October 4, 201015 yr If he is correct correct on his points I think TARP would get check marks in those two areas. However I don't think he is correct on the automotive jobs. If GM and Chrysler failed another company would have filled that void and would have added jobs. Which automotive company do you feel would have filled the void and added jobs? They would not have failed and blown to the wind. They would have filed bankruptcy and restructured, just like so many in the past: the steel industry, the airline industry, all kinds of businesses. And they would have come out leaner and more efficient.
October 4, 201015 yr Which automotive company do you feel would have filled the void and added jobs? Any and all of the remaining. Ford, Toyota, Nissan. I just don't think it's that easy. In the long run, maybe. I just can't imagine Toyota or Nissan suddenly hiring people and putting them in jobs that weren't planned. In the long run is what we are talking about isn't it? But the demand for those vehicles wouldn't just dry up. The others would add jobs as demand rose. It wouldn't be job for job as I believe GM had extreme amounts of waste but jobs would be created at other companies and in other areas of the country. I guess it's also possible that GM for example would be broken up and sold off. They would not have failed and blown to the wind. They would have filed bankruptcy and restructured, just like so many in the past: the steel industry, the airline industry, all kinds of businesses. And they would have come out leaner and more efficient. I actually don't think they would have completely folded either but was going on the "what if" they did.
October 4, 201015 yr Any and all of the remaining. Ford, Toyota, Nissan. I guess I just have doubts because all of the automotive companies were struggling. Ford didn't take TARP money, bailout, etc. Yet they still cut jobs, closed plants, stopped production of some models and scaled back others. Toyota struggled as well as Nissan. Toyota especially after the safety issues that occurred. I just don't see who would have been able to fill the gap.
October 4, 201015 yr Author In the long run is what we are talking about isn't it? But the demand for those vehicles wouldn't just dry up.. US sales is declining and is expected to continue to decline. It's down 7M since 2000.
October 5, 201015 yr I am still waiting for the first truly honest Republican campaign ad, "Vote for me because they haven't cleaned up the mess I made fast enough". Typical hyperbole. The Dems have been in control of Congress for 4 years. Geez........you're too easy.
October 5, 201015 yr You are an intelligent person, Clyde. Go to any small town newspaper or courthouse in the country and read about the foreclosures and credit card judgments, or examine the Chapter 13 small business bankruptcy dockets. In particular, pay attention to the lien and request for relief filings from the banks, and look at the box checked to see whether new loan was offered. Compare them with, say, 5 years ago. Then go tell me "TARP worked." Its election season, the economy is still reeling, and the Huffing and Puffington Post wants to proclaim TARP success? You know better than that. Your post makes too much sense and has no place in this forum.
October 5, 201015 yr I guess I just have doubts because all of the automotive companies were struggling. Ford didn't take TARP money, bailout, etc. Yet they still cut jobs, closed plants, stopped production of some models and scaled back others. Toyota struggled as well as Nissan. Toyota especially after the safety issues that occurred. I just don't see who would have been able to fill the gap. US sales is declining and is expected to continue to decline. It's down 7M since 2000. So both of you think that if GM and Chrysler folded none of the other companies pick up the slack?
October 6, 201015 yr Author So both of you think that if GM and Chrysler folded none of the other companies pick up the slack? It's not a matter of "if." I just don't think the jobs that were kept as a result of this would have become available yet.
October 7, 201015 yr It's not a matter of "if." I just don't think the jobs that were kept as a result of this would have become available yet. "IF" so, those jobs saved may still go. This economy is nowhere close to recovery, in fact, it's still on the decline. You can debate "IF"s until you turn purple. Here are some non="IF"s (aka facts) ... Orders are still declining. Car sales are still declining. People are still getting laid off and there are no new "real" jobs being created. And then, of course, everything Hearsay posted. "IF" that is the keeps up, TARP will have failed miserably simply by prolonging the inevitable and driving us so deep in dept that our country may never recover. It's still waaaaaaaay to early to tell the effects TARP will ultimately have. Debate away, but that article and this discussion are extremely premature.
