Detroit

[sprinter]

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/detroit-mayor-plans-to-halt-garbage.html

 

 

In a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable one last time, Mayor Bing's latest plan is to cutoff city services including road repairs, police patrols, street lights, and garbage collection in 20% of Detroit.

 

That should be enough to bring Detroit to the number 1 spot for the 10 worst cities to live in.

[retro-man]

Well this is a great opportunity to provide a test lab for the wholesale privatization that the right seems to clamor for (and part of the article suggests as much). In the abandoned neighborhoods, create special "privatization zones" (much like the Chinese created "special economic zones" along their border with Hong Kong back in the 80s). Surely private enterprise will rush in to provide services: "Brinks Brightmore Police Department", "ITT Phoenix Del Ray High School", Halliburton 7 Mile Water Department", etc. etc.. What a great opportunity to test out the ability of privatization to bring much needed services to the least well off! If it works, then we have a blueprint for a bold new privatized future. If it works, hell, even I'll go along.

[NLPRacing]

Well this is a great opportunity to provide a test lab for the wholesale privatization that the right seems to clamor for (and part of the article suggests as much). In the abandoned neighborhoods, create special "privatization zones" (much like the Chinese created "special economic zones" along their border with Hong Kong back in the 80s). Surely private enterprise will rush in to provide services: "Brinks Brightmore Police Department", "ITT Phoenix Del Ray High School", Halliburton 7 Mile Water Department", etc. etc.. What a great opportunity to test out the ability of privatization to bring much needed services to the least well off! If it works, then we have a blueprint for a bold new privatized future. If it works, hell, even I'll go along.

 

Didn't they try that in old Detroit already...

 

[Mark B. Morrow]

There's a new bigger and faster Police Taurus for Murphy.

[Edstock]

Well this is a great opportunity to provide a test lab for the wholesale privatization that the right seems to clamor for (and part of the article suggests as much). In the abandoned neighborhoods, create special "privatization zones" (much like the Chinese created "special economic zones" along their border with Hong Kong back in the 80s). Surely private enterprise will rush in to provide services: "Brinks Brightmore Police Department", "ITT Phoenix Del Ray High School", Halliburton 7 Mile Water Department", etc. etc.. What a great opportunity to test out the ability of privatization to bring much needed services to the least well off! If it works, then we have a blueprint for a bold new privatized future. If it works, hell, even I'll go along.

Wherever she is, Ayn Rand is probably orgasmic . . .

[grbeck]

The collapse of Detroit respresents the culmination of over 50 years of inept, corrupt local government.

 

If anyone has been proven correct here, it is Ayn Rand, which is probably why she having a beyond-the-grave orgasm. Of course, since Detroit's government - which is Democratic to the core - is the inept party here, we have to find some sort of diversion, hence the complaints about proponents of privatization and Ayn Rand, even though they had nothing to do with this mess.

 

The amusing attempts to drag those parties into this discussion, however, have provided this year's holiday entertainment.

Edited December 23, 2010 by grbeck

[EdselBryantFord]

perhaps having half or more of the population flee its borders could have had some effect.

[retro-man]

The collapse of Detroit respresents the culmination of over 50 years of inept, corrupt local government.

 

If anyone has been proven correct here, it is Ayn Rand, which is probably why she having a beyond-the-grave orgasm. Of course, since Detroit's government - which is Democratic to the core - is the inept party here, we have to find some sort of diversion, hence the complaints about proponents of privatization and Ayn Rand, even though they had nothing to do with this mess.

 

The amusing attempts to drag those parties into this discussion, however, have provided this year's holiday entertainment.

Well that's fine but seriously, where are the solutions? Oh, that's right: let it rot. Darwin and all that. You seem like you're feeling a bit put upon by my obliquely pointing out the absurdity of the privatization "solution" for what ails much of America.

[Edstock]

Well that's fine but seriously, where are the solutions?

Tax cuts for the oligarchs?

