Skip to main content

Got into a bit of a political discussion today with a father and son. It started out innocently enough, talking about what PBO's re-election means for the country. We agreed that the President would be better for social issues.

"But Romney would have been better for economic issues," said the son.

"Really?"

"Yes, Republicans are more business-like in how they run the country. They do better with balancing budgets."

I countered that the data I had seen showed that the Democrats reduce the deficit and Republicans expand it. And that more jobs are created when the president is a Dem rather than a Rep.

He insisted that the data he had seen showed that he was right and I'm not persuaded at this point. I talked about the economic freefall the country was in when Obama came into power and the jobs data but he wasn't persuaded. Then his dad chimed in with something I wasn't sure about.

The father stated that Clinton had sowed the seeds for the housing bubble by not only deregulating the mortgage lenders but also by telling the lenders that if they didn't provide mortgages to those who couldn't afford them the government would go after the lenders. Is there any kernel of truth in what he said? Was there actual pressure from the Clinton government pushing the mortgage market?

He also said that Chrysler had posted a huge quarterly loss (half a billion dollars?) at the end of the Clinton era so the signs of the impending economic downturn were already visible.

They didn't argue that the Bush administration had messed up the economy but that was more in the context of "all politicians are liars and they're out to line their own pockets and screw the rest of us."

Those are the main points that I remember at the moment. I will update if I remember anything else.

So my questions are:

(1)  On what basis could the son have said the Republicans are better for the economy? Is there any data that could support this?

(2)  Did Clinton cause the housing bubble? Did Clinton threaten mortgage lenders if they refused someone a mortgage?

(3)  Was Chrysler posting losses at the end of the Clinton era? If so, why were they losing money? (I'm thinking bad products rather than economy but open to being educated.)

All help gratefully appreciated.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "They're more business-like." (8+ / 0-)

    My retort: "Yeah, corruption is very business-like."

    "They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods

    by Troubadour on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:23:27 PM PST

    •  Well, that doesn't help (0+ / 0-)

      These guys think that both side are corrupt.

    •  That's a decent retort, but I think (11+ / 0-)

      that he wants a reasonable conversation.  I think that we should rise above the level of conversation used by the more extremist Republicans.  When people want to have an intelligent conversation about economics, we should give them one.

      There is a kernal of truth in what he said, but he is oversimplifying it.

      In 1995, the Clinton administration changed the Community Reinvestment Act to encourage more lending to poorer neighborhoods.  They did not actually force banks to accept mortgages they didn't want, but it did give a rating to bank based on how much lending it did in poor communities.  If it never did business with the poor, it got a poor rating, and this in turn would cause community groups to complain and push back, and banks were encourage to offer loans to the poor.

      Fannie Mae allowed the government to push loans that were more risky.  However, the major separation from reality is that this guy has skipped the step that actually really led to the crisis.

      Banks trade on loans like investments and sell them to each other, and his risk loans are simply worth less; that's fine, we did business trading those around for decades.  The problem arose later, when after 2000 massive deregulation of the financial sector and allowed bankers to use financial structures never seen before to take place.  

      People trying to sell bundles of loans, including poor homeowners, would bundle them together and sell them as a group.  They were required to review these loans themselves, and in theory had the responsibility to only bundle them together if they were sure they were intelligent, stable deals and the debt would eventually be paid back.  The people doing this by this time were no longer in any way involved with whoever sold the house, and were bundling together hundreds and thousands of loans into one deal, without ever looking at the owners or the situations involved.

      They, they called these loans which were generally high-risk, "Triple AAA" loans, saying they were low risk.  Since the industry had been deregulated, nobody was around to dispute the appraisal.  

      Since they were Triple AAA, that meant that pension plans were allowed to invest in them.  Then when all these bad loans began to default it crashed the whole market.

      I tried to make the understandable but I'm not sure I succeeded.  Does that all make sense?

      Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

      by martianexpatriate on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:02:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  As far as Chrysler goes, (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MeToo, Thursday Next, suesue, Patate

        I know much less about the car market than economics.  Chrysler had been losing money for years, but I hope nobody suggested the recession was there fault.  They got into huge trouble when nobody could afford to buy a car because all of the banks were panicking and no credit was available.

        Very few people buy a car without the use of credit, and nobody could get anyway, which caused everyone's car sales to go virtually to zero.  Most businesses had a hard time staying alive after the markets bottomed out, but car dealerships had it even worse.

        Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

        by martianexpatriate on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:06:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I tried so hard to simplify it I (5+ / 0-)

        may have given you less detailed then you wanted.  If you'd really like to know exactly what happened, the single best book on that whole affair that I ever read was written by Michael Lewis.  It's called, The Big Short:  Inside the Doom Machine

        Michael Lewis was a trader himself at one time, but he writes very well.  In this book, he follows a number of people who could truly said to have seen the market collapse coming, and who did something about it.  By following their lives and describing the crash as if you were there when it happened, he makes it all pretty understandable.

        They were strange, interesting people.  Some were incredibly intelligent, but all of them were very iconoclastic.

        It worries me that so few people understand what happened.  It's because so few of us know, that Wall Street can get away with so much.

        Ignorance more frequently begets confidence then knowledge. Charles Darwin

        by martianexpatriate on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:09:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes this all makes sense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md, Patate

        Thank you very much.

        I was a little bit fuzzy on where all the subprimes loans and the bundling fit in to the whole fiasco.

      •  Dispose of CRA argument with one clear thought (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thursday Next

        The spectacular blowups, such as Countrywide, were exempt from the Community Reinvestment Act.

  •  Government is not a business. (16+ / 0-)

    The primary purpose of a business is to amass profit. The primary purpose of government is to serve it's people.

    Oh for crying out loud!

    by 4mygirls on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:32:15 PM PST

  •  Honestly, I wouldn't bother. They won't (6+ / 0-)

    change their tiny little minds no matter what you show them.  Sad, but true.

    They think republicans are more business-like because wealthy corporate leaders are republicans.  Why are they republican?  Because they want less regulation, lower taxes and the ability to lie to people when selling their dirty products.  So no, republicans are not better business people.  They are better lying, polluting crooks.

  •  wouldn't be surprised if it started under Clinton, (6+ / 0-)

    since it was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that was really unbuckling the nation's safety belt while everyone was looking somewhere else. Without this we would not have had Credit Default Swaps on mortgages.

    So yes, the big dog let it out and it grew into a monster.

    It really came to a head with this,

    Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
    which became the reason behind the take-down of Eliot Spitzer.

    Boy oh boy the things a sex scandal obscures with smoke and mirrors.

  •  Re: Chrysler (6+ / 0-)

    An article on the history of Chrysler mentions something interesting happening in 2000.

    In 1998 Daimler-Benz and Chrysler had formed a 50–50 partnership. Chrysler Corporation then was legally renamed DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC, while its total operations began doing business as Chrysler Group. This was initially declared to be a merger of equals, but it became evident that once Chrysler Chairman and CEO Bob Eaton retired, that Daimler would take majority control.[38] Other executives like President Thomas T. Stallkamp, once considered the heir-apparent of Eaton, and Vice-Chairman Robert Lutz were soon forced out. Eaton, Stallkamp, and Lutz had been described as the "triumvirate" responsible for Chrysler's successes in the late 1990s, with much credit going to Lutz's platform design teams.[39] Daimler-Benz got the remainder of Chrysler, excluding the Eagle brand, which was facing extinction at the time.

    Then-Daimler-Benz CEO Juergen Schrempp had "promised a marriage made in heaven and huge synergies". However, it proved to be a disaster for Daimler, which poured billions of dollars into Chrysler, draining management and resources, and repeatedly dragging down its Mercedes-Benz luxury vehicle subsidiary. Chrysler President James P. Holden was responsible for misjudging the launch of the all-new 2001 minivan that resulted in an expensive surplus of 2000 models, losing considerable market share to rivals (Chrysler had created and long dominated the minivan market), and also underestimated demand for the surprisingly popular PT Cruiser, resulting in a $512 million third-quarter loss in 2000 that led to his firing later that year. [40][41]

    I have no idea how some epic misjudgment and mismanagement of the company translates into predicting an economic downturn that started at least seven years later, though.

    Moving forward, consider the Congressional Progressive Caucus' Deal for All as a solution to the lame-duck budget and sequestration crisis. Democrats won, now use that!

    by tytalus on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:38:54 PM PST

  •  First of all, the Republican mantra is that (10+ / 0-)

    government should stay out of business. So, their argument that Republican presidents are better for business is hypocritical. But then, their arguments are lies from beginning to end. What Republicans want is subsidies from government and other kinds of help (liability protection, loan guarantees, patent protection, trade agreements, infra structure improvements, access to resources) for free.  After all, "free market" actually means taking free stuff to market for a profit.
    American enterprise are largely composed of middlemen, who make a profit by taking a cut from the producer and consumer, much like a highwayman, but legally. And, if things go wrong, they simply declare bankruptcy and go on to the next exploitative venture. So, just on that score, public corporations (cities, towns, states) are not comparable because they are structured to never fail. What businesses want is the fail-safe environment without any obligations to perform according to any expectations.

