Worst is Over, Fields Says

[ANTAUS]

LINK-Detroit News

[theoldwizard]

IMHO, Fields is a very poor economist.

 

Even Bernake said the other day that unemployment and home foreclosures would likely rise for the rest of the year. If you can't make your house payment, I hopw Ford Credit does not loan you any money for a new car !

Edited July 22, 2009 by theoldwizard

[fordgotten]

"It's the American Way, to pay back your loans,"

 

bout time we started seeing some snarky backhanded shots coming from Mullaly...I like it!...More of this needs to come out of Ford...

[silvrsvt]

IMHO, Fields is a very poor economist.

 

Even Bernake said the other day that unemployment and home foreclosures would likely rise for the rest of the year. If you can't make your house payment, I hopw Ford Credit does not loan you any money for a new car !

 

I think the primary thing he's saying that they don't expect the sales to go down any further then they are.

[NickF1011]

IMHO, Fields is a very poor economist.

 

Even Bernake said the other day that unemployment and home foreclosures would likely rise for the rest of the year. If you can't make your house payment, I hopw Ford Credit does not loan you any money for a new car !

 

Employment figures generally lag behind the rest of the economy in terms of performance though. Companies want to make sure they are on solid footing before they start expanding payrolls again. Consumer confidence will likely rebound sooner though, making those who still have jobs more comfortable with purchasing large ticket items.

[RichardJensen]

Even Bernake said the other day that unemployment and home foreclosures would likely rise for the rest of the year. If you can't make your house payment, I hopw Ford Credit does not loan you any money for a new car !

But those consumers (at high risk of losing jobs/houses) aren't looking to buy cars anyway.

 

Put this way: Ford needs housing price stability and income stability (and the customer confidence that goes with that) for those in a position to buy new cars.

 

What happens with the fringes (no one is predicting an 'explosive' growth in unemployment/foreclosures) isn't important.

[jpd80]

Regardless, Ford is seeing a lot more showroom traffic and no doubt feel confident increasing their

Q3 production back up to 485,000 units, that's roughly 65,000 more than for the same time last year.

[battyr]

IMHO, Fields is a very poor economist.

 

Even Bernake said the other day that unemployment and home foreclosures would likely rise for the rest of the year. If you can't make your house payment, I hopw Ford Credit does not loan you any money for a new car !

 

The crisis is over but not fixed. There are people being laid off today from what happened last summer. Banks may go under, people will lose their homes, but the banks are now starting to do loans. That is what counts. The simulus package is very slow to kick in but it will make a big difference.

 

Don't expect things to get much better any time soon, but we are past the worst of it. The economy won't return to where it was until, 1. people pay off a great deal of their debt, or 2. China continues to grow at 7% a year until they can afford large imports from the US. Either case prosperity is going to be 10 years away.

 

There is talk of a second stimulus package. It does worry me of waisting more money when the problem of underfunded mortgages has not been fixed.

[NickF1011]

Either case prosperity is going to be 10 years away.

 

Wow. That's a mighty gloomy outlook. :poke:

[Edstock]

Sure, there are still lumps in the porridge, but maybe the future won't be so bad for Ford.

 

Peter diLorenzo in today's Rant at Autoextremist had this comment about TOYOTA:

 

http://www.autoextremist.com/

 

And what about Toyota? Their new chief in America, Yoshimi Inaba, is a realist, a refreshing change from the previous attitude displayed by the company formerly known as “The Juggernaut.”. But even more than that, Inaba admitted to the media the other day that Toyota was not profitable in North America. Say that phrase back to yourself slowly and you realize what a stunning admission that really is. He’s confident they will return to profitability here (and so am I), but Toyota has a long, long way to go in this market. And it’s also quite clear to Inaba & Co. that their new chief rival in terms of new product cadence, quality, technology and momentum resides in Dearborn. Make no mistake, this will be a heavyweight championship fight the likes of which hasn’t been seen in this business for a long time.

 

Bill Ford done good.

[battyr]

Wow. That's a mighty gloomy outlook. :poke:

 

I think the economy is growing now. But growth is different than Prosperity. I don't think the US will ever be as rich as you were on a global basis a few years ago. Obama cancelling the F-22 is just a sign of the future.

 

Economist make a big mistake of confusing GDP with wealth. Your house may not be worth as much, but if you still have a place to live and it is just as nice, are you any poorer? Only if you need to get a loan. I have a theory that they US has become rich in knowledge from Google and the internet. But it does not help you if you don't have a job.

 

I am hoping for job growth to start in the next 6 months if nothing goes bad. But it will be slow.

