Nationalized health care would just shift the expenses and creates a whole new set of problems.

Although Joe the mechanic at the dealership or Bob the service desk maanger don't have it coming, that's life.

I shouldn't have it coming that my taxes are going to bail them out.

Do people really think that the Big 3 will just shut down? Or do you see them filing for Chapter 11 instead?

Actually nationalised health care would largely REMOVE a lot of the expenses.

The European system of nationalised health care would provide adequate health care for the entire population of America (unemployed, elderly, young everyone) for what the country is currently paying for its private system. Thats WITHOUT contributing any more money that is presently being done (ie. America is currently heavily overpaying for the health service they have - despite you not having what I'd consider 'basic' services like being able to call a doctor out to your house to see your son when he's ill etc.).

The privatised American Health Care system is a joke from what I've seen of it, its incredibly inefficient and setup purely as a fiscal enterprice to make money.

Whenever you see a doctor you're encouraged to take numerous tests which are worthless at best and at worst harmful, sprained an ankle ... feel sick there are dozens of tests we can run just in case, bah humbug.

(sorry but while its not 'my' money paying for the individual tests - in the long run that bumps up the insurance and thus eventually that money does come from average joes - in the form of the companies paying for the cover having fewer workers)

PS - Sorry if that comes across as vehement but its been one of the biggest differences I've seen since moving over here, I was shocked that a country which considers itself a world leader has such a poor setup).

The United States already spends more money per capita on health care (including as % of GDP) than any other country.

What's needed is reform, not just "nationalization". The United States government can't possibly run something on this kind of scale well. Full nationalization would be a disaster on the scale of Freddie Mac/The Tax Code/The Military, etc.

Marc, the thing that I keep going back to is quality. We have most of the world's leading specialists and people come from all over the world to some of our specialists and clinics. I fully know very well about add-on costs (e.g., when my wife had her surgery this summer, I got bills from seven different entities) and the need to many tests (shouldn't we look at why doctors need to do so much to cover their butts?).

But it's like the adage: service, quality, price - choose 2 of 3 (or something like that). I, for one, would not suffer quality when it comes to specialized care. There is already an acute shortage of certain specialists in this country (like ob-gyn doctors) because of external forces driving them away. Like in most professions, there is the incentive to excel (re: $$$) and to be the best, adding the factor that many put a high value of health regardless of cost.

I do not my private health care to change, I have been extremely happy with the quality of service I and my family have received over the years. Let's work on getting coverage to those that need it but don't provide a one-size-fits-all solution to those that value quality over price.

Not to mention turning private professionals into bureaucratic-laden government workers. That's probably alright for some professions, but not for something important like our individual health.

If Walmart gets a better deal from suppliers because it is so large, why wouldn't nationalized health care, with such a massive customer base, not be able to strongarm better prices?

After being opposed to it for years, while watching insurance companies make profits while raising rates and reducing benefits, I am left wondering why letting more people into a nationalized health insurance system would be bad for anyone other than the providers (who would naturally be forced into reduced "contract prices" for those people, just the same as Walmart suppliers end up doing that as well).

As far as the Big Three goes, they can go under. If they had rolled into DC saying they needed this capital injection because they were not going to make any purely-gasoline fueled vehicles in the future and needed help transitioning all of their production facilities to make hybrids, electric vehicles, and other alternative energy vehicles, I would be more inclined to green light it. Instead, they came in and pretty much want to keep business as usual. No dice, guys. Enjoy the flight back on your posh corporate jet. The next time you want to beg for money, you should fly coach/economy class, rent a small car and drive yourself to the hearing, bringing a commitment to reduce your salary and a "paradigm changing plan." Everyone is quick to blame the UAW for the woes of the Big Three, but upper management is ALSO compensated at much higher levels than their competition. If there is a problem there with compensation, it starts at the top.

If the government could run healtcare as well as Walmart runs its business, I'd be all for it.

If all they have to do is negotiate "contract fees" like the other insurance companies, I don't see the problem. Why wouldn't they be able to negotiate great rates with the providers? If the choice is getting paid these contract prices for providing care to a group that is otherwise uninsured (and subsequently would likely default on their uninsured charges anyway (which tend to be larger than insured rates)), why wouldn't they choose something over nothing?

If they can keep the lobbyists out of the system, it could work.

I guess the same reason the military can't negotiate "great rates" for military contracts. Maybe Haliburton gets into the medical care game.

It is because they don't want to. The DOD process is highly flawed and is not even a reasonable comparison. I'm not talking about putting the "healthcare for the nation" out as a contract bid. I am talking about a system that negotiates fees for products and services just like a private provider does, but as a non-profit entity.

