Economic and Financial Thoughts and Comments
AMAZON - Amazing what you can purchase & at great prices too! Links to Amazon UK and Canada
And for those in the US - Amazon Shopping
Monday, June 13, 2011
The hidden costs of dirt-cheap money
Sunday, June 12, 2011
MicroSoft...Washed Up?
Michele Bachmann: 'On the Beach, I Bring von Mises' - WSJ.com
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Next 20 years
CNN Poll: 48% Say Depression Will Strike America
Three reasons why gold is going to have a big summer
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Fraser Institute says auto bailout remains a bad idea
Fraser Institute says auto bailout remains a bad idea
Friday June 03 2011 - Street Wire
by Mark Milke of the Fraser Institute
Milton Friedman once said his greatest fear about the 1979 bailout of Chrysler by the U.S. federal government was not that it would fail, but that it would succeed. Mr. Friedman did not mean he was wrong to oppose it. What concerned him was how Chrysler's rescue (approved by the U.S. Congress in late 1979 and signed into law by then-president Jimmy Carter in 1980) might lead some to draw the wrong conclusion: the notion that such actions save jobs, among other illusions.
An example of an errant summary arrived again recently from federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty held a press conference with members of the Canadian Auto Workers union and Chrysler. They were there to trumpet how the most recent Chrysler bailout, in 2009, was a "success" because Chrysler has repaid some -- but not all -- of the money it owes Canadian taxpayers.
Several commentators followed up with praise for the government and taxpayer largesse. They argued opposition to such corporate welfare was based on neo-classical economics and "dogmatic impulses."
But such views, including those of Mr. Flaherty, assume that conclusions about corporate welfare are derived from ideology. Actually, they result from an examination of the pumped-up claims about government subsidies to business. Taxpayers, politicians and columnists should oppose corporate welfare not on ideological grounds, but on the plain fact that such subsidies do not perform as advertised, and did not, even in the case of Chrysler.
First though, we will deal with the payback. Chrysler just repaid $1.7-billion of the $2.9-billion loan from 2009. The remaining $1.2-billion will never come back, as Mr. Flaherty admitted this week. "That part of the loan, initially, was made to the old Chrysler that is no longer with us," said Mr. Flaherty. It was in reference to Chrysler before bankruptcy reorganization absolved the "new" Chrysler of past debts.
That $1.2-billion loan was pure folly. No sober Canadian bank -- recall, the much-praised ones that survived the recession's meltdown -- would have thrown a billion-plus at a company about to go under. Only a politician would and for purely political reasons.
To make this loss even more real, consider that coincidentally in 2009, the net federal income tax take from Newfoundland and Labrador was almost the same ($1.17-billion). I wonder how taxpayers in that province enjoy the thought that the equivalent of all their federal tax that year went to Chrysler, never to return.
On another claim -- Chrysler is healthy and a success because it paid back a portion of the government loan, that misses a salient point. Take any person or company in financial trouble, relieve them of their debt via bankruptcy and of course their position will improve. It does not mean they were somehow brilliantly successful. By that measurement, anyone who defaults on their mortgage is a whiz at real estate investing.
Mr. Flaherty defended the Chrysler-GM bailout on the grounds that 52,000 auto sector jobs were protected. But to use an example from the other side of the country, 92,000 full-time jobs evaporated in British Columbia between June, 2008, and June, 2009, the latter month being the Chrysler-GM bailout month.
B.C.'s job losses were far higher than those auto sector jobs Mr. Flaherty thinks he "saved." He could not have, and nor should he have tried, to save every business in B.C. (or anywhere else) or the attached jobs. Instead, a defensible role for government, and what was already in play via the employment insurance program, is to provide a bridge for individuals. After all, companies will rise and fall, including large ones. In 2009, Canada-wide, 5,420 companies went bankrupt; only two were bailed out.
The "government-saved-jobs argument" from Mr. Flaherty misses another obvious point: the cash disbursed to Chrysler (and GM) came from somewhere, from individual taxpayers and profitable businesses. All the bailout did was redirect jobs away from other companies, especially Chrysler's competitors.
Even had Chrysler and GM never exited bankruptcy court, other, healthier automakers in Canada such as Ford, Toyota and Honda could have captured more market share; they would have hired more workers as their sales picked up. But, instead, the sickest and worst-managed companies were propped up. That punished the best-run businesses and rewarded those that were poorly run.
Such bailouts have become a habit, at least for Chrysler. Chrysler was first bailed out in 1979/1980 only to survive and repeat history three decades later. That happened because politicians ignore the substitution effect. That is where taxes and jobs are politically transferred from healthier competitors to weak companies. The job losses at the former are less visible because cameras are not around when pink slips are handed out.
Ignoring that reality is no virtue, nor economically defensible, no matter how often politicians pretend otherwise.
© 2011 Canjex Publishing Ltd.StockwatchFriday, June 3, 2011
Canada is No Haven from US Dollar Collapse
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
How “Social Proof” Helps Smart Investors
The Last Nail by Ron Paul
BUY SILVER
Sunday, May 29, 2011
What happens when Greece defaults
Wow! UK taxes are pretty high
Doctor in the UK rapped for talking about God
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Once bullish, contrarian Jim Grant likes cash now
The Future of Microsoft?
Where did all of the Trillions of Thin-Air Money Go?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Congressman Warns: "Those Who Can, Should Move Their Families Out Of the City"
Thursday, May 26, 2011
China is Buying up Gold
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
3 budget woes bigger than the debt ceiling
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
A knack for making healthy returns from corporate debt - The Globe and Mail
Monday, May 16, 2011
WARNING SIGNS
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Lifeguards Make $200K Annually
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Jim Rogers: The dollar is set to rally now... but it's a "total disaster" in the long term
| Jim Rogers: The dollar is set to rally now... but it's a "total disaster" in the long term | |||
Text Size: From Bloomberg: The U.S. dollar is going to be a "total disaster" in the long term because of the country's position as the world's largest debtor and the policies being pursued by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, according to investor Jim Rogers. The Chinese yuan is likely to be a "safe" currency, although it is difficult for investors to buy, Rogers, the chairman of Rogers Holdings, told a conference in Edinburgh. "The situation is getting worse and I expect to see severe problems in the U.S.," Rogers said today. "Dr Bernanke doesn't understand economics, he doesn't understand finance, he only understands printing money and we can't quadruple the amount of money in the next slowdown." U.S. government debt is currently 93 percent of gross domestic product compared with 60 percent before the financial crisis and is set to rise further in the next few years. The dollar has fallen over the past year against every currency in a basket of 16 major currencies. The euro has gained about 7 percent against the dollar this year. It traded at $1.4311 as of 3:20 p.m. in London. "I expect to see more currency turmoil maybe this fall, and more turmoil by 2013," said Rogers, who favors currencies and commodities. Rogers said he is currently buying the dollar because the market consensus is for the currency to fall. Rogers said he is "short" emerging markets, except for China, and U.S. technology stocks as a hedge against his other positions. "Bonds in the U.S. have been in a bull market for 30 years," said Rogers. "In my view that's coming to an end." Rogers is only buying government securities now because 95 percent of the market expects them to decline, he said. Rogers said he couldn't forecast when the bull market in commodities will end. "I know the signs to look for," he said. "I hope I am smart enough to recognize them." "Great fortunes" will be made in agriculture and alternative energies, such as solar power and wind, over the coming years, Rogers said. To contact the reporters responsible for this story: Peter Woodifield in Edinburgh atpwoodifield@bloomberg.net; Rodney Jefferson at r.jefferson@bloomberg.net. |