[RichardJensen]

I don't think the US will ever be as rich as you were on a global basis a few years ago.

You know, you can't just go through life throwing hunches around like that. Show your work!!! Put some foundations under your assertions.........

 

Arguably the gap between rich and poor is diverging or narrowing, depending on who you listen to and where they get their information from. Suffice to say that it's a difficult subject to discuss because few people agree on the metrics.

 

Therefore to blithely spout off about the US being more or less 'rich' is--in other circles--to invite ridicule and contempt. Here, I'll simply ask you to explain what you mean because it is not even remotely clear at this point.

 

---

 

What, precisely is your definition of personal 'wealth'? Is it income? Access to credit? Assets less liabilities? Assets only? Disposable income? And to what extent does the purchasing power of the underlying currency?

 

What about inflation? Commodity costs?

[Edstock]

Obama cancelling the F-22 is just a sign of the future.

IMHO, if he quit now, just getting the F-22 program terminated is a giant step forward in getting defence costs under some semblance of control. It's a technological tour-de-force, but it's a gazillion-dollar solution for a problem that doesn't exist, except in the minds of the fear-mongers.

 

IMHO, the US needs an F-16 replacement, and a Warthog A-10 replacement, both a lot lower in terms of megabuck technology, and a lot more useful in the future.

[shllshck]

Well tomorrow Ford will release their Q2 earnings. I'm hopeful Ford will beat analyst expectations.

[battyr]

IMHO, if he quit now, just getting the F-22 program terminated is a giant step forward in getting defence costs under some semblance of control. It's a technological tour-de-force, but it's a gazillion-dollar solution for a problem that doesn't exist, except in the minds of the fear-mongers.

 

IMHO, the US needs an F-16 replacement, and a Warthog A-10 replacement, both a lot lower in terms of megabuck technology, and a lot more useful in the future.

 

I don't know enough about it to know if the F-22 should continue or be cancelled. I do know that the F-22 would give the US air superiority over everybody. They are giving that up for budget reasons. They are also losing 80,000 American jobs in the process. If it should be cancelled, then they should wait a year or 2 for the employment situation to turn around.

[SVT_MAN]

Employment figures generally lag behind the rest of the economy in terms of performance though. Companies want to make sure they are on solid footing before they start expanding payrolls again. Consumer confidence will likely rebound sooner though, making those who still have jobs more comfortable with purchasing large ticket items.

 

True; they are not a leading indicator.

[battyr]

You know, you can't just go through life throwing hunches around like that. Show your work!!! Put some foundations under your assertions.........

 

Arguably the gap between rich and poor is diverging or narrowing, depending on who you listen to and where they get their information from. Suffice to say that it's a difficult subject to discuss because few people agree on the metrics.

 

Therefore to blithely spout off about the US being more or less 'rich' is--in other circles--to invite ridicule and contempt. Here, I'll simply ask you to explain what you mean because it is not even remotely clear at this point.

 

---

 

What, precisely is your definition of personal 'wealth'? Is it income? Access to credit? Assets less liabilities? Assets only? Disposable income? And to what extent does the purchasing power of the underlying currency?

 

What about inflation? Commodity costs?

 

Yes this is a hunch. It is based on things like inflation and commodity costs.

 

I don't think the US will ever be as rich as you were on a global basis

 

"Rich on a global basis" mean buying stuff from the rest of the world.

 

People will not be able to go back to borrowing from China by mortgaging their houses to buy things made in China. This is only a hunch. I could be wrong.

 

The Government debt is growing a uncontrollable rates. This can only have 2 result. 1. High interest rate resulting in unemployment and more debt or 2. printing money, or some equivalent that will result in inflation and a dropping dollar. Just a hunch.

 

In anycase, the dollar would have to be devalued to create export jobs and inflate away US debts. Just a hunch.

 

Under Bush, the US spent more on the military than all other countries combined. The US consumed 25% of the worlds energy but only has 5% of the worlds population, much of it imported. When I say "global basis", IMHO I don't think this can continue, or ever return. Now if you are talking about how well off people are, or what they own, then I think wealth will grow. Americans will continue to get richer every year. I am just saying that the Chinese will get richer faster. Just a hunch.

[RichardJensen]

People will not be able to go back to borrowing from China by mortgaging their houses to buy things made in China. This is only a hunch. I could be wrong.

That is a horrendous over-simplification. The US' largest trade partner is still Canada.

 

In 1998 US trade with Canada & Mexico totaled $502B, Canada was the US' #1 trade partner, Mexico was #2.