If it was ran just like any other insurance company on that side of the business, where is the problem?

The idea is to use the existing healthcare the Feds already have and open it for everyone. I think they have a pretty good package, and with even more buying power could probably get even better. The question is implementation, of course.

The problem if they contract out healthcare, I can see crap "professionals" become providers because the government would give out contracts to minority businesses as part of quotas.

We lost a contract to an Alaskan Native American owned company and they hired all of our instructors. The government is paying them 150% of what they were paying us for the same product. As a taxpayer, it just doesn't make any sense.

Ok. So the fear is that the only hospital that those with the government plan would be able to go to is the one owned and operated by minorities? That the only doctors you will be able to see are minorities? Sounds like Aetna to me. Seems like a majority of the medical professionals on any plan I've had over the past several years have not been white (or even male, so they're already predominantly minority without a government plan...).

Actually, that is a symptom of one of the many problems with our current system. Many, many primary care doctors are coming from over-seas, because home grown doctors are going to specialties because that is where the money is. Same with Ob-Gyn's.

FWIW - my experience as an immigrant from the UK is pretty much exactly the same as Marc's. The NHS isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than the situation I am in right now (and I have the money to pay for a decent health plan)

A guy at work has been forced by his health plan to take an MRI and some other ridiculously expensive test for knee pain, and all the guy wants is some painkillers. It's a crazy system where the people that are providing the care have absolutely no incentive to keep costs down.

To clarify, it is not the fear that a hospital will be owned and operated by minorities, but it will be owned and operated by personnel who are not the most competent.

Oh. And that the government will only negotiate network services with those entities? Are you sure these incompetent medical professionals will setup shop in every community of the nation? You do realize they won't be able to force everybody to go to "Quack Doctors 'R Us" in backwoods Alaska, right?

Im confused, some on here were saying the TARP was a bad thing cuz the govt would botch it. They then didnt spend the monoey which should please those against the TARP to begin with thereby giving credit where it's due but I havnt heard anything of the sort. Now I know that isn't necessarily what we're talking about now but, IMO, they botched the TARP but 'saying' theyre not going to buy the bad assets so why arent the opponents of it giving Paulson credit and thereby earning some, even a tiny bit of credibility for other govt run systems going forward?

I never said the government will ONLY negotiate with these entities. Furthermore, I never said they were incompetent.

Marc, I've never experienced any of the issues you just described.

If I'm sick enough, I go to Urgent Care, I see a doctor, they may or may not prescribe something, but, I can't ever remember having any extra tests or anything like that.

Even when I've had more serious issues (kidney stones, busted knee, dislocated shoulder...) I had nothing but good service. I've had several different health care providers and the only issues I've ever had are with billing.

There's horror stories regardless of what system is being used and I'd like to say you get what you pay for, but, I don't think that's the case. I pay about 100 a month for my insurance, 10 dollar co-pay for doctor's visits and presriptions.

I'm sorry that you've had nothing but horrible experiences with our health care system here.

You have your own insurance for $100 a month w/ $10 dollar co-pays? What is your deductible? Who is the provider?

Or is this through an employer that is picking up the rest of your premium?

The five years I spent as a student in the UK made me realize what a huge clusterfuck American health care is, and I've always been able to afford good health care in the U.S.


What percentage of Americans do you think are able to afford these specialists, Bucc? Even those who have good health care? You're also talking about a very small percentage of cases that need these specialists, in fact, I'd bet the number of Americans going abroad to places like India to save money on routine surgeries (yes, it happens) is actually larger than the number of people coming to America to see specialists (or at least close).

Furthermore, where do you think most of these specialists are? They're at institutions affiliated with hospitals or universities, not at insurance companies. And how are these institutions funded? By the government and by private donations (quite a bit of the latter, in many cases). These specialists aren't going to go away if the health care system changes.


Well, I hope you don't have an HMO, then, because if you do, it's unlikely to be your choice, in the end. In fact, it's likely to be the choice of some bureaucrat at the insurance company. Heck, even if you have a PPO, your insurance company may decide you don't need to see a specific specialist, and refuse to pay, or refuse to pay in full.


Most health insurance in the U.S. is already run by massive bureaucracies. They're just called Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana, Guardian, etc... instead of the U.S. Government. Don't kid yourself here.

Any of whom I trust (as little though that may be) exponentially more to get something right than I do the U.S. Government (or any state/local government for that matter).

If you look around the world a lot of countries have 'leading specialists' in various areas - land mass/population-wise its not particularly surprising that America has a lot of 'leading specialists' really to be honest.

One of the reasons I lived near Cambridge when I was in England is that Addenbrookes hospital which is world reknowned for its maternity/child surgery side of things.

