$25 Billion to Automakers -- Better Idea

[Matt Herring]

Got ya Treb...thought you were asking me to explain my theory.

[RH77]

Great discussion!

After seeing the CEOs and higher-ups around the table with Nancy Pelosi on the news tonight, I had a feeling that they would get the "low-interest loan" they are seeking.

My idea was to offer a "counter-offer". The money would go for every unit sold -- the advantage would be that cheaper vehicles are generally more efficient, and appeal to the masses. Make something even cheaper, and cut the difference.

To clarify from the Focus argument, $5000 would be financed or whatever, and the Gov't either loans or grants the remaining 10K to the auto companies. True, the resale market would tank, but read on...

Observation: the public isn't buying new cars, and probably won't for a while. What can we do to help the Citizen and Manufacturer both? Sending them a pile of cash gets us what? Not loaning them money gets us what, also?

I'm just brainstorming an alternative. I don't expect every American to run out an buy a cheap new car, or have an offer for a large amount discounted -- am I wrong in the estimation that something similar could boost the economy into creating jobs and putting money back into the system? $150/person is nothing compared to what the Federal Government racks up in debt every day. We simply need jobs to run this big system of ours -- and they're drying up.

Another stimulus plan is at hand, but the goal of the argument is helping the Big-3 retain jobs in the U.S.

Disclaimer: I'm not an Ecomomist by any means, it's just something that came to my mind during the news. More jobs = consumer confidence = spending = tax income = more jobs...

-Rick

[Frank Lee]

More more more... I really dislike that philosophy.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

More more more... I really dislike that philosophy.

What, bottom-up instead of trickle-down -- or is Reagan a hero of yours?

[Frank Lee]

Raygun, my hero?!? Nuh uh!

Where is it written that a satisfactory existance cannot be had without growth? Where is it written that retraction is automatically a bad thing? I'll tell you where... EVERYWHERE! Doesn't make it right.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Raygun, my hero?!? Nuh uh!

Where is it written that a satisfactory existance cannot be had without growth? Where is it written that retraction is automatically a bad thing? I'll tell you where... EVERYWHERE! Doesn't make it right.

I see your point. But if we "retract" to give up jobs elsewhere, even in those markets that may be able to sustain themselves otherwise, is it true shrinking?

[Frank Lee]

It's all tied to the population. If the pop is growing, then the economy should grow too if each individual is to enjoy prosperity at least equal to the predecessors. If the pop is stable, there is no need for economic growth, if the level of prosperity had been sufficient. And it follows that if the pop declines, the economy can decline too without imposing sacrifice on individuals.

Of course there is more to it than that.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It's all tied to the population. If the pop is growing, then the economy should grow too if each individual is to enjoy prosperity at least equal to the predecessors. If the pop is stable, there is no need for economic growth, if the level of prosperity had been sufficient. And it follows that if the pop declines, the economy can decline too without imposing sacrifice on individuals.

Of course there is more to it than that.

I'm not trying to be a smart arse, I'm just inquiring as to your theory -- to learn about it.

So, you're proposing that we force ourselves into more of a flat population growth like Europe. Problem is, that's a tall task for the U.S.

We don't have the education system to compete in the World market (without major reforms). Many jobs in Europe are in the service sector. The UK has 73% of their jobs in this division. That means financial services, etc.

I'll be honest, this is really getting beyond my expertise. From what I've studied, the U.S. has an expectation to at least get to the point we were in say, 1999. The existing population will continue to grow based on religious, traditional, and patriotic reasons.

With that, the mindset likely won't change in our lifetime. So, there lies the conundrum. We cannot sit idly by.

-Rick

[Frank Lee]

"With that, the mindset likely won't change in our lifetime. So, there lies the conundrum. We cannot sit idly by."

Yes, we will sit idly by until the facts of resource depletion hit home. And I consider a square inch of peace and quiet, free from "development", to be a resource too.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

"With that, the mindset likely won't change in our lifetime. So, there lies the conundrum. We cannot sit idly by."

Yes, we will sit idly by until the facts of resource depletion hit home. And I consider a square inch of peace and quiet, free from "development", to be a resource too.

It still doesn't answer the question, where do you get your money (rhetorical)? We still have to pay taxes and buy essentials. It either requires a job of sorts, or welfare.

Anyways, back to topic -- the car companies may get a big loan tomorrow.