$1 USD, that's like $1 CAD?

[Tatar Khan]

One part of the documentary that ''stuck out'' is that one of the alternatives they mentioned was electric batteries using nuclear stations as their source. They went on about how it too ''dangerous''. They then proceeded to describe how there is a very good chance the world is headed towards nuclear war.... :P

The problem with nuclear power is the power plants themselves, and I don't mean the Chernobyl style of disaster. All nuclear power plants have expiry dates on them. Funny eh? But despite all the shielding the radiation still leaks through and contaminates the buildings and area around it. At one point the accumulation of the radiation is so high that it becomes unsafe to operate and it has to be shut down. Now you have a building that glows at night (well not really, but it radiative) and nobody knows what to do with it.

''How about refurnishing those car plants to make solar panels and wind turbines? Or mass transit vehicles (buses, trains etc).'' (reqoute for more serious non-rant discussion)

The public wants the Big Three to make the cars and not wind turbines or solar panels. Second the demand is not high for those things, and there is plenty of the public transit producers in North America, they might be crap because they know the government will buy their vehicles due to buy Domestic mentality (which is endorsed by the parties sitting on the left of the political spectrum). And GM is one of the largest bus producers and their buses are not environment friendly.

Here in Toronto the environment friendly buses became only the issue when the towns north of Toronto, collectively called York Region, bought Van Houle buses from Belgium that are completely electric rather than from local Mississauga plant as Toronto been doing for years. Suddenly the Mississauga plant came out with looks a likes (still look uglier) and electric and bio diesel buses. But there was still a lot of noise from the NDP (the socialists of Canada) that the York Region bought foreign buses.

Second of all there would be lay offs as the skills to build cars are not the same as skills to make solar panels. This is exactly what is government wants to avoid. Now that is also not truly a capitalist move as according to capitalist rules the Big Three would have collapsed or been reformed long ago. It is government intervention that kept them where they are and that actions were justified by the usual job preservation arguments that the left expresses.

In a genuine marxist society you can be assured that instead of making a bajillion cars and other items never to be used by anybody, more emphasis would be placed on.... averting possible frikkin global disaster (as the consensus seems to be on what awaits the world if something is not done) and the like.

Marxists often refer to this as a ''rationally planned economy'' (with economies under capitalism clearly standing in stark contrast).

There is no evidence to suggest that. The capitalism assumes that all people are rational beings and since all people as rational being must be afraid of global warming they would only than buy ecologically friendly products to prevent it.

Second of all please define the "genuine Marxist society"

Now, there may be issues of efficiency (market), deserving (people getting free stuff), and what have you, but a society whose force was devoted to the greatest good, would, regardless of how weak that force may be due to lack of motivation and market, AT LEAST direct said force rationally.

These pictures of fields of unbought cars that will basically never be used (despite the clear surplus, the production of cars continues [if at a reduced rate, though I'm not sure on that]) make one weary of thinking that the work of humanity is used efficiently under capitalism (even if, capitalism is better overall for whatever reason)

Cars are still being sold the sales have been reduced and so is production, and it is expected that in the future cars would be demanded again and so the companies are getting ready for that.

Anyway, what I have heard mentioned specifically is about mass transit from marxists. Andrew, I have your heard angry words against SUV's and the like, and I think you would at the very least be pleased to know that the marxists would probably re-distribute X work hours by stopping the production and usage of most cars and replacing it with an excellent public transport system (subways, buses, e.t.c.). The remaining cars would mostly be fuel-efficient ones instead of pointlessly wasteful ones. Of course if you want to be a douche and ride a huge guzzling polluter for no real reason, that option would be available to you but at great cost (though I don't really know details here), especially considering that earning ''insert absurdly large amount'' here would be impossible.

Yes most people say SUV's eat a lot of gas, they pollute a lot. We all know it, so how can you explain to me why is that just looking out of my window I see 5 right there parked in front of other houses. The owners must know how much gasoline those cars use, they pay for it, yet they still buy them. If you cross into US the cars grow bigger there immediately, the amount of SUV's is higher than here in Canada. Yet all those people who buy them know that they drive fuel inefficient cars. But they still buy tehm and it si not because there are nootehr cars available. People like them. Maybe they are trying to compensate for something.