But surely thats an aside - in England we have a nationalised health system BUT you can take up private health care if you want to yourself ....

The difference is that the private health care is dirt cheap because they know most people will still use the NHS for minor ailments and so while they're covered under private cover the actual cost to the customer is far cheaper than in America (for instance the cover here for my family if I wasn't covered by work is a princely $1800/month (shocked the heck out of me, although I do have a family of 5) - back home it was about £80/month for better cover privately - ie. less in the way of excess charges and much higher caps on dental work etc. - oh and don't get me started on Opticians bills, put it this way I wait to see an optician until I travel back to the UK where the eyesight test is FREE rather than $100+).

The amount of bureaucratic stuff in the health system over here is unbelievable compared to the UK to be honest, back home you go in - see someone, get given a prescription and thats it (I can't ever recall being asked for ID come to think of it apart from when you initially sign up to the practice, but then who'd want to fake being me and besides generally they roughly 'know' their patients as you stay with the same doctor for years).

Over here you fill out a form, see someone, give id, fill out a few more forms and ... then you get a prescription. But wait we're not finished several weeks later I'll get sent a stack of paperwork to file from the Health insurance company and also from the company who ran tests/whatever .... all of this 'bumpf' has to be paid for and is ultimately increasing the cost of medical coverage.

I'd expect its a company provided scheme like the one I'm on - I think I pay a similar amount, however because I moved 'divisions' within SEGA I know how much it'd cost to continue that cover outside of the company (for some legal reason they had to switch the cover when they switched departments which lead to the company involved sending a letter offering to allow me to continue the coverage ... presumably by selling my house to gover the first months charge ;) ).

As an aside Jedi - do you have kids and/or a wife? .. as I'm lucky enough to be generally fairly healthy and so for me the American system would be fine, its my missus and kids who cost a fortune under the American system, kids pick up illnesses from school all the time which you feel obliged to get checked by a doctor just in case and having had kids has left my wife with weak enamel on her teeth (and every filling or whatever has a deductable on it, yay ;) ).

Wow, I'm amazed at some of the health care experiences you guys are having. I have BC/BS of Illinois, have been put on numerous trial drugs for my illness, seen numerous specialists, and currently have a nurse coming to my home from an hour and a half away twice a month to simply give me a shot and I have never had to fill out any paperwork nor have I ever had to pay more than co-pay ($20 for office visits, $10 for 3 month supplies of most of my meds, and $75 for a $8800 shot that I take). I enjoy our current health care system, always have, particularly after hearing how many problems several of my British friends had in England with their system.

The big difference is that most defense contracts don't have other purchasers. With healthcare, there are numerous entities around the globe paying for services. The best way to deal with prices IMO is to demand that the government get the lowest available price. Big corporations already demand this, but the government has allowed companies to charge excessive prices.

Is very possibly partially a regional thing - especially with a country the size of America standards and service can vary hugely (its similar back home there are 'problem' NHS areas, particularly in some regions of larger cities).

As with most things in life I think you tend to associate your own experiences with whether something is 'good/bad' in life - for instance I love my Chysler Aspen, its the right size for me and has never had anything wrong with it since I've got it ... but I've spoken to people who've had real hassles with their ones. Now I'd buy one again without a second thought, but if it'd had serious mechanical issues with it continually like some of the people I've spoken to I'd have branded it a bad vehicle and never had one again.

(so in essence I don't think there's a right or wrong perspective as far as is the UK or American setup better worse as far as providing care, I'm sure there is good and bad coverage in both systems .... I prefer the UK one because I've always thought providing free health coverage to all people is something that should be a 'right' - but then again I've been brought up with that mentality because of where I was born and raised).

That could be true Marc, I hadn't considered that.

I just see a lot of problems with our health care from all aspects.

1) A deeper, broader pool of state-of-the-art technology, specialists, and hospitals. All that costs more. If you want the best, you got pay for it. Throw in the high costs of schools (8-9 years-Undergraduate and Med school) and a rather low wage during your residency, doctors aren't making real money until they hit their mid-to-late 30s/even 40's.

2) A lack of malpractice protection for doctors. I think one of the major problems that doctors/surgeons subscribe so many tests, drugs, and treatments is to prevent themselves from getting sued. Face us, Americans (in general) are lawsuit, get-rich-quick, happy. When doctors are paying six-figures just for insurance, we have a problem. The UK (not sure on other countries) has a very strong system in preventing this (if you lose a civil case, you have to pay, correct?).

3) I believe doctors/surgeons are losing money now on to see patients on Medicare/Medicaid. That is why you are having a major problem coming with doctors/specialists not accepting it. When they do, they have to make up those costs elsewheres.

