The Savior-based Economy!

[chess9]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02.../11dowd.html?th&emc=th

"Tim Geithner, the learned and laconic civil servant and financial engineer, did not sweep in and infuse our shaky psyches with confidence. For starters, the 47-year-old?s voice kept cracking.

Escorting us over the rickety, foggy bridge from TARP to Son of TARP by way of TALF ? don?t ask ? Geithner did not, as the president said when he drew on the wisdom of Fred Astaire, inspire us to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and start all over again.

The Obama crowd is hung up on the same issues that the Bush crew was hung up on last September: Which of the potentially $2 or $3 trillion in toxic assets will the taxpayers buy and what will we pay for them?"

This proposal, even in its present state of naked nothingness, offers little more than Paulson offered, and he was dreadfully clueless.

No limits on pay? Excuse me, but these guys ran our country into the ground. Here's a modest pay proposal for America: Pay each executive the percentage difference in IQ points between him/her and the average worker. For most CEOs this would mean they'd be paying their employers every month.

And what about these toxic assets? They are worth so little, no one is going to buy because no bank will sell at buyers' prices. These toxic assets should sell in bankruptcy proceedings, which is where CITIBANK and BANK OF AMERICA belong!

We, as a nation, are at the point where we have to actually make the hard choices. I see no evidence that Geithner or Obama are willing to do that. But, the sooner we make the hard choices, the sooner we will get our country back.

-Robert

 

[Genx87]

I agree. By throwing money at the situation it appears all it will do is prolong it. I didnt have a problem with keeping the bank liquidity high last Fall. But now they need another round of asset buyoffs? Force the bank to sell these at a loss on the open market. Somebody will buy them. Once those are sold we are back to ground zero and we can wipe the slate clean.

btw has congress fixed these loopholes that allowed this to happen? I havent heard anything about it.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree. By throwing money at the situation it appears all it will do is prolong it. I didnt have a problem with keeping the bank liquidity high last Fall. But now they need another round of asset buyoffs? Force the bank to sell these at a loss on the open market. Somebody will buy them. Once those are sold we are back to ground zero and we can wipe the slate clean.

btw has congress fixed these loopholes that allowed this to happen? I havent heard anything about it.

The banks refuse to auction off their toxic assets because such a sale of so many toxic assets at one time would bring pennies on the dollar. Right now, they are hoping for 75 cents on the dollar, but buyers won't pay more than 25-40 cents on the dollar. At auction, these assets would bring even less.

The SEC and Congress are looking at changes now, but these toxic assets are no longer being sold, which is the problem. No market, no value is possible.

-Robert

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think these guys are smart enough to identify the current securities with wobbly tranches.

They are p'ing themselves on this day ---> forward. If you don't know what is going bad, when it will go bad and how bad it will fook the overlying security, what can you do?

And who gets screwed the least? How do you assign the risk and loss?

The taxpayer? Assumes all the risk without any guarantee of return? Oh, Hell, No.

If *we* assume the risk, we get paid. A suck-arse little piece-ant who wants their return without any of the risk goes down. They put up their money, too, or fuggetaboutit.

Nobody really knows what is going to happen. Real estate prices drop 10% this year? Foreclosures double? What about next year?

Wall Street and the banks need to shoulder the overwhelming majority of this burden. They are smart guys (or do they not trust each other?) The taxpayer is the guarantor of last resort . If Uncle Sugar's money is on the line the taxpayer's position is senior to all others.

If they don't like it, they can take that tranche and suck it. No one gets 50 cents on the dollar if Uncle Sugar only gets 35 ...

 

[winnar111]

I thought Geithner was the only man for the job, the Messiah's handmaiden, which is why he had to be confirmed despite his tax cheating ways.

Shrug.

Obviously he has the same problem as Paulson, which is why Paulson bought up preferred stock which is paying dividends today. The difference is Geithner spent 3 months whining and another 2 months forming the same plan that Paulson had to do in a few days.

 

[soccerballtux]

Winnar, you have to remember that Obama inherited this huge problem, it's not his fault.

 

[LegendKiller]

1. Written down assets aren't always written down because of credit losses. By and large a huge portion of the current losses are due to liquidity driven interest rates. If fewer people want to buy assets the demand is down, thus, the price (interest rate) charged goes up. Since that liquidity discount is high the price of the securities goes down.

For example, if you have a $100 bond with a weighted average life of 10 years but the interest rate chaged by the market is 9%, where the bond was originally priced at 5%, that means that the bond is now actually worth ~$60.