[Sneakgab]

''The problem with nuclear power is the power plants themselves, and I don't mean the Chernobyl style of disaster. All nuclear power plants have expiry dates on them.''

Still got to be better than fecking nuclear war! (my point being that the notion that govt's would sooner opt for nuclear war rather than nuclear power seems pretty absurd).

''''How about refurnishing those car plants to make solar panels and wind turbines? Or mass transit vehicles (buses, trains etc).'' (reqoute for more serious non-rant discussion)''

Just to note that the qoute you qouted of mine was me qouting Andrew (ie: not my idea).

''The public wants the Big Three to make the cars and not wind turbines or solar panels.''

Are you speaking about what they want as in considering their purchases?

The thing about the public is that I doubt many of them have the ability to (and if they do, know that they do) to alter the demand for solar power. In any case, the demand for cars from the Big Three is apparently not that high (atleast at their prices and whatnot. Of course, as you have said in a market regulated economy they would have been gone long ago so when it comes to their waste...)

'' and there is plenty of the public transit producers in North America, they might be crap because they know the government will buy their vehicles due to buy Domestic mentality (which is endorsed by the parties sitting on the left of the political spectrum). And GM is one of the largest bus producers and their buses are not environment friendly.

Here in Toronto the environment friendly buses became only the issue when the towns north of Toronto, collectively called York Region, bought Van Houle buses from Belgium that are completely electric rather than from local Mississauga plant as Toronto been doing for years. Suddenly the Mississauga plant came out with looks a likes (still look uglier) and electric and bio diesel buses. But there was still a lot of noise from the NDP (the socialists of Canada) that the York Region bought foreign buses.''

As you suggest, this ''buy domestic mentality/policy'' may be pretty stupid. I guess I can see some potential advantages though. Won't go either way on that matter.

As for the NDP... I'm guessing the N stands for national. So that's why they made that ''noise''. My contact with Marxists indicates that they think that marxism and nationialism are in general, irreconcileable. The ''permanent revolution'' requires internationalism and the working class should not be divided along national lines.

''Second of all there would be lay offs as the skills to build cars are not the same as skills to make solar panels. This is exactly what is government wants to avoid. Now that is also not truly a capitalist move as according to capitalist rules the Big Three would have collapsed or been reformed long ago. It is government intervention that kept them where they are and that actions were justified by the usual job preservation arguments that the left expresses.''

Yes, even the fore-mentioned marxists seem to believe that capitalists markets should generally be left to regulate themselves (EDIT: Actually, maybe even generally is a bit too much. It is more accurate to say that depending on the situation and what exactly one means by regulate. It's probably safe to say though that the marxists would have been against the bailouts and all [at least I recall them saying as much in similar situations. EDIT]). They may not think that capitalism is the ultimate system, but they think that it is at least better than broken capitalism.

''There is no evidence to suggest that. The capitalism assumes that all people are rational beings and since all people as rational being must be afraid of global warming they would only than buy ecologically friendly products to prevent it.''

As in, there is no evidence to suggest people do not neccessarily act rationally under capitalism? Frankly, that is absurd (collectively at least, but even ''individually'' is under question). Do you see people rushing to avoid global warming? I know I don't. They tend to act short-sightedly. In any case, ignoring individuals, the companies pursue profit. The environment basically has no effect on their income,outcome, and profit, so it is almost as though it does not exist to them.

capitalism ''assumes'' people are rational beings and therefore that as rational beings they would buy eco-freindly products? Well, clearly, that assumption is wrong. Of course, you will now explain that actually the rational choice is not this, as their are other factors and that the current choice must be the rational one by virtue of that is what happens under capitalism  :P

If you mean that there is no evidence that in a ''genuine marxist society'' that production would be geared towards avoiding global calamity instead of making these items of ''questionable use'' (since you seem to persist that there must be very little waste in this capitalist economy, which should have been made lean and efficient over centuries of competition, [except where government has interfered] I will call their use questionable instead of non-existent), that is also quite absurd; such a government would by definition be geared towards the greater good of humanity (even if it's resources were made so inferior by it being an inferior system, that even with this ''direction'' it's efforts were still less in impact than capitalism's in this regard) and would be steered as such (along with the country) by true democratic control of everything including the production of man.