4) Patients-As noted in my first paragraph, I think doctors have lost control to demanding patients who want the best, all the tests, are lawsuit-happy, but want someone else to pay for it. Everyone wants to lastest $200-a-pill drug or the lastest treatment that just came out, but they won't pay for it. A MRI machine alone costs around a million bucks. Doctors need to be given back control. Also, we need to start taking care of ourselves better. If a smoker gets lung cancer, should taxpayers really be responsible to pay for the very expensive care they'll get due to their poor actions?

5) Insurance companies, paperwork, and high overhead costs. Insurance companies are telling doctors what they need to do, what they can't do, and what they will pay. They have to fill out so much paperwork that requires a high overhead cost, they are having trouble.


A universal health care system is useless if you don't fix the problems. I also would hate the idea of a system like Canada which outlaws practice, non-governmental practices. If a skilled surgeon wants to be a private practice, then he should.

Bush says Citigroup deal needed to protect system - Yahoo! News
Fratto said companies like Citigroup are so "systemically large" that they could "bring down not just the entire U.S. financial system but the global financial system."

So, yeah, Citigroup is being bailed out, under the guise of "too big to fail". It's time to bring a big trust busting stick out on all of these companies

SI

Check this out:

"Hill City, Lakota - November 24, 2008 - In a stunning development, the Free & Independent People of Lakota announced today the introduction of the world's first non-reserve, non-fractional bank that accepts only silver and gold currencies for deposit. Indian Tribe N. Dakota> http://press.freelakotabank.com/


Welcome to Free Lakota Bank The Free Lakota Bank is the world's first non-reserve, non-fractional bank that issues, accepts for deposit, and circulates REAL money...silver and gold. All of our deposits are liquid, meaning they can be withdrawn at any time in minted rounds.

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion...when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing...when you see your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you...when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice...you may know that your society is doomed.''
At the Free Lakota Bank, we issue, circulate and accept for deposit only AOCS-Approved silver and gold currencies. Silver & gold are a store of value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Since we deal only in real money, we do not participate in any central bank looting schemes.

Money is made possible only by those who produce. Paper is not money, instead merely a promise to pay. We hope that some day the rest of the world will awaken from the American Dream: the dream that a person can sustain life by consuming more than producing. We call it the American Dream because you must be asleep to believe it. Well, that dream now has a silver lining; as people discover the dream is really a nightmare, the only solution is a return to value: value that comes from production and honest trade."

I got a quarter that says something in the Lakota press release is illegal.

Use of the term 'too big to fail' is becoming too big too fail, it must now be applied to all situations.

In other news, yay for shorting Citigroup a few months ago, 4 times return after the cover. Wondering if I'm ever gonna run out of banks to short at this rate. Bah humbug bailouts and mega mergers, killing the economy slowly.

"If you had any doubt at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street; the utter lack of transparency behind the biggest government giveaway in history to financial executives, and their shareholders, directors, and creditors; and the intimate connections the lie between Administrations — both Republican and Democratic — and the heavyweights on Wall Street, your doubts should be laid to rest. Today it was decided the government will guarantee more than $300 billion of troubled mortgages and other assets of Citigroup under a federal plan to stabilize the lender after its stock fell 60 percent last week. The company will also will get a $20 billion cash infusion from the Treasury Department, adding to the $25 billion the bank received last month under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.


This is not a particularly good deal for American taxpayers, but it is a marvelous deal for Citi. In return for all the cash and guarantees they are giving away, taxpayers will get only $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8 percent dividend. No other strings are attached. The senior executives of Citi, including those who have served at the highest levels in the US government, have done their jobs exceedingly well. The American public, including the media, have not the slightest clue what just happened."


link

This is something I find interesting - do insurance companies charge considerably more to smokers in America?

In England the goverment gets around this due to the huge tax on smoking (packets of cigarettes are in excess of £5 ($8) for 20 smokes of which something like £3-4 is tax I believe).

I remember watching a debate on smokers and the NHS and actually the tax from smoking in England more than covers the costs of medical care for their illnesses.

Do a majority of private and public employees (at least working for a non-small business) get covered by plans where the employers pick up most of the premiums? I have never belonged to an HMO or have had to go through a government program like VA or Medicare. It's always been an EPO for me and my family. That was my point about specialists. I have the same deductable whether I go to my family doctor once a week or to a specialist. The only thing that's not covered by the 85% rule is MRI. The experience that I have had was that regardless if I had a $60,000 surgery like I had in 2004 or my wife's surgery this summer or simply office visits, the administrator of our plan (the plan was locally-owned/participated and not one of the big bureaucracies) lowers the billed fees by half and then pays for 85%, minus the $20-25 copay. I have not been turned down for any specialists we have seen (about 8-10 different ones over the years).