Now, should the bond be sold NOW because of a temporary liquidity constraint? If it was sold and the buying person made $40, who would that be? Who would buy it?

Ohh, that's right, hedge funds, rich people. So, essentially, you're willing to utterly destroy the investors of the banks (keep in mind, it's largely institutional, so your 401k will be hurt), just so you can see the market "fix" itself? Then what about lending? Since the banks fall who will provide it? Nobody else has the capacity to do so right now, nor the infrastructure. The liquidity premium will skyrocket and successive waves of problems will occur.

2. TALF is not the Son of TARP. It's a completely different situation where the banks will purchase securitizations from issuers but only be able to pledge them for 75-95 cents on the dollar to the Fed. The 5-25 cents is a first-loss piece that the banks take the risk for. It enures directly to the borrower's benefit, as it will probably jump start liquidity and start lending again.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree. By throwing money at the situation it appears all it will do is prolong it. I didnt have a problem with keeping the bank liquidity high last Fall. But now they need another round of asset buyoffs? Force the bank to sell these at a loss on the open market. Somebody will buy them. Once those are sold we are back to ground zero and we can wipe the slate clean.

btw has congress fixed these loopholes that allowed this to happen? I havent heard anything about it.

They can't sell them, the banks themselves would cease to exist.

 

[StageLeft]

I want to be clear on something. Assuming that these bailouts actually work, is the precedent then set that the US will try and avoid any recession in the future by "stimulating" its way out of them, and what will the cutoff be? Projected 0% GDP growth? .5%? 3%? Unemployment at 7%?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree. By throwing money at the situation it appears all it will do is prolong it. I didnt have a problem with keeping the bank liquidity high last Fall. But now they need another round of asset buyoffs? Force the bank to sell these at a loss on the open market. Somebody will buy them. Once those are sold we are back to ground zero and we can wipe the slate clean.

btw has congress fixed these loopholes that allowed this to happen? I havent heard anything about it.

The banks refuse to auction off their toxic assets because such a sale of so many toxic assets at one time would bring pennies on the dollar. Right now, they are hoping for 75 cents on the dollar, but buyers won't pay more than 25-40 cents on the dollar. At auction, these assets would bring even less.

The SEC and Congress are looking at changes now, but these toxic assets are no longer being sold, which is the problem. No market, no value is possible.

-Robert

Not true when it comes to homes. They are trying to sell them. Lots of them in fact and they are all for a loss. The real problem is that there are not nearly enough buyers that are interested and/or can afford to buy them. Have you gone out looking at bank owned properties lately? I have and I have seen tons so far. Most are not in great condition because they have not been well kept. There are so many other properties out there right now at a higher quality for the same price that these homes remain on the market for a long time and as more and more time passes the condition of the home continues to degrade. That plus you also have squatters and vandalism to contend with. It is a huge mess.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree. By throwing money at the situation it appears all it will do is prolong it. I didnt have a problem with keeping the bank liquidity high last Fall. But now they need another round of asset buyoffs? Force the bank to sell these at a loss on the open market. Somebody will buy them. Once those are sold we are back to ground zero and we can wipe the slate clean.

btw has congress fixed these loopholes that allowed this to happen? I havent heard anything about it.

The banks refuse to auction off their toxic assets because such a sale of so many toxic assets at one time would bring pennies on the dollar. Right now, they are hoping for 75 cents on the dollar, but buyers won't pay more than 25-40 cents on the dollar. At auction, these assets would bring even less.

The SEC and Congress are looking at changes now, but these toxic assets are no longer being sold, which is the problem. No market, no value is possible.

-Robert

Not true when it comes to homes. They are trying to sell them. Lots of them in fact and they are all for a loss. The real problem is that there are not nearly enough buyers that are interested and/or can afford to buy them. Have you gone out looking at bank owned properties lately? I have and I have seen tons so far. Most are not in great condition because they have not been well kept. There are so many other properties out there right now at a higher quality for the same price that these homes remain on the market for a long time and as more and more time passes the condition of the home continues to degrade. That plus you also have squatters and vandalism to contend with. It is a huge mess.

Then they need to just keep lowering prices on those homes and take the hit. Rather like I have done with my stocks. I have lost plenty, but that's how the ball rolls in a free market.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: Genx87
I agree. By throwing money at the situation it appears all it will do is prolong it. I didnt have a problem with keeping the bank liquidity high last Fall. But now they need another round of asset buyoffs? Force the bank to sell these at a loss on the open market. Somebody will buy them. Once those are sold we are back to ground zero and we can wipe the slate clean.

btw has congress fixed these loopholes that allowed this to happen? I havent heard anything about it.