[retro-man]

Tax cuts for the oligarchs?

Yeah. Just watch the trickle down.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Yeah. Just watch the trickle down.

 

 

That's not trickle down, you're being peed on.

[fmccap]

Yeah. Just watch the trickle down.

What are the solutions then?

[RangerM]

What are the solutions then?

If you're a farmer, you don't eat the chickens that lay the eggs. You also don't eat all the eggs; saving some to breed more chickens.

 

Perhaps Detroit thought that eating more eggs made the chickens want to lay more than they were capable? Have a few of the chickens died?

 

The first step is to buy more chickens. The way to do that is to look at the last census and observe the differences in the areas of the country that gained and lost.

[30 OTT 6]

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/detroit-mayor-plans-to-halt-garbage.html

 

That should be enough to bring Detroit to the number 1 spot for the 10 worst cities to live in.

 

Thanks for sharing Sprinter. I don't think you could have found a better hack-job article describing Detroit's problems.

 

By the way, the Detroit Pistons are still for sale. The word is... drug dealers are going to buy the franchise and let the homesless run it.

[retro-man]

If you're a farmer, you don't eat the chickens that lay the eggs. You also don't eat all the eggs; saving some to breed more chickens.

 

Perhaps Detroit thought that eating more eggs made the chickens want to lay more than they were capable? Have a few of the chickens died?

 

The first step is to buy more chickens. The way to do that is to look at the last census and observe the differences in the areas of the country that gained and lost.

Change happens - but Detroit is a shame and a disaster. What we've let happen to "the rust belt" over the last 30 years is unconscionable. Setting aside the moral issue of human suffering, even in mere material terms, what a staggering waste of effort, resources, and potential in our slash and burn economy. Don't think that I mean to get a death grip on the economy and freeze it at 1968. However:

1.) Just as the advent of electronic transactions has brought wild instability to the markets, the pace of change in the economy in general is greatly accelerated. For most of the 20th century you had 2 or 3 generations working to retirement at one of the big 3. Now, conventional wisdom is that a person will, on average, have 3 different careers during a lifetime (I think someone here on BON posted that). Stop. Ask. Is this a good thing?

2.) We have an inherent hostility toward "planning" the economy - fear of unintended consequences and all that - so the default mode is to blindly trust in the "wisdom of the markets" (you actually hear that phrase) to decide. Point: the markets have no wisdom, and no conscience. Can we agree on that very basic point? Leaving our lives and livelihoods to the caprice of some "invisible hand" is an abdication of a basic responsibility to society. We're afraid to do anything, so we do nothing.

3.) We have an inherent hostility toward anything that might provide a cushion against these changes - fear of moral hazard and all that. Yet, with incredible self-deception, we put money into "retraining for the new economy" which, frankly, is not much of an answer for people like this guy: And there are a lot of people like this guy. Sure, he's going to hit the street with his certificate in computer programming or solar panel installation from the community college, and go head to head with 20-somethings right out of college in a market with 10% unemployment. Right. That'll work. How about we quit spending fortunes on unemployment and foolish chimera like retraining people for jobs they're not gonna get, and instead structure the economy so as to provide some semblance of stability?

4.) We have a tendency to shrug our shoulders at the causes of this - to abdicate responsibility for action: "Well, it's the global economy.[shrug]" "Well, it's technology.[shrug]" - as if we have no choice in the matter. As long as a sizable contingent of people believe that Adam Smith's invisible hand can produce a better outcome than conscious human intention, we will be unable to even have an intelligent dialogue about the forces affecting us.

5.) Lastly, just as in any ecosystem, diversity within the framework of the nation-state, and even locally - some degree of economic and industrial autonomy (not isolation, just self-sufficiency) - is healthy, as opposed to our global economic monoculture, where industries and trades exist on a monstrous scale, disconnected from human comprehension or control, and where damage spreads uncontrollably once it starts. There are no firewalls in our system. Any architect can tell you what that foolishness could lead to.