Apparently, in preparation for their big bailout from the taxpayers of America, my wife received a letter informing her that her interest rate on our lone Citibank credit card was going to 17.99% for new purchases. This has nothing to do with late payments (which never happened), or a credit score issue (her score is 815 as of this past July). Upon being called, they admit as much, and basically say they are doubling it because they can and she can choose to not accept the change and they will close the account when the card expires.

If they are treating excellent credit risks this way, just what business are they intending to be in?

Citibank is the worst company in the world. I never once missed a credit card payment and they raised my interest rate to 29.9% based upon my credit report. I canceled my account the day I found out they raised it and will never deal with them again.

I think the reason for banks raising their rates is simple.

* America has a cosy cartel of banks within it (no foreign institutions are allowed).
* The number of banks in this cartel has dropped with the mergers leading to less competition and easier price fixing between the few remaining.

Simple as that really, they don't care if they lose sensible customers - they're after the ones with balances who'll pay interest - thats where their profit is.

If America opened up the country to foreign banks then instantly you'd have a MUCH more customer orientated system which would provide a much better and more competitive service for people.

Apart from the health care the main thing I miss about England on the 'financial' front is the banking system back home - NO bank charges, a grace £50 overdraft limit at most banks (within which the bank consider it a minor mistake on your behalf no letters or hassle), banks being happy to give you a resonable over-draft facility and work with you if you anticipate a hard patch coming up (I've done this a few times in the past myself back home - the banks actually reward sensible planning heaven forbid ;)), a DECENT level of interest on savings (normally between 5 and 8% depending on the account at present) finaly a sensible setup where if you try to use your card without funds in the account it bounces the card usage rather than putting it through.

So now we are facing a future with a banking system that attempts to get over on all their personal banking (and small business) customers. A banking system composed of a handful of banks, with all the mega-consolidation driven by the hands of government.

So, once again, we pay for it on one end with our own money saving these terrible businesses, and we pay for it on the other end with more draconian policies and fees. I'd still like to know why this is really better for the individuals of this nation. As each new bailout happens, this seems much worse for the average individual than it was the day before.

Looks like the National Insurance premiums and taxes in Britain are going to see a big increase. That's a shame because it's only going to make the economic situation worse than it already is in that region.

Pre-Budget report: National Insurance rise adds to high earners' woes - Telegraph

If the American goverment were brave enough to open up your banking to foreign banks then it'd have a huge positive effect on things for the consumer imho.

(The reason banks are competitive in the UK is simply that there are lots of them and only the decent ones survive, others lose customers and get bought up by the larger banks. A UK bank wouldn't get off the ground if they tried to put in place American banking style charges - simply put no one would stand for it.)

The old 'reasoning' for only having American banks from what I understand was a fear of relying upon foreign institutions for assets - but seeing as most of the American banks are heavily owned by the middle east these days I don't really think thats a huge issue now ;)

Its swings and roundabouts - they've also cut the level of VAT by 2.5% which effectively balances things for high earners and ensures that low wage earners end up better off (as they're the ones worst hit by the recession).

To be honest the UK has always had a high income tax rate compared to America - thats the price you pay for the facilities provided for society (ie. nationalised health care, social security etc.) .... also take into account the levels at which they kick in - if you earn £150,000 ($225,000) then to be honest paying a little extra in national insurance tax isn't going to kill you imho (especially when you're getting an extra 2.5% for your money via. the VAT cut).

PS - Yes I know I always come across in support of England, can't help it ... natural bias :D

One problem with the UK adding this new tax rate. They'll just drive even more of these high tax earners, and businesses, to tax-friendly countries like Switzerland, Monaco, Singapore, or the United Arab Emirates (Dubai). Unlike the US where citizens are tax on their global income regardless of where they like, Britain doesn't have this.

Interesting news is the battle between the US government/IRS and UBS.

I wonder if US government will win? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...bs-switzerland

Also, I'm guessing the Swiss government will be aggressive in protecting its laws.

The Wiki disagrees, see below. I don't know if there is a list of banks per capita by country or something like that. I really don't think the UK has more banking options than the US. It seems like HSBC and Barclays issue about every credit card in the UK. I don't know enough about consumer services offered by the banks in the UK, but I can vouch for getting pretty much free banking (checking account) everywhere I have lived in the US.

If you live in the US and you are paying a bunch of banking fees, you are not looking very hard.


List of banks in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is what I was thinking. I havent paid fees or charges since...well, I can't really recall exactly. Maybe 1997-ish?

