subsity free environment and achieve TW status in 5years? That prize would have everyone and their bother working on it, and it wouldn't just be wind or solar, it would be anything people could dream of. And that prize would be chicken feed in the grand scheme of things for an energy source of such potential.

Sam