October 7, 201015 yr "IF" so, those jobs saved may still go. This economy is nowhere close to recovery, in fact, it's still on the decline. You can debate "IF"s until you turn purple. Here are some non="IF"s (aka facts) ... Orders are still declining. Car sales are still declining. People are still getting laid off and there are no new "real" jobs being created. And then, of course, everything Hearsay posted. "IF" that is the keeps up, TARP will have failed miserably simply by prolonging the inevitable and driving us so deep in dept that our country may never recover. It's still waaaaaaaay to early to tell the effects TARP will ultimately have. Debate away, but that article and this discussion are extremely premature. Then, doesn't this apply to woodsrider's "if" as well? "If" allowed to fold, another car manufacturer would have stepped in to fill the void?
October 7, 201015 yr Author "IF" so, those jobs saved may still go. This economy is nowhere close to recovery, in fact, it's still on the decline. You can debate "IF"s until you turn purple. Here are some non="IF"s (aka facts) ... Orders are still declining. Car sales are still declining. People are still getting laid off and there are no new "real" jobs being created. And then, of course, everything Hearsay posted. "IF" that is the keeps up, TARP will have failed miserably simply by prolonging the inevitable and driving us so deep in dept that our country may never recover. It's still waaaaaaaay to early to tell the effects TARP will ultimately have. Debate away, but that article and this discussion are extremely premature. So in your mind TARP is either a complete win or complete loss? You disagree with the Treasury Department saying that TARP will "cost" $50B? You place no value in the thousands of automotive jobs that still exist? You disagree with economists who say TARP kept this terrible financial situation from being many times worse? One of the points of the thread is that if you ask the vast majority of people what the true cost of TARP is they would respond $700B. That's not true because it ignores the paybacks of the funds that have already taken place. It was never presented as a panacea. It was a drastic step taking in extraordinary times. The "returns" have come faster than expected and many still have paychecks coming in. Some have said that without TARP UE would be 15%. 10% is terrible. 15% is unimaginable. There are intangibles that can't be ignored and 15% vs 10% is one of those. The mistake would be to let TARP run it's course and not have any policy changes. That would be a huge failure. Edited October 7, 201015 yr by Clyde
October 8, 201015 yr So in your mind TARP is either a complete win or complete loss? You disagree with the Treasury Department saying that TARP will "cost" $50B? You place no value in the thousands of automotive jobs that still exist? You disagree with economists who say TARP kept this terrible financial situation from being many times worse? One of the points of the thread is that if you ask the vast majority of people what the true cost of TARP is they would respond $700B. That's not true because it ignores the paybacks of the funds that have already taken place. It was never presented as a panacea. It was a drastic step taking in extraordinary times. The "returns" have come faster than expected and many still have paychecks coming in. Some have said that without TARP UE would be 15%. 10% is terrible. 15% is unimaginable. There are intangibles that can't be ignored and 15% vs 10% is one of those. The mistake would be to let TARP run it's course and not have any policy changes. That would be a huge failure. A couple of questions... If the money is being paid back with interest and the true cost will only be $50B where is that money? The national debt gets increasing at record levels. Why has the deficit declined? TARP might have worked short term but if it only delayed the inevitable what was the point? Spending is still down, orders are still down, manufacturing is still down. Car sales and housing are still in the tank. How can anyone claim TARP worked when nothing is better now then when they passed it. And who says UE won't reach 15%.
October 8, 201015 yr Then, doesn't this apply to woodsrider's "if" as well? "If" allowed to fold, another car manufacturer would have stepped in to fill the void? Yes it would. See last sentence.
October 8, 201015 yr Author A couple of questions... If the money is being paid back with interest and the true cost will only be $50B where is that money? The national debt gets increasing at record levels. Why has the deficit declined? TARP might have worked short term but if it only delayed the inevitable what was the point? Spending is still down, orders are still down, manufacturing is still down. Car sales and housing are still in the tank. How can anyone claim TARP worked when nothing is better now then when they passed it. And who says UE won't reach 15%. The goal of TARP was to preserve confidence in the banking system and not have panic. The negative impacts of big banks failing was averted and the banks are paying back the money faster than expected. You and others seem to be of the opinion that TARP had to fix everything. It wasn't presented that way. Domestic spending stayed at a decent level despite world financial crisis. It did NOT fix problems of big banks being underfunded. It did NOT fix the foreclosure problem. It was not get a perfect score in it's goals. However, it prevented panic which would have had even worse effects than what we have now. THAT's why it should be deemed a success.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.