 

But I ramble again. Merry Christmas to all of my fellow BONers.

Edited December 24, 2010 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Change happens - but Detroit is a shame and a disaster. What we've let happen to "the rust belt" over the last 30 years is unconscionable. Setting aside the moral issue of human suffering, even in mere material terms, what a staggering waste of effort, resources, and potential in our slash and burn economy. Don't think that I mean to get a death grip on the economy and freeze it at 1968. However:

1.) Just as the advent of electronic transactions has brought wild instability to the markets, the pace of change in the economy in general is greatly accelerated. For most of the 20th century you had 2 or 3 generations working to retirement at one of the big 3. Now, conventional wisdom is that a person will, on average, have 3 different careers during a lifetime (I think someone here on BON posted that). Stop. Ask. Is this a good thing?

2.) We have an inherent hostility toward "planning" the economy - fear of unintended consequences and all that - so the default mode is to blindly trust in the "wisdom of the markets" (you actually hear that phrase) to decide. Point: the markets have no wisdom, and no conscience. Can we agree on that very basic point? Leaving our lives and livelihoods to the caprice of some "invisible hand" is an abdication of a basic responsibility to society. We're afraid to do anything, so we do nothing.

3.) We have an inherent hostility toward anything that might provide a cushion against these changes - fear of moral hazard and all that. Yet, with incredible self-deception, we put money into "retraining for the new economy" which, frankly, is not much of an answer for people like this guy: And there are a lot of people like this guy. Sure, he's going to hit the street with his certificate in computer programming or solar panel installation from the community college, and go head to head with 20-somethings right out of college in a market with 10% unemployment. Right. That'll work. How about we quit spending fortunes on unemployment and foolish chimera like retraining people for jobs they're not gonna get, and instead structure the economy so as to provide some semblance of stability?

4.) We have a tendency to shrug our shoulders at the causes of this - to abdicate responsibility for action: "Well, it's the global economy.[shrug]" "Well, it's technology.[shrug]" - as if we have no choice in the matter. As long as a sizable contingent of people believe that Adam Smith's invisible hand can produce a better outcome than conscious human intention, we will be unable to even have an intelligent dialogue about the forces affecting us.

5.) Lastly, just as in any ecosystem, diversity within the framework of the nation-state, and even locally - some degree of economic and industrial autonomy (not isolation, just self-sufficiency) - is healthy, as opposed to our global economic monoculture, where industries and trades exist on a monstrous scale, disconnected from human comprehension or control, and where damage spreads uncontrollably once it starts. There are no firewalls in our system. Any architect can tell you what that foolishness could lead to.

 

But I ramble again. Merry Christmas to all of my fellow BONers.

What has happened to the Rust belt has been the result of choices made, and circumstances ignored, by the populace residing there.

 

1. 
    
   
2. Speaking as a person who hires and fires at my company, I can definitively say that it's a two-way street. Just as you've found my experience remarkable (18 years at the same job and counting), what I've found remarkable is the number of people who have passed through my door in those years. Since I started there have been over 250 people who have come and gone. In all those years, we've fired exactly 5 people. Everyone else has left by choice--looking for the bigger, better deal. While you may find my experience is remarkable, it didn't have to be unique.
   
3. The "wisdom" of the market is its ability to distinguish between that which is desireable and that which is not. Planes and automobiles are desireable, and trains (for the most part) are not. Yet, for some reason the powers that be seem to think this is the wrong choice, spending untold billions of dollars on wasted infrastructure. The consequence, be it intended or unintended, we are witnessing in our public debt. Consider, if the question is "what is best for a million people" who is best to ask, the million people (ie. the market) or a few people (ie. the planners)?
   
4. We (as individuals) seem to have an aversion to delayed gratitude. To get the economy to provide some semblance of stability, it might help to get most people to look beyond the now, and look toward the later. