Skip to main content

View Diary: Save 300,000 Jobs--Boycott Chase [Update] (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so, given your analysis, JPMC should NOT yield (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk

    why would they? the pension considerations don't impact the Chase balance sheet at all.  If little Timmeh and Larry Summers and Paulson had bothered to think about this at all before setting all the bank bailout money on fire, the Treasury would be in a position to tell Chase what to do.  But that's not the world we live in.

    From a government perspective, it might be most efficient for Chase to yield on its debt.  Maybe that's the question we should ask- is it better for Chase to collect all they can, the sooner to pay back TARP, or is it better for them to pour more TARP funds down the drain to keep 300,000 Americans performing jobs that no longer have any economic value?

    the Legality.com We research the law so you don't have to!

    by the law of ducks on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:51:02 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  WTF is "economic value"? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, the law of ducks

      You wrote:

      is it better for them to pour more TARP funds down the drain to keep 300,000 Americans performing jobs that no longer have any economic value?

      So let's hear your explanation of this holy "economic value" that is the final arbiter of this matter.  Sounds like more worship of the market deity to me.

      Will financial types ever understand that their pronouncements about who should live and die no longer carry any weight with most of us?

      Are you the change or not?

      by goinsouth on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:35:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ManhattanMan, the law of ducks

        So let's hear your explanation of this holy "economic value" that is the final arbiter of this matter.  Sounds like more worship of the market deity to me.

        There's no worship here (I'm not the person you are replying to). "No economic value" is producing cars in an environment where unsold cars are piling up everywhere.

        No matter whether you're a capitalist, socialist, or communist, enterprises need to be operated profitably or they will collapse. This isn't "worship", it's reality.

      •  what Sparhawk said (0+ / 0-)

        I had to unplug for a bit, but that's my point.  The idea of giving money to Detroit car companies today is like giving money to buggy-whip manufacturers in 1940.  The problem isn't that there just aren't enough cars getting made.  The problem is that nobody can afford to buy a new car.

        So how, exactly, would using taxpayer dollars to build more cars fix that problem?  

        That's right, it wouldn't.  In fact, it would make it worse- every car they can't sell is another expense- someone has to pay for a place to store those cars, pay someone to keep them clean and saleable, keep track of them so they don't get stolen by Nicholas Cage and driven to mexico at 130 MPH...

        making more of something that nobody wants is not the answer to our current problems.  That's what I mean by economic value.  Might as well pay half the auto workers to dig holes and pay the other half to fill the holes back in.

        the Legality.com We research the law so you don't have to!

        by the law of ducks on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 08:28:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site