Recovery Summer?

[kochman]

And what's the opposition's plan? Oh right, trillions more in tax cuts with no way to pay for it, the abandonment of the American automotive industry, and the removal of protective regulations which would have stopped future needs for taxpayer-funded bailouts.

So, throwing billions at a failure of a sector is good? Or just not as bad as what the opposition wants? A lesser of two evils scenario?

 

[Verbose]

How different is the unemployment metric between the US and other places, like Canada or <Insert West European Country Here>?

It seems one of the things about the US figures to look closely at are the concept of "discouraged" workers possibly not being counted? That doesn't seem to crop up in Europe.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The European figures tended to be a bit of a mess, but it's one of the areas where the EU has brought a fair amount of clarity and comparability. You can check out the EU stuff here at least:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics

The thing to look at in the EU figures might be the 15-24 youth unemployment. It includes kids still at school looking for part-time jobs as well as university students. In my native Sweden the political magazine "Focus" has tended to be provide the weekly unemployment figure broken down as according to EU specs (students etc. included) and the figure minus the student population. The first figure right now is 8,1%. The latter is more like 4,5%.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So, throwing billions at a failure of a sector is good?

You mean a sector that's rebounded fantastically, and paid back its loans with interest?

Or just not as bad as what the opposition wants? A lesser of two evils scenario?

If you think I'm reserving succor for Obama, you are mistaken and should know better by now. I'm simply pointing out that the opposition's plan doesn't address any of our problems in a meaningful way either, and are in fact a good deal worse than the present admin's somewhat halfhearted plan.

 

[kochman]

You mean a sector that's rebounded fantastically, and paid back its loans with interest?

Actually, it has lost us money, if you are talking about the GM thing, which I wasn't...
I read recently that it has actually been a net loss.

No, I was talking about the (unfortunately for us all) failed alternative energy companies such as Solyndra, ENER, etc...

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Such as?

"Corporations are people, my friend!"

To this day it still confounds me how an organization with the select goal to get as much money as possible counts as a "person" in any way.

 

[kochman]

"Corporations are people, my friend!"

To this day it still confounds me how an organization with the select goal to get as much money as possible counts as a "person" in any way.

You may not agree with it (nor do I), but it is hardly "radical extremist righwingnuttish".

 

[JollyRoger]

I wonder what Romney's response would be if he got hit with murder charges for the "people" he killed over his career.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Actually, it has lost us money, if you are talking about the GM thing, which I wasn't...
I read recently that it has actually been a net loss.

For GM, yes. And that missing money should be investigated. However, the net effect of that bail out was a good one; GM would have gone down and a few hundred thousand people would be out of work, and a big part of our dwindling manufacturing base would have disappeared. For the cost of 35 Billion or whatever the number missing was, I think that's a damn good deal, considering how well GM is doing now, and the conditions the government imposed upon GM for receipt of that money.

For the bank bailout, the government is making a substantial profit.

On TARP, most of the remaining projected cost ($46 billion) is related to foreclosure prevention aid, which was not intended to be recovered. TARP's investment programs, together with Treasury's full stake in AIG, are currently expected to realize a positive return.

Additionally, when you look at the government's overall financial crisis response -- which includes not only TARP, but other actions by Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC -- we're currently expected to at least break even and may realize a positive return.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/tarp-profit-a-myth_n_1450363.html

The article is called "TARP Profit a Myth," but the part I quoted is an update from the original story, containing clarification by the Treasury Department.

No, I was talking about the (unfortunately for us all) failed alternative energy companies such as Solyndra, ENER, etc...

Meh, if you listened to the testimony on Solyndra in Congress like I did, you'll see that Secretary Chu had a pretty decent reason for continuing to fund the Solyndra investment.

I've never heard of ENER, and I can't find anything about it by Googling. As for "etc," what else is there?

 

[kochman]

Meh, if you listened to the testimony on Solyndra in Congress like I did, you'll see that Secretary Chu had a pretty decent reason for continuing to fund the Solyndra investment.

I've never heard of ENER, and I can't find anything about it by Googling. As for "etc," what else is there?

Well, tell that to the taxpayers... we lost a ton of money by the government picking and choosing what to support. It picked losers.

ENER, that's the stock ticker for "Energy Conversion Devices"...
Here are the others:
Solar Trust of America
Bright Source
Solyndra
LSP Energy
Abound Solar
SunPower
Beacon Power
Ecotality
A123 Solar
UniSolar
Azure Dynamics
Evergreen Solar
Ener1

To the tune of roughly $10B...

 

[JollyRoger]

So about a month in Iraq so far as cost goes?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, tell that to the taxpayers...

It was told to a taxpayer: me.

we lost a ton of money by the government picking and choosing what to support. It picked losers.

So why isn't that wrong when a bank does it with your money and a bad security?

ENER, that's the stock ticker for "Energy Conversion Devices"...
Here are the others:
Solar Trust of America
Bright Source
Solyndra
LSP Energy
Abound Solar
SunPower
Beacon Power
Ecotality
A123 Solar
UniSolar
Azure Dynamics
Evergreen Solar
Ener1

To the tune of roughly $10B...

