How many people have these companies laid off or plan to lay off? Do you think if they had this capital they would still have to. No, I'm sure you don't.
Ford posts $5billion dollar loss (WSJ)
Ford is not laying off employees b/c it doesn't have capital. It's laying off employees b/c of exploding Firestones, better made imports, and overall reduced demand. Ford purchased Volvo AND Land Rover in the past year . . . during one quarter last year Ford was the most profitable US automaker. If Ford had this capital it would invest the money to increase plant efficiency and develop new products. A tax refund is obviously cheaper than new bonds. But they would still make fewer cars and trucks (have you seen many Escorts or Continentals lately) in 2002 than 2001. I'm not a savant but they would probably need fewer employees to make fewer vehicles. AT&T is a basket case just like Motorola. Great company name with poor management in fiercely competitive markets.
Typical Demoidiot ideology, "give it to us, you're not smart enough to spend it yourself...big business is evil...blah, blah, blah"
Damn you sound idiotic. Many American businesses that are treading water (or sinking) have poor management. GM is kicking glutes b/c they invested in new products and didn't kill anyone (at least not as many as Ford) trying to save pennies on tires. You could make a case that Ralph Nader is the best thing ever to happen to GM (I doubt they would agree). Big business is NOT evil. It is not good either. It is amoral. Most know better than pretend they put America first. They put profit first if not they won't have a business. As far as economic systems go capitalism rules the roost in innovation and productivity. But as part of a society they should pay their share to support the country that provides an environment in which they can profit.
Now why is it that you refer to Bush appointing his own chairman (I'm assuming the above quote was a reference to Bush's appointment of Hebert that occurred nearly a year ago) to head this commission as "forcing out" Clinton's previous (and a one day interim appointment at that....) chairman? Do you follow politics? Who cares about Clinton? Bush appointed Hebert (rabid pro-market and the only Republican on FERC at the time) to the Chair in January; claiming he was THE right man for the job. Then after Lay personally objected (according to an old Business Week article and recent NYT) he made it clear to Hebert that Pat Wood would be taking over FERC. Hebert then resigned effective aug31.
Bush replaces HIS chair appointee to FERC with the Enron-endorsed Wood (Morning Sun World News)
Likewise I also assume that you must believe that Janet Reno was "forced out" of the Justice Dept......
Well of course not Presidents have the right to make their own appointments. But from the chronology you have to draw some kind of conclusions if Bush names a fervent pro-market Republican chair and then changes his mind a few months later and names the Chair of the Texas Energy Commission. It's not like he didn't know who these guys were.
it's amazing the lengths that some people will go to lace facts with their "spin" in the hope that some people just don't understand. Is your political party that impotent, and your faith in it's platform so weak, that you must resort to outright deception?
I just laid out the facts including chronology. If you doubt the facts search Business Week or WSJ back to December2000-Jan2001 and then the subsequent events of the Spring and Summer. I don't have a political party. But the two majors in America are both impotent. Have faith in God but none in any "platform" . . . furthermore I prefer my ideas to be original not a slogan. If you can provide verifiable proof that ANY of my previous statements are deceptive, I will immediately recant (the misleading statement) . . . but the Op-Ed page does not constitute proof.
don't understand this at all. How does the energy bill link to Enron's creative accounting.
Enron owns some generation capacity but their claim to fame was the ability to play broker ie make money buying/selling/reselling energy/trading energy. In such an environment their biggest issue was not Kyoto (which according to the editor of National Review on MSNBC last night Enron supported) but transmission. Enron needs energy (particularly electricity) to be expensive (for the consumer) but also has to have means of transport. Do you remember Dick Cheney lamenting about the poor transmission infrastructure last year? Anyway, Enron wanted to be AT&T they wanted to own as many lines as possible and charge for access. But transmission is more tightly regulated than production. So not only did they need massive outlays to acquire generating capacity and transmission lines but they also needed regulatory relief so they could maximize the return on investment. Accordingly they spent money they did not have to buy plants and lines while opposing Hebert's appointment. Hebert is by no means granola he truly believes in the market. In keeping he knows a market of one private enterprise is just as dysfunctional as a market of one government. Unfortunately for Enron, FERC-mandated caps and mild weather dramatically reduced the price and demand for electricity while it's shell-game of special purpose entities began to fall apart since they served no purpose other than hide debt.
Yeah, I know exactly what transpired. It's called Tricare (the military healthcare that was going to be the model for the national healthcare) and it made a marginal system worse. It took them years to fix it. It was one of many of the social experiments that the Clinton White House forced upon the military.
That's a patent lie . . . point me to a full disclosure of those meetings that was available at the time they were drafting a legislative framework. I doubt you can b/c they worked in secret and leaked details. Like many others at the time I was appalled that such a monumental task would be turned over to a small cadre of unelected bureaucrats working in closed sessions. It's part of the reason my old party (along with every vested interest) protested so much. As for Tricare being THE model for national healthcare that's laughable, although the systems do share aspects. Military med sux in part b/c the pay (for docs) sux, the requirements bite, and the military chronically underfunds such endeavors.
Bali, the self-described genius, I wonder who it is that "certified" your genius anyway?.....as I've yet to witness this quality of yours myself. I dare you to impress me. Fortunately, the simple folk who might fall victim to your amateurish rhetoric already vote Democrat.... Nice to hear from you
Corn, Stanford-Binet "certified" my genius when I was child but consistent with your observation I do appear to be getting dumber with age
. I think I made the comment in response to a query where you brought up genius. Regardless, it was quite pompous of me to make the statement. As for my rhetoric being amateurish . . . I won't dare but I will challenge you to a duel. You pick the topic we will agree on a time and venue . . . with the goal being best developed (and supported) rhetorical argument (exposition, explanation). As for Democrats . . . well they are intellectually crippled for the same reason as Republicans . . . lack of reasoned, critical thought.
Facebook
Twitter