    "No obligations" should be the Republican moto.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:39:20 PM PST

  •  On specifics: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, MeToo

    Tytalus has given a full answer re Chrysler.
    on (1) The growth in income for every segment of the population except perhaps some tiny fraction of the 1% has consistently been greater under D's than R's. That means GDP growth has been greater. That's not surprising since as Clinton pointed out, job growth has been much better. As for the deficit, we had a surplus under Clinton and then were thrown into deep deficit by Bush's tax cuts, wars, and economic mismanagement. These are just plain objective facts. If you look to more long-range effects that don't show up as quick feedback, the R's also are investing less in the environment and basic social capital, so they make more hidden real debt than the Ds also.

    Seriously, after watching the last election, they say that Romney is the more effective CEO?

    On (2)- somebody more knowledgeable should help sort out whatever fractional truth might be lurking there.

    Michael Weissman UID 197542

    by docmidwest on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:48:26 PM PST

    •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

      I was aware of the economic data you cited but just wondered if there was some graph somewhere that showed some economic marker being consistently better under R's.

      Certainly on the basis of how he ran his election campaign, Romney failed as CEO.

  •  Republicans balance budgets? (5+ / 0-)

    When did that happen?  

    Ahhh, never.  

    That's all the ammo you need.  

  •  The beef with Clinton is two things (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, themank, Thursday Next, MeToo

    The repeal of Glass Steagall and the Fair Housing Act.
    Gramm–Leach–Bliley is "deregulating the mortgage lenders" and, next breath, FHA is over-regulating Mortgage Lenders, by banning discriminatory lending, redlining, et cetera, hence "Threatening the Lenders" if they didn't make sub-prime loans.
    At least, that's how I'd guess he meant it.
    GLB was forced on Clinton to some extent by the ongoing coup by Congressional Republicans and is staunchly defended by the GOP, considered a major FAIL for Clinton by the Left.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:57:08 PM PST

  •  The Community Reinvestment Act which (7+ / 0-)

    said that banks should reinvest the money they collect from a community in that community and that whether or not they had done that would figure into the granting of permits to merge or expand or engage in some other kind of re-organization was passed in 1977. The only enforcement mechanism was that communities in which such changes were to happen were given an opportunity to look at the records to determine whether reinvestment efforts had been made.  
    The look at the records was apparently what really irked the banks.  For, when ACORN made a systematic effort to take advantage of the CRA, the banks routinely preferred to pay out money in a settlement, rather than open their books. Indeed, ACORN pretty much financed its operations from these settlements. Which is why the move to deprive them of government grants was such a farce. They weren't getting any.
    Still, the obligation to open their books to inspection rankled the banks to such an extent that they blamed everything negative on the CRA. There never was a requirement to make loans, only to make an effort to reinvest and to open their books to demonstrate good faith.
    Making loans to straw buyers or to investors in housing they had not intention to occupy was entirely a bank invention, propelled by the desire to earn fees and higher interest rates on defaults. Keep in mind that a debt, regardless of whether it is being paid or not, shows up on the bank's books as an asset.  Which is why they are not keen to settle anything. As long as fines and fees are accruing on loans in their books, they are getting richer. So, there is no incentive for banks to actually foreclose and settle a debt. Taking a loss is only with while, if they can use it to offset a profit and eliminate a tax obligation. The tax code rewards loss and taxes success.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:57:27 PM PST

  •  Real Economic Truths (7+ / 0-)

    Ask him which party increases Federal spending more ?
    Ask him whether  he thinks Obama has been on a "spending spree"?
    Ask him which party hires more Federal employees and makes the government bigger?

    These things are TRUTHs to Rs but they're wrong. Federal spending always increases more under R administrations.

    See this excellent Meteor Blades post:
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Spending under
    Reagan 1st: +8.7%
    Reagan 2nd: +4.3%
    Bush 1st: +5.4%
    WJC 1st: +3.2%
    WJC 2nd: +3.9%
    GWB 1st: +7.3%
    GWB 2nd: +8.3%
    BHO 1st: +1.4%

    Another good article: http://articles.marketwatch.com/...

    The two presidents that added the most to the Federal employees was GB and GWB. There are actually fewer Federal employees under Obama decreasing the size of the government.

    Federal employee count by administration: http://www.economist.com/...

    You can make the same arguments for increasing the Federal debt as well - balanced under Clinton - but I would start here.

    I agree that people who say they want to debate and may change their mind usually really won't but this is start that goes straight to heart of the Republican myths of R making small government and "tax and spend" liberals.