I've been with Wachovia since they bought First Union, which I had accounts with. While I've heard negative things from others that I know, I have to say I've been more than happy with Wachovia's (lack of) fees, pleasant customer service, and uncommonly helpful representatives who always seem to point me towards some helpful direction which benefits me every time I call up with a need/request/etc.

Mortgage rates plummeted today which is a very very good thing. If this direction can hold this could help navigate through the spring selling season and help get the mud to begin to dry. We'll see as everything theyve done so far has lacked endurance.

I was quite taken by that, Marc, when I saw it on the news.

I've often thought that reliance on interest rates alone to control the economy and inflation through the money supply (described by Ted Heath in the past as "like a one club golfer") as too simplistic and that control via a national sales tax would offer additional/alternative and more flexible control.

For example, if they wish to stimulate the economy then they will drop interest rates to increase the money supply. But that often triggers inflation. But if you reduce a national sales tax (VAT) then you not only stimulate through increasing the money supply but you reduce inflation at the same time (retail prices come down) - or at the very least compensate to some extent for the increase.

I've never seen that suggested so I guess there must be something wrong there but I can't see it.

Of course the government loses revenue but that is compensated by the increase in economic activity.

It all seems too good to be true some how or another :)

But I presume that's what Brown is doing.

I would also add that if the banks in the UK now behave as you say then they've improved a lot since I was there :)

All the accounts I have over here charge unless you have a certain amount in the account (and not just keeping it in credit, normally a reasonably substantial amount).

The best I have is a Wamu account where they charge and then refund it if I keep over a certain amount in the account - if you know a better bank then please let me know, but both Wachovia and Wamu (which are the closest banks to me geographically - I've heard bad things about Bank of America which is the other alternative near by so haven't checked them out yet).

Heh - they've been pretty good all my adult life, however in recent years the 'charges' they made for overdrafts (which weren't as heavy as those made by the banks I've used in America) were made illegal (and indeed many people were able to reclaim those they'd paid from several years past).

I wasn't meaning that there were more bank corporations (although considering the size of England I think there is quite a decent choice, what I was trying to argue is that by allowing foreign banks in it would increase choice and thus improve competition and service to customers.

If you look at the banks in England several are not 'native' banks (HSBC was I believe a Hong Kong based bank originally for instance. These banks helped push improved services to customers in order to gain them from the more traditional English banks.

There is of course a potential negative aspect to this side of things which can be seen from the collapse of the banks from Greenland which established entities in England.

12 years since I last had an account in the UK, Marc. Hell, is it really that long :eek:

Woo hoo, up 3%. I did my part today! Hopefully we can extend last week gains.

Retailers keep fingers crossed as holiday shopping continues - Nov. 29, 2008

The official designation of the economy as being in a recession was made by the National Bureau of Economic Research. What is a bit surprising is that the start was pegged as Dec. 07, which means we've been in one for almost a full year.

Oops.

Strictly anecdotal -- one of the things I do is track retail sales for my vendors. While we have been beating their department averages (yay) those department averages are almost entirely 10-20% below last years same week, both in sell-through and average retail price.

Some unhappy/worried stores out there. And with a short retail season this year they've got reason to be.

Same store sales for McDonalds are up 5.3% in the US and 8.2% worldwide.

Although it looks like October was not a good month overall. It looks like an estimated drop of 0.3% overall. This is based on a Reuters report that

"tracks monthly sales for 34 of the nation's largest retailers including Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500), Gap (GPS, Fortune 500), Sears (SHLD, Fortune 500) and J.C. Penney - began tracking the results in 2000."

On the list Wal-Mart was actually up 2.4%.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/06/news...ion=2008110612

Q1 will see a shocking number of store closures and bankruptcy filings. Mom and pops are and should be very scared.

Yeah, I'm really worried about how many stores won't survive with 90 days of this Christmas, big and small

SI

Hoo, baby. Going to be a really rough day on Wall Street. Job loss report was FAR worse than expected.

Somewhat rhetorical question I guess but ... if we expect it, how shocking is it?

hmmm...

Nice rebound ... what a crazy second half of 2008.

I suspect the shocking part will not be the what, but rather the who.

Who would be shocking? We have the big 3 automakers begging Washington for survival. Lehman Brothers had been around for 150 years.

The only one that would really shock me is Walmart, since they're basically recession-proof.

This struck a nerve with me. I was listening to the ABC News radio report at the top of the hour. The reporter mentioned that Obama and many others have said that GM's CEO should resign due to his lousy leadership. They then played a clip from an interview of a GM female union auto worker. She was asked if she thought the GM CEO should be fired. Her response:


Proof-positive as to why these companies have become such a disaster. I'm hopeful that the restrictions are so tough that all three companies just don't even bother to take the money. I'm really surprised that the Democrat-led Congress is seriously pushing forward with any kind of loan/bailout given that public support for it has fallen to 25% or less in some polls.

I think a better idea would be to let the oil companies bail out the auto industry. They have had those record profits for the last year, made their money off of the auto industry, and should have plenty of available cash.

I think that might set back the green initiative just a wee bit :)

I love that we're all up in arms about a $15B bailout, even moreso than an even stupider $700B bailout

SI

Don't lump me into that crowd. I was a vocal critic of the original bailout as well in this very thread, though I was in the minority at the time.

I think the $700B bailout has a 10% chance of success, and my calculations put the potential success of the auto bailout at -17.9%.

That sound you just heard was QuikSand strangling himself.

Here it comes, the lines of "well we gave out 700 billion, whats 15 more?" (or reapportioning the 700 billion already sent to random whims, which of course it was designed for i guess anyway).

I opposed all sorts of bailouts, and to be honest the snivelling beggars these millionaires are becoming to try and win a government handout is just ticking me off. Well, the fact the act might work is ticking me off.

If 3 million jobs really hang in the balance over 15 or 30 billion in short term cash, then the government should say "okay here is your bridge loan, 10% APR". The reason that none of these companies will accept such a thing is because the real truth is they want a handout. Securing massive government dollars at say 4% is almost free money considering large chunks of their private funding comes in over that rate. Heck, I had 15% credit cards too, if the U.S. would pay down my principle and give me a new rate of 4% on it, I'd be throwing salt in my eyes to drudge up enough tears for my sob story.

Sure, give em a loan, charge a real interest rate, and charge it during the grace period. Make some money off of them. The request will either disappear over night as the free handout feel goes away, or they'll bite the bullet and take it since private debt experts would charge them more.

Looks like common sense may prevail. Even the paired down $14B deal appears to be going down to defeat. Not only do the Republicans oppose it, but some Democrats are voicing concerns over judicial pay raises that Harry Reid stuffed into the bill at the last moment.

Alright GM and Chrysler, Congress and the American public have called your bluff. We expect those banruptcy notices and the inevitable doom soon to follow as you've predicted.

WTF?! Why can no legislation go through Congress without getting a lot of irrelevant BS attached to it?

That was a rhetorical question.

Absolutely (and let's all pause to note the day that Flere and I agreed on something). If this is a crisis, then treat it like one. If it's not a crisis, then don't act like it is.

The trouble with all such 'crisises' is that until they've happened its impossible to tell 100% accurately what the fallout would be.

This was the case with the financial bail out - the money hats blinked first and the financial institutions got the money they 'HAD' to have .... did it save the economy, no one really knows and I'm sure university dissertations will be written upon that subject for decades to come.

The problem for the auto industry is a 'once bitten, twice shy' approach things things imho - the financial industry got in first with doom and gloom stories then failed to do what it was meant to (ie. unfreeze the credit system) and indeed no one really seems to know what was done with a lot of the money or the strategy which was utilised to determine its distribution ...

This will all lend itself towards the auto-industry having a harder time getting its bail out ... regardless of whether its justified or not.

I stand by my statement that Paulson's statement about NOT buying up the bad assets which had been one of the main facets of the whole tarp plan completely undermined the intended effect of the entire plan. Paulson basically torpedoed it and like I stated before, things are looking really really bad for next year. Complete and utter bunk, what he did to the program and I believe that had he not done that it might've worked.

I don't know enough about the setup to indicate if the change was right or wrong from a pure economic stand point - BUT the change from a confidence perspective was hugely damaging ... it gave the indication that everything was being done on a wing and a prayer rather than having been planned out in advance.

Not surprising, it's not as simple as MBBF would have you believe. I mean, yeah, it's a good demonstration of how the political process is inefficient and a bit silly, but it's not like Reid was trying to sneak some kind of big pay raise in under the radar for his judicial buddies.

The Associated Press: Democrats to scuttle pay raise for judges

"Members of Congress, however, who presently make $169,300 a year, will automatically receive a raise of almost $5,000 on Jan. 1.

Members of Congress and district judges now make the same salaries, a long-standing practice. Under ethics legislation enacted almost two decades ago, members of Congress get a cost-of-living raise automatically, but they have to vote to give judges an identical raise.

The Senate passed the judicial pay measure as a separate bill in November, but the House never acted on that stand-alone bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supports the pay raise, but was wary of forcing rank-and-file House members to vote during a recession to increase the pay for people making far more than most workers.

Instead, she agreed to a request by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to attach the pay raise for judges to the bailout bill, which the House passed Wednesday night."

EDIT: And the original pay increase bill was passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent, so it's not like anyone voted against it or objected to it a month ago. Smells more like a PR stunt by those objecting to it than anything else.