The banks refuse to auction off their toxic assets because such a sale of so many toxic assets at one time would bring pennies on the dollar. Right now, they are hoping for 75 cents on the dollar, but buyers won't pay more than 25-40 cents on the dollar. At auction, these assets would bring even less.

The SEC and Congress are looking at changes now, but these toxic assets are no longer being sold, which is the problem. No market, no value is possible.

-Robert

Not true when it comes to homes. They are trying to sell them. Lots of them in fact and they are all for a loss. The real problem is that there are not nearly enough buyers that are interested and/or can afford to buy them. Have you gone out looking at bank owned properties lately? I have and I have seen tons so far. Most are not in great condition because they have not been well kept. There are so many other properties out there right now at a higher quality for the same price that these homes remain on the market for a long time and as more and more time passes the condition of the home continues to degrade. That plus you also have squatters and vandalism to contend with. It is a huge mess.

Yes, you are right about HOMES. But a lot of these banks have creative securities, and those are a huge problem because there is NO MARKET for them. Or, more accurately, there is no market at the prices the banks would sell at. Homes still have a market, but a small one, and you can't really hide the value of a home like you can with a CDO, or MBS.

-Robert

 

[Zebo]

Obama aka Black Bush is just as clueless about economy as he is about Islam. For example Obama?s economic appointments include Geithner, a tax cheat and the guy who helped Bush?s Treasury Secretary with the $700 billion dollar rip off of the US taxpayer to their buddies on the Street. Then you got Larry Summers who Obama appoints as his econ czar who admitted he had no clue the financial crisis or housing bubble was about to hit. Then you got Diana Farrell, lead author of a phony faith based study that claimed offshoring of American jobs is a win-win game for Americans.. Farrell is a big time consultant for those companies who want to outsource Jobs at Americans expense. Her, as well as the other outsourcing pundits thesis has been debunked so many times in both academia and practice but she is helping to run the show still. Never mind appointing those who actually predicted these calamities such as Ron Hira's, Nouriel Roubina's or even Patrick Buchanan's of the world - we got a religion to maintain.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Obama aka Black Bush is just as clueless about economy as he is about Islam. For example Obama?s economic appointments include Geithner, a tax cheat and the guy who helped Bush?s Treasury Secretary with the $700 billion dollar rip off of the US taxpayer to their buddies on the Street. Then you got Larry Summers who Obama appoints as his econ czar who admitted he had no clue the financial crisis or housing bubble was about to hit. Then you got Diana Farrell, lead author of a phony faith based study that claimed offshoring of American jobs is a win-win game for Americans.. Farrell is a big time consultant for those companies who want to outsource Jobs at Americans expense. Her, as well as the other outsourcing pundits thesis has been debunked so many times in both academia and practice but she is helping to run the show still. Never mind appointing those who actually predicted these calamities such as Ron Hira's, Nouriel Roubina's or even Patrick Buchanan's of the world - we got a religion to maintain.

Excepting the 'Black Bush' dig, I agree with you. Obama is proving to be quite the little Centrist and accomodater. His decision to advance the "Reynolds" state secret defense is another example. We can thank the British for that piece of stupidity. They have a much broader state secrets law that lets them hide all their dirty laundry.

-Robert

 

[Zebo]

What I find most ironic is foreigners such as Hira and Roubini seem to care and have a better grasp in what ails USA than natives. Perhaps they are just not WASPY enough to make the 'cut'... My feeling on the whole scam is this is payback for those who put Obama in power, you know the lobby money he didn't take before he took it. Black Bush is quite apropos IMO when you consider his neo-cons and economic teams he has put in place. Both presidents will be war like and socialize loses and privatize gains to the top 1%ers. That he can talk and is intelligent does not change MO.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Zebo
What I find most ironic is foreigners such as Hira and Roubini seem to care and have a better grasp in what ails USA than natives. Perhaps they are just not WASPY enough to make the 'cut'... My feeling on the whole scam is this is payback for those who put Obama in power, you know the lobby money he didn't take before he took it. Black Bush is quite apropos IMO when you consider his neo-cons and economic teams he has put in place. Both presidents will be war like and socialize loses and privatize gains to the top 1%ers. That he can talk and is intelligent does not change MO.