    =Tod

  •  Bush's Ownership Society (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next

    To help you with question #2, look into Bush's Ownership Society, as it relates to home ownership.

    Here's one link to give you an idea but you can google for further choices.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

    I'm a liberal. I stand for freedom and for a government that protects us from anyone and anything that would do us harm.

    by VictorNJ on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:19:14 PM PST

  •  BushCo Destroyed The Mortgage Industry Safeguards (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, tardis10, Chi

    in 2002.

    And even though it was illegal BushCo did nothing as Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae (run by insider cronies) were buying subprime loans (by fraudulently claiming they were up to standard aka prime) from the crooked lenders who knew the borrowers were never going to be able to pay - thereby sticking it to the taxpayers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  from the same speech (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Thursday Next, Chi

      Too stupid to be president says:

      If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.
      It might be in your video, can't bear to watch it again.  :)

      It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

      by happymisanthropy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:40:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Look at the Campaigns (4+ / 0-)

    Obama got outspent by over $100M in the swing states, but carried 8 out of 9.  This was in part due to two reasons:

    1.  Team Obama spent the money efficiently by buying TV time in advance and getting breaks on the rates paid compared to Romney who bought at the last minute and paid through the nose.

    2.  Team Obama executed their plan more efficiently such as micro-targeting to turn out the right voters.  Romney on the other hand invested in an Get out the Vote App called ORCA which was not properly tested and wound up crashing on election day.

    So you tell me which one does a better job of managing finances and carrying out major projects-the man from Bain Capital or the Community Organizer with the funny name?

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:33:30 PM PST

  •  Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae (4+ / 0-)

    Another RW canard is to blame Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae for the crisis, because supposedly they had somehow FORCED banks to make home loans to poor people who were unable to pay their mortgages. In fact, the FMs for years insisted on buying only plain-vanilla 30-yr loans, but it was the GOP that insisted they loosen their rules because banks were making so many wonky loans that they needed the FMs to take them off their hands, to free up capital so the banks could make even more subprime loans. So the FMs got into the subprime market relatively late and didn't have much exposure to them. But note that even if the FMs had not bought even one single subprime loan, they still would have been brought down by the housing crash. Why? Because they are required by law to maintain a reserve that was a percentage of the overall value of their mortgage holdings. When the crash happened, the value of ALL homes pummeted, not just the ones that had subprime loans. So the value of the mortgages held by the FMs dropped so low that their reserves were suddenly inadequate. Take-home lesson: the FMs would have been brought down by the mortgage industry's reckless practices even if they had never bought a single subprime loan.
    So why did the banks and mortgage lenders make these terrible subprime loans? Because they were profitable. Brokers earned a premium for screwing their customers by pushing these loans. Poor people and minorities were the biggest victims, not because they were greedy or venal, but because they were financially unsophisticated and easy to take advantage of.

    Democracy - Not Plutocracy!

    by vulcangrrl on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:41:18 PM PST

  •  Gotta love the crowd sourcing at DailyKos! (3+ / 0-)

    economic graph republican democrats

    I used these search terms and found two excellent diaries that might help with specifics. Sounds like the makings of a good conversation!

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. Paul Cezanne

    by MeToo on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:52:34 PM PST

  •  Stiglitz on market fundamentalism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, tardis10

    Read or listen to Joseph Stiglitz. There are tons of podcasts out there of his lectures and interviews. He is the guy who knows the answers to all your questions. He has no rival on the right.

    Here, start with this Joseph Stiglitz interview.

    But in the meantime...

    (1)  On what basis could the son have said the Republicans are better for the economy? Is there any data that could support this?
    Shouldn't they be the ones to supply the data to justify their claim? And what are their sources of information?

    What does "better for the economy" mean? The Koch brothers certainly think Romney would be better for them.  But what they really mean is Market Fundamentalism benefits them.

    The Republican Party has become a party of extremist elements, and extremist market fundamentalism is one of these factions.

    If an economy with third world style income disparity is the economy you desire, then market fundamentalism is the quickest route you can take to get there. And that may actually benefit a few people like the Kochs. And they fund the Republican Party don't they.

  •  Republicans are better for the economy? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, Chi

    No, they're not. They say they're better for the economy. Words and actions are different things. They complain about Democratic spending when out of power. When in power, they buy all they want.

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” - Hanlon's Razor

    by Mister Black on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:28:39 PM PST

  •  That lie about banks "having to lend" was designed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, Dogs are fuzzy, Chi

    to disavow blame from the banks for deliberately steering people (mainly Black) to these sub-prime rate mortgages.  Even people who could afford a regular mortgage were steered towards these.  What would happen is that the banks would make millions selling the derivatives and what not

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:52:12 PM PST

  •  All the problems in the auto industry (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MeToo, Thursday Next, Chi

    in the US stem from poor management decisions over the last forty years or more.