Or in other words, 1/10 of the subsidies the government gives to oil, coal, and gas companies, which this $10B was supposed to be creating alternatives to. Are you upset about the government picking those winners?

 

[History_Buff]

Well, tell that to the taxpayers... we lost a ton of money by the government picking and choosing what to support. It picked losers.

Is that really a bad thing? The government stated it wanted to encourage green technology development. In anything as new as that industry, you're bound to have failures. The fact that there hasn't been any successes is a bigger problem I'd say.

 

[Verbose]

Well, tell that to the taxpayers... we lost a ton of money by the government picking and choosing what to support. It picked losers.

ENER, that's the stock ticker for "Energy Conversion Devices"...
Here are the others:
Solar Trust of America
Bright Source
Solyndra
LSP Energy
Abound Solar
SunPower
Beacon Power
Ecotality
A123 Solar
UniSolar
Azure Dynamics
Evergreen Solar
Ener1

To the tune of roughly $10B...

Well, as History Buff put, it.
If it's not the US picking the winners, someone else likely will be.

This kind of thing keeps me wondering how Americans view possible infrastructure upgrades and shifts (— which according to some sources at least the US is already in need of)?

 

[Lord of Elves]

"Corporations are people, my friend!"

To this day it still confounds me how an organization with the select goal to get as much money as possible counts as a "person" in any way.

I've always thought that comment was meant as "legally corporations are recognized as people, which is why we can say a corporation owns property, etc" rather than some kind of declaratory statement about how we should empathize with corporations becaues they're people. So it's struck me as odd as to why it's so reviled as a gaffe, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well Romney is an individual with about as much money as a corporation, so it's understandable that he would look at them and see an equal. And I mean that with all possible parallels read into it.

 

[JollyRoger]

If two men want to become one, a corporation is the legal way to do it.

 

[kochman]

Is that really a bad thing? The government stated it wanted to encourage green technology development. In anything as new as that industry, you're bound to have failures. The fact that there hasn't been any successes is a bigger problem I'd say.

Is a $10B loss in this time of excessive deficit and debt bad?
Absolutely.

They aren't successes because you can't force things in a free market. When it becomes economically viable and effective, it will happen. I hope that happens soon... but until it does...

In other words, it was artificial. Most of these companies weren't really doing development, but production of inferior products.

Take the Chevy Volt that was heavily pushed... it sucks... they barely sold any, things were a danger, etc. Sound like something you want to buy? Why not just buy a Smart Car if that's the market you are in? It's more economically viable, safe, reliable, etc. It's not quite as green, but at this point it is the best thing out there in that market.

If the government wants to pick winners (Goldman Sachs, GM) and losers (Bears Stern, Lehman Bros, or the backed losers such as the list I showed), it should do due diligence to ensure it is reasonable and has a good chance of success...

I'd rather if politicians only handled big picture economic items, instead of micromanaging to that level, personally. They don't have a great track record.

 

[History_Buff]

Is a $10B loss in this time of excessive deficit and debt bad?

Not necessarily. It's not really a flat $10B loss. The money wasn't dumped into a hole and set alight. People were working in those industries. Research was done, human capital developed. It's a bad state of affairs, but for very different reasons than you think I'd say.

After all, deficits really don't matter, in and of themselves.

They aren't successes because you can't force things in a free market. When it becomes economically viable and effective, it will happen. I hope that happens soon... but until it does...

What makes you think the market is free? You're also paying billions of dollars in subsidies to the direct competitors of those companies, which were already profitable on their own. How does that make any sense?

 

[kochman]

Not necessarily. It's not really a flat $10B loss. The money wasn't dumped into a hole and set alight. People were working in those industries. Research was done, human capital developed. It's a bad state of affairs, but for very different reasons than you think I'd say.

Jeez... That's a really lame way of looking at it.
Ideally, if the government is going to get involved in PRIVATE industry, it should be as an investment for future tax revenue.
Otherwise, it's just more short term government workers... and they produced items that weren't worth it. Why even make them work? Just give them the money next time, cut out the middle man...
Your approach seems to be... well, it wasn't a total loss... just another $10B anyhow... big deal.

After all, deficits really don't matter, in and of themselves.

When it's around 40 cents on the dollar, they do.

What makes you think the market is free? You're also paying billions of dollars in subsidies to the direct competitors of those companies, which were already profitable on their own. How does that make any sense?

I didn't say I agree with that, but at least those companies are SURVIVING, and providing jobs, products we use, etc.

 

[Leoreth]

"Corporations are people, my friend!"

I've always thought that comment was meant as "legally corporations are recognized as people, which is why we can say a corporation owns property, etc" rather than some kind of declaratory statement about how we should empathize with corporations becaues they're people. So it's struck me as odd as to why it's so reviled as a gaffe, but maybe that's just me.

Legally corporations are persons, not people, which is not a negligible difference.

And afaik, Romney was referring to Citizens United there. Both of them (Romney and the SC majority) didn't grasp the fundamental difference of legal and real persons and who of them are the sovereign and thus should be able to engage in politics.