Well, Zebo, he has made some important changes regarding a few pretty big issues, so you aren't being entirely fair to the man. Plus, he's only been in office 3 weeks! Talk about short attention span theatre!!! But, I agree that it isn't looking good at this juncture. And I think Obama pushed a lot of Dems into this stimulus package compromise, despite their misgivings. At this point, I'd say Obama is looking firmly at setting the stage for his re-election. Perhaps he wants to be a bit more center-left in the second term?

I'm willing to give Obama another 30 days to get some of this right, but I'd like to see some better choices. Geithner was not the man for Treasury, IMHO. He was a big part of the problem under Paulson. I was less concerned with his tax problems than with his baggage from his days at the FED and his sucking up to Paulson.

-Robert

 

[Zebo]

Sorry - We don't have time - we are at brink of war with Iran, Pakistan and he talks of moving 60,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Wars we can not win w/o resulting to total war which is unimaginable in todays PC MC environment. So wasteful on so many levels. We are bankrupting the USA while the elite gets theirs for their eventual exodus to parts unknown leaving 99% of us holding the bag. And just as the Bushbots could not admit the failure of their man, the Obamacons will not admit the failure of their man, instead deferring to his short time in office despite all the evidence it's business as usual. I am not going down without a fight.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sorry - We don't have time - we are at brink of war with Iran, Pakistan and he talks of moving 60,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Wars we can not win w/o resulting to total war which is unimaginable in todays PC MC environment. So wasteful on so many levels. We are bankrupting the USA while the elite gets theirs for their eventual exodus to parts unknown leaving 99% of us holding the bag. And just as the Bushbots could not admit the failure of their man, the Obamacons will not admit the failure of their man, instead deferring to his short time in office despite all the evidence it's business as usual. I am not going down without a fight.

We can't afford Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone battles with Iran, and more remotely Pakistan. I'm in favor of cutting our losses in Afghanistan and getting out. We shouldn't have made a long term commitment there in the first place. If there is one really big mistake Obama's made, it's his commitment to Afghanistan. His hands are tied in Iraq, IMHO.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

And in your opinion does "more self-control and government control" mean limiting wealth?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

And in your opinion does "more self-control and government control" mean limiting wealth?

Pay of executives is way out of line with what it had historically been. As I said above, I'd pay executives a differential based on their IQ. If it's higher than the average, they get the differential. If it isn't then they can pay their employers to work or they can quit.

As far as limiting the accumulation of wealth, if it isn't done on the backs of the American people I wouldn't oppose it. But, a lot of wealth has been given, not earned, particularly the wealth of many CEOs. In an ideal world, getting rich wouldn't be anyone's goal. I've never understood the attraction of large amounts of money, but I'm in the distinct minority.

-Robert

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

And in your opinion does "more self-control and government control" mean limiting wealth?

Pay of executives is way out of line with what it had historically been. As I said above, I'd pay executives a differential based on their IQ. If it's higher than the average, they get the differential. If it isn't then they can pay their employers to work or they can quit.

As far as limiting the accumulation of wealth, if it isn't done on the backs of the American people I wouldn't oppose it. But, a lot of wealth has been given, not earned, particularly the wealth of many CEOs. In an ideal world, getting rich wouldn't be anyone's goal. I've never understood the attraction of large amounts of money, but I'm in the distinct minority.

-Robert

I hope your IQ comment was in jest. We all know IQ is not proportionally in line with leadership ability.

I'd like to hear your definition of accumulation of wealth on the backs of Americans. What does that mean exactly? The Gates family? The Mars family? The Walton family? The Guggenheim family? The Ford family? The Harkness family? They couldnt have done it without thousands of employees to run their companies...is that what you mean? Or do you mean fortunes made via fraud? I agree with that one. But the others?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

And in your opinion does "more self-control and government control" mean limiting wealth?

Pay of executives is way out of line with what it had historically been. As I said above, I'd pay executives a differential based on their IQ. If it's higher than the average, they get the differential. If it isn't then they can pay their employers to work or they can quit.

As far as limiting the accumulation of wealth, if it isn't done on the backs of the American people I wouldn't oppose it. But, a lot of wealth has been given, not earned, particularly the wealth of many CEOs. In an ideal world, getting rich wouldn't be anyone's goal. I've never understood the attraction of large amounts of money, but I'm in the distinct minority.

-Robert

I hope your IQ comment was in jest. We all know IQ is not proportionally in line with leadership ability.