 

Japan was #2 @ 179.87, or 35% of NA trade.

 

In 2008 US trade with Canada & Mexico totaled $963.92B, Canada was still #1, Mexico was still #2. China, not Japan was #2 @ $409.25B or 42% of NA trade.

 

Has China made inroads? Yes. However they have largely displaced trading partners outside NA, rather than dramatically shift the US/Canada/Mexico trade relationships.

 

Therefore to speak of the US borrowing money to send to China is, bluntly, a propagandist distortion.

The Government debt is growing a uncontrollable rates. This can only have 2 result. 1. High interest rate resulting in unemployment and more debt or 2. printing money, or some equivalent that will result in inflation and a dropping dollar. Just a hunch.

:sigh: Government debt issuance does indeed push interest rates higher. It also expands the money supply reducing the value of the dollar relative to more stable currencies. In that respect it does BOTH the things you mention.

 

However, as the 80s & 90s showed, deficit spending (and the lack thereof) do not, as a general rule, exert a dramatic effect on the economy. The current deficit is about 8% of the GDP--unsustainable, to be sure. A cause for concern, yes. But primarily due to the costs of servicing the debt--not because it will exert a significant drag on the economy as the Reagan, Bush and first term Clinton deficits did not hinder economic growth when compared with growth during the second Clinton term when budgets were balanced.

Under Bush, the US spent more on the military than all other countries combined.

Did you just fall off the turnip truck? Of course not. But saying stuff like this makes it hard to believe otherwise. During the Cold War the US routinely outspent every other country (aside from the USSR) combined. Post Cold War US defense spending has continued to dwarf the rest of the world.

 

Defense is, for conservatives, what education is for liberals. It is a sacrosanct, voracious monster with a limitless appetite and no accountability.

I am just saying that the Chinese will get richer faster..

Which Chinese? All of them? Most of them? A few? What will it matter?

Edited July 23, 2009 by RichardJensen

[battyr]

...

Which Chinese? All of them? Most of them? A few? What will it matter?

 

I am talking about the average Chinese person. That is the "mean".

 

I don't know the numbers but if the Average Chinaman make 5 cents an hour and the average Amerian makes $20 an hour, then IMHO the average Chinaman would make 10 cents an hour before the average American makes $40 an hour.

 

I have no proof. But my gut instinct says that the average Chinaman will make $5 per hour before the average American makes $40 per hour. But that would be looking to far into the future to know. I base this mostly posible changes in the exchange rates plus some chinese growth.

[battyr]

...

Did you just fall off the turnip truck? Of course not. But saying stuff like this makes it hard to believe otherwise...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

[ds91776]

Please do not use "Chinaman." That is a word from another era. I'm not accusing people who use this term here of anything, but it is not the appropriate term. Same goes for "Oriental" Oriental applies to objects, things...and the word applies to all of Asia, not just China or East Asia. "

 

"Chinese" is the proper term, exactly like "American" or "French" or "Canadian." Better yet, use "Zhong Guo Ren" which means "Chinese Person."

[RichardJensen]

if the Average Chinaman make 5 cents an hour and the average Amerian makes $20 an hour, then IMHO the average Chinaman would make 10 cents an hour before the average American makes $40 an hour.

And, of course, you've factored inflation and the cost of commodities in determining whether going from $.05 to $.10/hour is as material an improvement in the Chinese standard of living as $20/hr to $40/hour would be in the US?

[battyr]

...

Therefore to speak of the US borrowing money to send to China is, bluntly, a propagandist distortion.

...

 

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

 

Do you see a trend here?

 

The US does not need to literally export to China. But China needs to import more from the world. The US needs to export more to the world.

[RichardJensen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ry_expenditures

:sigh:

 

Did I CONTRADICT what you said? NO. I pointed out the absurdity of acting as though outrageous defense spending began with the Bush administration.

[battyr]

Please do not use "Chinaman." That is a word from another era. I'm not accusing people who use this term here of anything, but it is not the appropriate term. Same goes for "Oriental" Oriental applies to objects, things...and the word applies to all of Asia, not just China or East Asia. "

 

"Chinese" is the proper term, exactly like "American" or "French" or "Canadian." Better yet, use "Zhong Guo Ren" which means "Chinese Person."

 

I apologize. I only intended to use simple Engish with out reguard to being politically correct.

 

I will not use " Zhong Guo Ren" because no one will know what I am talking about. I also find "Chinese Person" long and I am lazy. What can I call someone who lives in China? They don't have to be Chinese, or even Asian. They just have to make a living in China.