Sounds a lot more like a procedural vote than anything. But let's make it partisan while we can!

SI

Might as well kiss my job goodbye. :(

It actually is that simple. A judicial raise has nothing to do with an auto industry bailout. If they wanted to do that, write up another bill to just do that. It's very simple.

is it only me who see's a sub-3% pay raise for a very skilled position not being something to get excited and up in arms about?

Being a judge is a job with a huge amount of responsibility and pressure, not to mention the challenge of staying on top of a constantly evolving legal system - I think they'd deserve every penny of that raise myself.

Where have we heard this before?

"The last bailout was $700B. What's 15-25B more?"

It all adds up. 3% here, 2% there. Earmarks that have nothing to do with the bill don't belong in that bill.

I never said that a judge doesn't deserve a salary increase. I just object to it being passed in an auto bailout bill.

Random little aside from the car makers impact.

Estimates are that automotive advertising makes up 12-15% of all radio advertising and as much as 25% of all TV advertising.

First half of the year was down 10%, to just over $5 billion. About half of that comes from the Big Three, who were down anywhere from 6% (GM) to 22% (Ford & Chrysler). By the end of Q3, the Big Three were down nearly 19% between them, spending only $4.1 billion so far this year.

Even at those levels incidentally, automotive is still the largest advertising category in the country, roughly double the pharmaceutical industry. For those who are curious, here's a story on the top categories for advertising. It also includes a table on various media types & their up or down for the YTD.

Also, here's a short Q&A piece on auto advertising & the impact for anyone who finds this remotely interesting.

It's actually much more efficient to attach something with huge bipartisan support to an existing bill. Starting a bill from scratch can be a long, tedious proposition. This isn't a case of trying to sneak an unpopular measure through in a very popular bill, so I really don't understand the fuss.

I'm not sure whether this is good or bad. On the one hand, you could say that it's good these companies are cutting back. On the down side, tho, it takes advertising money to make money. Cutting back on advertising money is like cutting back on R&D money- you may not see it initially but it can hurt you significantly in the long run.

SI

Increase car quality along with reduced labor contracts (and car prices) would have a much larger impact on the economy (in a positive way).

You'll have to ask the Democrats who made the fuss. Even if they weren't actually opposed to the pay raises, it probably provided a convinent reason for them to oppose the bill without directly pissing off the UAW. That would be just as good of an argument for leaving it out of a bill. There are PLENTY of bills that pay raise could be tacked onto. This is the absolute last one that they should have used for that purpose given the high level of scrutiny.

Don't get me wrong - I think its bizarre it gets tagged onto the auto-bill, but I think a pay-rise each year if you perform well at your duties is something people should expect myself ... otherwise each year people become worse off, inflation being a constant in life pretty much.

If you think this vote had anything to do with anything other than pure politics, then I've got some awesome automotive stocks to sell you. This had nothing to do with "common sense" and everything to do with politics.

A very disappointing result. Hopefully, they will find the money somewhere. Bankruptcy for anyone of the Big Three would be devastating, especialy to this region that's already been reeling for many years. The negative implications of this will reach much further than Michigan or even the industrial Midwest.

Essentially abandoning your country's manufacturing foundation is not a wise move for any number of economic or political reasons.

From what I understand of American bankruptcy law though - isn't it vey possible to structure bankruptcy in such a way that it protects the company and allows them to continue to function and restructure (and eventually come out from that state).

I'm pretty sure I've heard of several companies which have been through this ..

I think if a company isn't economically viable for whatever reason then its impossible to practically 'prop it up' continually - it drains funds from the healthy part of the economy and gives the unhealthy aspects no incentive to improve.

A bailout makes no sense imho - either nationalise the industry (which is effectively like bankrupting them done right, ie. get it healthy and put it back into the private sector) or let them go through bankruptcy and recover or fail in due course.

I agree that them failing would be bad for the areas they're located within - BUT imho that means the goverment should anticipate the possibility and put economic incentives in place in those regions to encourage other industries to locate there not bail out companies which are already unhealthy.

Bingo. Rewarding inefficiency is worse for the economy.

Yes. Bankruptcy doesn't mean a company turns out the lights, locks the doors and stops doing business. Many companies have gone bankrupt, continued to survive, and ended up being profitable again.

I don't think this is the case for the automakers and the reason is simple: People will not buy a car for a bankrupt company. One of the biggst considerations in buying a car is the services and support during future years. How can you ask someone to spend $15,000 to $60,000 on a new car if there is great uncertainty about future service and support? Such a blow would drive even more people away from U.S. automakers and would, essentialy, mean the end for them.