''Second of all please define the "genuine Marxist society"''

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure of what that is according to he marxists :P However, ''a society in which everything is under workers democratic control (production especially) in which the state ceases to exists'' would be a pretty good start.

''Yes most people say SUV's eat a lot of gas, they pollute a lot.''

''But they still buy tehm and it si not because there are nootehr cars available. People like them. Maybe they are trying to compensate for something.''

And this is rational behavior? You're problem is that even ''rational'' behavior in any case does not always yield good results when that rational behavior is done on a purely indivualistic and selfish basis (the ''rationality'' that dictates the market and production in capitalism). The difference with marxism is that the ''rational'' in rationally planned economy is that the ''rational'' is about a society co-operating in unison towards the greater good as opposed to the ''rational'' of doing whatever is best for yourself. Impossible? inneficient? Regardless, that seems to be what a genuine marxist society is, and along those lines (of production), you cannot deny that more emphasis would be placed on averting global catastrophe than building unnessecary cars.

[Andrew]

Oil Rises From Seven-Month High on Goldman

[chatfsh]

Gas prices going up?  Great, just in time for my trip to Disney on the 14th.  Silly me thinking that driving there instead of flying would save money.  Ah well.

[Tatar Khan]

The thing about the public is that I doubt many of them have the ability to (and if they do, know that they do) to alter the demand for solar power.

The Joe Smith doesn't need to buy solar panels to alter the demand it is the large companies and the power suppliers that would and if they see them as better than what they use for power now they will buy. However that is not likely to happen too soon as the US has one of the world's largest supplies of coal and huge amount of coal burning power plants. So unsettling those guys is an impossible task as more than one Congressman and Senator rely on votes of coal miners to get them into the office. So the coal burning plants will keep being major source of power for a long time.

As you suggest, this ''buy domestic mentality/policy'' may be pretty stupid. I guess I can see some potential advantages though. Won't go either way on that matter.

Buy domestic rules are usually just one of the forms of protectionism that ends up coasting people more money.

As for the NDP... I'm guessing the N stands for national. So that's why they made that ''noise''. My contact with Marxists indicates that they think that marxism and nationialism are in general, irreconcileable. The ''permanent revolution'' requires internationalism and the working class should not be divided along national lines.

NDP stands for New Democratic Party they are the mix of the former Socialist parties of Canada, and Workers and Unions political parties.

Yes, even the fore-mentioned marxists seem to believe that capitalists markets should generally be left to regulate themselves. They may not think that capitalism is the ultimate system, but they think that it is at least better than broken capitalism.

The problems is that the markets do balance themselves however in the meanwhile they can go into extremes as they balance, for this reason the governments try to cushion the extremes. Now sicne economics is not an exact science the results are not always what was intended.

As in, there is no evidence to suggest people do not neccessarily act rationally under capitalism? Frankly, that is absurd (collectively at least, but even ''individually'' is under question). Do you see people rushing to avoid global warming? I know I don't. They tend to act short-sightedly. In any case, ignoring individuals, the companies pursue profit. The environment basically has no effect on their income,outcome, and profit, so it is almost as though it does not exist to them.

Well first the green industries have been growing, and going green is a nice marketing tool. So there is evidence that people care about the environment. Second of all it is true people do not always act completely rationally, emotional response could affect the logical thinking causing what later can be viewed as irrational behaviour. Companies can not ignore the individuals because the individuals are the ones who buy their products.

If you mean that there is no evidence that in a ''genuine marxist society'' that production would be geared towards avoiding global calamity instead of making these items of ''questionable use'' (since you seem to persist that there must be very little waste in this capitalist economy, which should have been made lean and efficient over centuries of competition, [except where government has interfered] I will call their use questionable instead of non-existent), that is also quite absurd; such a government would by definition be geared towards the greater good of humanity (even if it's resources were made so inferior by it being an inferior system, that even with this ''direction'' it's efforts were still less in impact than capitalism's in this regard) and would be steered as such (along with the country) by true democratic control of everything including the production of man.