    When import brands started coming into the market, the big three ignored the threat they posed, dismissing the quality of their product and the relatively low-profit segments they were active in (i.e., economy cars). As long as times were good, the big three got away with this thinking.

    Two moves by the Japanese competition upset the apple cart. They continuously improved the quality of their product, and they were not content to produce only economy cars. They started to move upmarket, competing directly with the US brands and beating them soundly on quality.

    Every bit of the US auto industry's problems over the years is traceable to poor management decisions. Perhaps the biggest problem, one that went unaddressed until about ten years ago, was the thinking that their product was "good enough", when the competition's product was clearly "good". Most important of all was the perception among car-buyers that Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etcetera, made a superior product.

    If anybody tries to tell you that the Big Three's problems are the fault of the unions, they don't know shit from shinola. No union or union member forced poor product planning decisions on the companies.

    It's been claimed many times that union healthcare and retirement plans added $1500 to the cost of each car. Maybe so, but shitty product routinely required rebates of as much as $10,000 to move the cars off the dealer's lots.

    Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

    by Eric Twocents on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:58:14 PM PST

    •  Good points on the overall economy (3+ / 0-)

      of the "auto". My 15 yo son mentioned a conversation he was in the other day in HS. Someone was saying the price of gas here was better than in Europe- he said, that's right, but... they get 65-80 mpg. He watches TopGear and they have diesel Jags and VWs and Audis (Fords, etc.) that blow the doors off anything we can get mileage-wise... plus, we don't have as high of wages and benefits- and that makes our gas actually more expensive.

      The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. Paul Cezanne

      by MeToo on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:24:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A couple of points on your (0+ / 0-)

        son's and your comments.

        There are thee main issues to keep in mind when comparing US and Eupropean market cars and mileage.

        1. Here in the US, many buyers opt for, and pay extra for, a larger engine, which of course gets worse mileage. In many cases, caramkers offer even smaller engines in European markets that they know will not sell here.

        2. The EU calculates mileage ratings with a different proceedure than our EPA, and thus, the two ratings are not directly comparable, even on comparable cars. Of course, actual mileage will vary (downward).

        3. When you hear that gas costs more in Europe than it does here, that means a LOT more. It is not uncommon to find that a gallon of gas costs seven, eight, or even nine dollars a gallon.

        Finally, many times over the last forty years, I've heard variations of a story about somebody who knows sombody, who's cousin bought a ___ (insert car maker here). The dealer filled the tank with gas and  two weeks and five hundred miles later the gas gage had not moved. Then said car maker tries to buy back the car for an exorbitant amount of money. Oops, the carmaker sold an experimental model which gets 200 MPG. Any extreme mileage claims should be tasken woith a grain of salt.

        When you're comparing mileage between here and Europe, you not only have to compare apples to apples, you really should compare Macintosh apples to Macintosh apples, and not a Golden Delicious.

        Trickle-down theory; the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows. - J.K. Galbraith

        by Eric Twocents on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 01:29:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Do you want a President or a Boss? Public service (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, Chi

    has different priorities than private industry.  To grow the economy, you have to improve the lot of the poor and middle class.

    Clinton may have tried to get people into homes.  Doubt if he approved of bundling mortgages and selling them off.  However, no one really tried to stop this either--especially not Romney.

    As middle class income tanked and inequality in income grew, less folks buying new cars.  Obama is working toward improved fuel-efficiency standards and reducing income inequality.  When more folks have more $$$, more businesses like the auto industry will do better.

    Good questions.

  •  it's very simple: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, Patate

    the last businessman who was president was dumbya......enough said.

    running a business does not prepare anyone to be president. period.

    mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

    by wewantthetruth on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:26:28 PM PST

  •  Chrysler owned by Private Equity Firm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thursday Next, Patate

    Something that didn't get talked about a lot was the fact that in 2007 Chrysler was bought by a Private Equity Firm: Cerberus Capital Management from its merger with German Daimler-Chrysler AG.
    Mitt Romney said for a long time that there was money available for Car companies in the private Sector ... well, Chrysler was owned by a Private Equity firm when it went down in 2007.
    Prior to that, Chrysler was owned by Daimler AG, the makers of Mercedes Benz in Germany.
    You can google or bing it.

    Don't forget to register to vote here: http://netrootsradio.blogspot.com/p/register-to-vote.html

    by bepanda on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:19:20 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site