I'd like to hear your definition of accumulation of wealth on the backs of Americans. What does that mean exactly? The Gates family? The Mars family? The Walton family? The Guggenheim family? The Ford family? The Harkness family? They couldnt have done it without thousands of employees to run their companies...is that what you mean? Or do you mean fortunes made via fraud? I agree with that one. But the others?

Any danger from an IQ based pay system is exaggerated, but I don't think pay is based on leadership skills. I've known enough CEOs to know otherwise. And this debacle certainly suggests that leadership skills are in short supply.

Regarding which entrepreneurs should have our scorn, that is a difficult calculus, but I have no problem heaping scorn on The Walton Family. I carry no brief against Gates, or Mars, or Ford. The others I leave to others.

-Robert

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

And in your opinion does "more self-control and government control" mean limiting wealth?

Pay of executives is way out of line with what it had historically been. As I said above, I'd pay executives a differential based on their IQ. If it's higher than the average, they get the differential. If it isn't then they can pay their employers to work or they can quit.

As far as limiting the accumulation of wealth, if it isn't done on the backs of the American people I wouldn't oppose it. But, a lot of wealth has been given, not earned, particularly the wealth of many CEOs. In an ideal world, getting rich wouldn't be anyone's goal. I've never understood the attraction of large amounts of money, but I'm in the distinct minority.

-Robert

I hope your IQ comment was in jest. We all know IQ is not proportionally in line with leadership ability.

I'd like to hear your definition of accumulation of wealth on the backs of Americans. What does that mean exactly? The Gates family? The Mars family? The Walton family? The Guggenheim family? The Ford family? The Harkness family? They couldnt have done it without thousands of employees to run their companies...is that what you mean? Or do you mean fortunes made via fraud? I agree with that one. But the others?

Any danger from an IQ based pay system is exaggerated, but I don't think pay is based on leadership skills. I've known enough CEOs to know otherwise. And this debacle certainly suggests that leadership skills are in short supply.

Regarding which entrepreneurs should have our scorn, that is a difficult calculus, but I have no problem heaping scorn on The Walton Family. I carry no brief against Gates, or Mars, or Ford. The others I leave to others.

-Robert

Yeah, the Waltons are a popular whipping boy. But I dont want to get into that endless debate. What I want to know is, what do you mean by "on the backs of Americans"?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: chess9
Oh, and the uber rich have theirs already. They've raped the country and can now sit back on the spoils, and will do so. Don't expect perp walks for these guys. Most of them stole their money legally! So to speak....

We've all been asleep at the switch and have been too willing for too long to cast our lot with the robber barons. Is Capitalism dead? I think not, but if it's going to survive, we need to see a lot more self-control and government control, not necessarily in that order.

-Robert

And in your opinion does "more self-control and government control" mean limiting wealth?

Pay of executives is way out of line with what it had historically been. As I said above, I'd pay executives a differential based on their IQ. If it's higher than the average, they get the differential. If it isn't then they can pay their employers to work or they can quit.

As far as limiting the accumulation of wealth, if it isn't done on the backs of the American people I wouldn't oppose it. But, a lot of wealth has been given, not earned, particularly the wealth of many CEOs. In an ideal world, getting rich wouldn't be anyone's goal. I've never understood the attraction of large amounts of money, but I'm in the distinct minority.

-Robert

I hope your IQ comment was in jest. We all know IQ is not proportionally in line with leadership ability.

I'd like to hear your definition of accumulation of wealth on the backs of Americans. What does that mean exactly? The Gates family? The Mars family? The Walton family? The Guggenheim family? The Ford family? The Harkness family? They couldnt have done it without thousands of employees to run their companies...is that what you mean? Or do you mean fortunes made via fraud? I agree with that one. But the others?

Any danger from an IQ based pay system is exaggerated, but I don't think pay is based on leadership skills. I've known enough CEOs to know otherwise. And this debacle certainly suggests that leadership skills are in short supply.

Regarding which entrepreneurs should have our scorn, that is a difficult calculus, but I have no problem heaping scorn on The Walton Family. I carry no brief against Gates, or Mars, or Ford. The others I leave to others.

-Robert

Yeah, the Waltons are a popular whipping boy. But I dont want to get into that endless debate. What I want to know is, what do you mean by "on the backs of Americans"?

I fail to understand your niggling insistance, but I'd suggest you think about the history of these people:

1. Blacks;
2. Women;
3. Irish;
4. Jews;
5. Chinese;
6. Hispanics;
7. Indians.

Many fortunes have been made on the backs of Americans and immigrants. It's still happening in many industries, and in this economy it will only get worse.

If you think otherwise, you are a fool.

-Robert