Well we both agreed that people are not rational beings and that they make irrational choices. Therefore your democratic production system would rely on the population that is irrational and therefore they would make the irrational choices, so how than that system would combat global warming any better than the current capitalism where the population that makes irrational choices in their buying behavior. You get stuck in the same problem any democratic system has, uneducated, emotional people are expected to make educated and logical decisions. A point for the capitalism is that people vote with their money in capitalism and since overall more educated people have more money the capitalism gives more voting power to the more educated, who are more likely to make more rational and more educated choice.

Oil Rises From Seven-Month High on Goldman

[Andrew]

Canadian mayors retaliate against 'Buy American' policies. Pass resolution to shut out U.S. bidders from municipal contracts

More trade protectionism

The Bank of Canada reasonably implied on Thursday that it might intervene to influence the exchange rate of the Canadian dollar, something it has not done since 1998.

USD is falling in value, causing CAD to increase in value. High CAD is bad for exports. Interest rates cannot be decreased anymore, so Canada is going to print more money.

Increase in money supply will cause inflation.

Gonna be fun once the inflation hits.

[Sneakgab]

''The Joe Smith doesn't need to buy solar panels to alter the demand it is the large companies and the power suppliers that would and if they see them as better than what they use for power now they will buy. However that is not likely to happen too soon as the US has one of the world's largest supplies of coal and huge amount of coal burning power plants. So unsettling those guys is an impossible task as more than one Congressman and Senator rely on votes of coal miners to get them into the office. So the coal burning plants will keep being major source of power for a long time.''

Yeah that seems completely right. Silly me to forget who it is that invests in power. Anyway, this is another example of the rational seen in capitalism: That of individual selfishness and profit making (mostly). It sounds bad but that is the way it is and I suspect we mostly agree here. However, on the matter of jobs, while jobs might be lost by the big three and the coal industry if the funds are re-distributed (not neccessarily forcefully, in case you though that. By any means like changing investment [for example. That is unlikely] ) to ''something else'' then presumably that ''something else'' will create new jobs. While it is true that government would be blamed for losing jobs while not being credited for allowing new jobs to br created, it is highly questionable whether big business would discontinue their usage of coal in favor of more eco-freidnly alternative. Money appears on their accounts, the effects on the eco-system do not. The only way eco-freindly alternatives would be used is if their usage was in fact more profitable. In fact, this is the reality of the capitalist system in general: something can only happen if it is profitable. As you said there is at least the benefit of green freindly advertising.

''Buy domestic rules are usually just one of the forms of protectionism that ends up coasting people more money.''

To be honest, I know practically nothing about the issue and have hardly thought about it. If I had to take a stance I would probably take you're word for it though.

''Well we both agreed that people are not rational beings and that they make irrational choices. Therefore your democratic production system would rely on the population that is irrational and therefore they would make the irrational choices, so how than that system would combat global warming any better than the current capitalism where the population that makes irrational choices in their buying behavior. You get stuck in the same problem any democratic system has, uneducated, emotional people are expected to make educated and logical decisions. A point for the capitalism is that people vote with their money in capitalism and since overall more educated people have more money the capitalism gives more voting power to the more educated, who are more likely to make more rational and more educated choice.''

Well, if that's the case why don't we just say to hell with capitalism, democracy, and marxism. Let's just go the ''philosopher kings'' route then. That would be closer to having the educated make the decisions than capitalism, where succesful businessmen have more power than anybody (and could not be said to be the most educated). Even in the case of fuedalism, the aristocracy typically received the finest education.

Though, I like that ''vote with their money'' line. That is probably a pretty good way to sum up the situation and is quite eloquent.

The thing is that while rationality or it's lack thereof exists in both systems, in marxism the rationality is about the greatest good of all, it takes the whole and considers everything, whereas in capitalism the rationale is about only you're self and your profit. Naturally, somebody considers and thinks about the whole will yield better results in terms of efficiency. In capitalism, companies may adapt to become better and better profit makers and perhaps to be more and more efficient individualy, but the sake of all is no pressure on them. Coal is more efficient for them than solar power because the negative effects of coal on them and their business personally is negligible while the cost-power ratio difference is not. Marxism may have it's own problems as well that reduce productivity, but it's production and resource allocation is superior to that of capitalism because of the difference bewteen collectively allocating and produce for the good of all and producing and allocating purely for the good of your self (even if, in the end, capitalism STILL meets that goal better because MORE is produced and allocated due to their being better motivation).

