November 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Interesting article on USA Today about the “cash for clunkers” program. What did people use the program for? To upgrade their pickup trucks and SUVs. FAIL.
AP reports that for 8,200 deals — the most common — buyers traded in their old Ford 150 pickups for new Ford 150 pickups. Fuel economy for the new trucks is just 1 to 3 mpg better than the clunkers — less than 20 mpg.
Right on Ford’s bumper were big old Chevy and Dodge pickups that were traded in for big new Silverados and Rams.
Overall, more than 95,000 new vehicles — about one in seven — got less than 20 mpg. On top of that, taxpayers subsidized scores of deals — totaling $562,500 — for new cars and trucks that got worse mileage than the trade-ins.
Seriously, why on earth do we trust the government to create and run programs like this? The same government that used to pay $6,000 for a screwdriver? Have you been to the DMV lately? And you want the government to solve our problems?
Sigh…….
February 22, 2009 at 12:00 am
Peter Schiff: How He Would Fix America
I don’t know how anyone can disagree with all that.
And the ones who agree have started a grassroots campaign asking him to run for U.S. Senate. It’s at www.schiff2010.com.
January 29, 2009 at 8:44 pm
source
January 24, 2009 at 4:41 pm
The more I read, the more I like this guy. Here’s Peter Schiff in US News talking about how dumb it is for the government to be trying to create the illusion of value in the real estate market:
“They are trying to maintain high home prices by keeping interest rates low. That’s how they want to create more affordable housing. What’s a much more efficient way [to create more affordable housing] is to let home prices fall so that houses become more affordable because they are cheaper. And so people don’t have to borrow as much money to buy a house. These low interest rates are only temporary. They can’t stay down here.”
And this:
“It’s interesting: Initially, Fannie and Freddie’s mission was to help houses be affordable. Now, their mission is to keep housing prices expensive. They are trying to prop up prices and not let them come down. That’s the kind of stuff that the government did in the Great Depression. The government tried to stop food prices from coming down; they were destroying cattle and plowing under fields because they didn’t want food prices to go down. In bad economic times, they were trying to maintain high food prices so that people who are unemployed have to spend more money to eat. So, now they are trying to maintain high home prices. It’s stupid. Why not let home prices fall so that people can buy houses cheaper?”
And finally:
“…the government is trying to artificially prop up houses because as housing prices fall it exposes the extent of the damage in all these lending institutions that hold all these mortgages. And they are trying to maintain the illusion of home equity to the American public so they will spend more and save less, which ultimately undermines our economy.“
(emphasis is mine)
I just don’t get how anyone with a working brain can think it’s a good idea for the government to pump money into banks to prop up a system that clearly doesn’t work. Let it break, then fix it. All they’re doing is putting hundreds of billions of dollars of band-aids on it.
January 17, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Our new president will likely soon sign the biggest financial swindle ever put over by the US government on its people. If you want to know where your money is going, you may want to
ReadTheStimulus.org
It’s searchable, too. Type in “highway” or “bridge” or whatever floats your boat and see what they’re spending money on. Also interesting to see the “most comments” section for what other people are talking about.
December 26, 2008 at 2:25 pm
In tough times like this, it seems some of our fellow Tri-Citians have found a novel way of making a few extra bucks: by turning in criminals.
So far this year, Crime Stoppers has paid out $3,800 in rewards to 20 people, with $1,400 given just in October and November, said Mike Blatman, the law enforcement coordinator for Crime Stoppers.
“It kind of fluctuates, but it is up,” Blatman said. “It’s largely because of the economy and the holidays.” …
This year, reward money paid is about $1,200 above the average of $2,667 a year, Blatman said.
Depending on your outlook, that’s either really creative or really desperate. Or maybe a little bit of both. 
Full story at the Herald web site.
December 22, 2008 at 2:21 pm
From the New York Times in 1999:
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
I think the problem actually goes back to the ’80s and the Reagan Administration, but have never seen any old articles referencing that.
December 8, 2008 at 12:14 am
Bailout: I hate it. I think it’s a terrible idea. When the problem is too many loans, too many bad loans, too many loans that can’t be paid back, etc., the last thing the government should be doing is giving money to banks so they can keep making loans. We don’t need more loans, we need less; and we need more savings.
Below is a video by an economic guy named Peter Schiff. I don’t know much about him, but I like what I know. Here’s a long video of him that apparently includes clips from 2006 and 2007. I’ve only watched the very first quote he gives (goes up to the 1:15 mark or so), and he is spot on:
“Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you gotta swallow it.” Agreed.
Schiff, by the way, was an economic adviser to Ron Paul during this year’s campaign.