The purchasing power is mostly held in the hands of the rich. That means most purchasing power is put towards increasing profit, or towards absurd luxuries that relatively speaking are incredibly cost-inneficient for the goal of bettering the situation for mankind. All the production, effort, investment, e.t.c wasted on useless jewellery, wines, private jets, multiple mansions (per a person) could have been much better spent.

This all represents votes dictated by a selfish, individualistic, profit obsessed ''rational'' (don't feel like saying ''rationale'' for some odd reason) that is clearly not towards the production that results in the greatest good. Remember when you were hinting about SUV drivers preffering their big cars despite their costs? Well, concerning results between buying an SUV and a normal car could hardly be said to be the population as a whole simply because the SUV driver gets a little pleasure out of his car. This is the result of the money voting system that supposedly gives the educated more votes: votes go towards things that are foolish on the large scale. Even the rich will be sorry about the other rich buying SUVs, when oil and pollution cause all manner of calamities. Sometimes even the ones with voting power will be voting towards things that will negatively effect them as a whole in such a system.

Finally, it should be noted that it is the big businesses who have most of the vote in this ''democracy'' and that businesses are forced to do what is profitable in order to compete: It is a strange democracy where most of the voters only have 1 choice on their ballot: the most profitable one.

[Andrew]

Oil at $71.

'Fast Money' Recap: Inflation Fears

Yet another zomg inflation. I warned about this back in 2007. And now it looks as though interest rates are gonna have to go up in order for people to buy US debt.

Jeff Macke said the high yields will kill the housing rally.

Good. The last thing we need is another housing bubble. Everyone expects it to go back to where it was and keep increasing. Not sustainable.

How about buying a house to live in? and not for only 5 years, then sell and upgrade to better house, and repeat every 5-10 years. If everyone is on this treadmill of expecting house prices to increase x% every year and simply buy bigger/better house, eventually no one can afford it unless banks give loans to everyone, and eventually bubble pops again.

EDIT:

Mortgage Rates in U.S. Rise to Highest Since November

Fixed U.S. mortgage rates rose to the highest since November, signaling the Federal Reserve’s plan to lower borrowing cost is stalling.

Wait, so the Feds want to have low interest rates so everyone can borrow more money? Didn't this happen in early 2002-2003 when interest rates were low and everybody got ARM loans to finance overpriced houses? So fed wants everyone to borrow even more, to help the economy?  "We'll borrow our way out of this financial mess caused by excessive borrowing!"

[Khan]

Detroit houses sell for $100! We should all get together and buy a block!

[Andrew]

Detroit houses sell for $100! We should all get together and buy a block!

You could buy a large area. But what would you do with it? You'd need to build fortification walls, security, bullet proof cars/vests. You'd make yourself a target to criminals. And those cheap houses have been completely gutted.

Now I could agree that someone could buy up lots of land and sit on it until stuff (society) gets fixed, but there would be a decent chance the government would steal your land for themselves to try and fix things.

There are several articles about how there is no retail chains in Detroit.

Retailers Head for Exits in Detroit

If you live there you can not buy anything there. No national grocery chains are in Detroit.

Car manufacturers are getting another bailout! So they can build fuel efficient vehicles.

Ford to get $5.9 billion in loans for fuel efficient vehicles

Biggest scam in history? So people wanted big gas guzzling vehicles, and car companies made them. Now gov has to pay car manufacturers to build cars no one wants? I presume startup companies that have been trying to build electric and fuel efficient cars before the crash are getting billions in new loans and grants? I'm guessing they havn't. Hell in Canada barely any provinces allow ZENN (electric) cars on any roads.

Story from 2007: Electric car maker charges Ottawa blocking its sale in Canada - An electric car manufactured in Canada, could not be sold in Canada. But now the gov has no problem giving billions to failed auto companies and tell them to build electric cars!? Why not give it to a company that is already building electric cars, and maybe they can build highway capable cars.

Ontario LCBO stores drying up as retailers and consumers brace for strike

There is a run on liquor stores before a strike occurs.

"We just went down to the liquor store and spent $8,000 just to stock up, and we're going out again today to pick up more," said Michael Sweenie, owner of Andy Poolhall, a popular bar in Toronto's Little Italy district.

At first I was like $8k!, then I read on and it was for a bar, so meh.

[Sneakgab]

What does anybody think of the idea that if the government had not assisted the ''big auto companies'', their bankruptcy would have resulted in a bigger market share for the fuel efficent, electric,e.t.c auto makers and that in claiming that market share those auto makers would have employeed those workers of the ''big auto companies'' who would have recently lost their jobs?

Of course, one might say that those ''big auto companies'' were/are actually not taking up that much of the ''purchasing power'', that they actually don't have much market share to begin with (or alternatively, there is not much of a market to be had). Then again, if the purchasing power dedicated towards the auto sector rises again, then their absence would probably mean a larger market share for the fuel efficienct, electric e.t.c auto makers.

In ''low cash'' situations, one would imagine that people would be practical, and forget about big and/or beautiful cars in favor of fuel efficient, electric, e.t.c cars and that thusly those kinds of auto makers would be experience a relative advantage in such times (assuming that such cars are not more expensive than the big and beatiful ones. In fact, these cars seem to be as cheap if not cheaper than your regular car, so they should be experience an advantage against the automakers of that type of car as well, because much money can be saved on petrol via the purchase of such cars).

However, we should remember that the rich control a huge portion of (if not most of) the purchasing power. They will typically not worry about practicality and efficiency. Sure, such rich people might typically only purchase 1 car and with their low numbers you might expect their effect to be small, but their purchasing power is still reflected here because one can purchase multiple ''normal'' fuel efficient or semi-electric/electric cars for the price of one of these vehicles (so 1 rich man can full well spend a cr@p load of cash buying a car/s). Not only that, but often rich people will buy more than 1 car (not sure of the significance of that).

After all, we have yet to hear of any troubles for Ferrari, Porsche, e.t.c.

[Khan]

You could buy a large area. But what would you do with it? You'd need to build fortification walls, security, bullet proof cars/vests. You'd make yourself a target to criminals. And those cheap houses have been completely gutted.

Well the artist they interviewed said they had to be careful to not entice thieves but he didn't say anything about extreme secruity measures, not that hey could likely afford anything that hardcore. And if artists are moving in it can't be too tough a neighbourhood to survive in.

[Andrew]

Citigroup plans to boost salaries for employees to offset restrictions on bonuses

Thanks Obama!

No matter what, the bankers and auto makers will get paid, even when they fail. Because they know they are too big to fail, and government will bail them out every time.

I wonder when/if the 5 big media companies start to fail, will the government bail them out? There are only a couple of them and if they failed it would be "bad" for the economy.

[Sneakgab]

Now wouldn't that look awfully suspicious. Was that your point in mentioning them specifically, that that would be a particularly ridiculous bail out because it would reduce the credibility/trustworthiness of those 5 media companies to zero?

Of course, big corporate media is hardly known for good (ie: gives good data and focuses on important issues), trustworthy media.

Like any corporation, they are led by profit. If more money is to be made running gossip about some celebrities' surgery than informing of us important issues, then that is what they will do.

[Andrew]

Five Banks Are Seized, Raising U.S. Failures This Year to 45

I heard Megan Fox was bi. John and kate are getting divorced omg! They apparently have been on tv for 2 years and I only heard of them in the past month. And with Michael Jacksons death Iran coverage has disappeared.

[Andrew]

As per last week banks failures, this week sets a weekly record for this year

U.S. regulators close seven banks

‘Rogue broker’ blamed for oil spike

Really? A single person can cause billions in revenue and affect the global economy with a couple transactions?

Know how congress is passing a law to prevent credit card interest rates from rising?

Credit Card Issuers Raising Rates Ahead of New Law

Good job Obama and congress! Anyone who carries a balance on a 20% interest rate credit card deserve to pay the interest. If you don't have money in bank to pay for credit card debt you acquire, then you shouldn't be using a credit card.

EDIT:

Facebook Employees Offered $100 Million for Shares

Valued at $6.5 billion.

Hope the sale goes through and the bubble crashes.

[Andrew]

Goldman Sachs Posts Record Profit

Huh? I thought the banking industry almost collapsed, and yet they still have record profits?

Why did they need $10 billion of government funds then?

[chatfsh]

Surely you must know that Goldman Sachs is part of Wall Street

[Andrew]

You mean this guy?

;)

[chatfsh]

Nah, it was definitely Paulson who wrangled Congress into passing the first $700 billion bailout legislation in 2008.  Remember that whole

[Andrew]

Now that the Obama administration has spent billions of dollars on the bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, Congress is considering making its first major management decision at the automakers.

I thought the government was not going to be making management decisions?

Let's see what the decision is:

Under legislation that has rapidly gained support, GM and Chrysler would have to reinstate more than 2,000 dealerships that the companies had slated for closure.

Government fails again!

Why on earth do I need two of the same dealerships within 1 or even 2 hour drive? Ok, I guess for service work, but what I was told for the closings was there were too many dealerships. Now it turns out it was the perfect amount?

[Khan]

It's a great plan, jobs will be secure until an election!

[Andrew]

Recession in Canada will end this quarter

Bank of Canada states there will be growth this quarter. Recession is over. Yah! Canadian dollar is increasing in value, so this will hurt the economy. But it means cheaper imports (electronics) yah!

Now we get to look forward to inflation. I'm gonna have to keep an eye on interest rates, as this means they will probably go up before end of year. Hmm, although BoC says it will stay fixed until second quarter 2010. More inflation if there is growth but no increase in interest rates. Cause according to sticky prices, prices for goods never went down with deflation, but now we got inflation so their prices will continue to go up.

[Mahdi]

Bought a house today.  In the country.  2 stories.  3 bedroom.  2.2 acres. 

All these years embezzling from Gobalopper finally paid off.

[Andrew]

Student loans puts college graduate into deep financial hole

Good article on a loser who got a business degree. Makes the rest of business admin people look bad.

Student loans were a fact of life for Marjorie Dillon and she was OK with that -- even though she didn't keep close track of how much she borrowed or completely understand the agreements.

Yeah, great don't keep track of what your borrowing.

But six months after graduating with her bachelor's degree, Ms. Dillon is making $7.25 an hour plus tips serving beer at a bowling alley, working 25 to 30 hours a week. She's nearly $120,000 in debt, behind on her bills and, despite her best efforts, cannot find a better job. Her 80-year-old grandmother co-signed for the loans and could lose her house in North Fayette if the debts are not repaid.

$7.25 an hour!? Min wage where I live is $8.20. $120,000 for a bachelors degree? How is that possible!? I went for much longer than her and have much less of a loan. Her grandmother might lose the house...

Ten of Ms. Dillon's loans totalling $108,639 were private signature student loans through the SLM Corporation -- commonly known as Sallie Mae -- which cannot be consolidated, forgiven, deferred or erased in bankruptcy. Two of her loans, totalling $9,000, are federal government loans.

Only $9,000 is federal loans!? Rest is private banks.

University records show she failed to complete the Free Application For Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) on time for the first three years she attended Robert Morris, starting in fall 2005. That meant she didn't qualify for federal student aid and state grant money through the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

She didn't bother applying for FREE money!

Now the fun starts:

He suggested she move in with her grandmother if possible to save $600 a month on rent and eliminate the $120-a-month cable and Internet bill.

$120 for cable/internet. And she is not living at home. Umm...

She could erase the $329-a-month car payment by selling the vehicle and using public transportation. She also should try to renegotiate the interest rate on her credit cards to reduce those $300-a-month payments. Her $150-a-month cell phone plan could also be reduced, he said.

Wait she has a car? $330 is enough for decent car too.

$150 for cell phone wtf!?

"You dangle a steak in front of a dog and he will eat it. Every student takes out extra for living expenses. We don't work. But I'll do what I have to to make it. Yes, it will be hard. I've only made one payment and it's already hard."

You didn't work at all while getting the degree!? Umm, I'm pretty sure every single person I knew that went to university worked at least in the summer.

So she got a business degree, yet knows nothing about finance.

To top it off she decided to have a kid. Fail.

Congrats on the house Mahdi. Have a good housewarming party :)

Good time to buy with low interest rates.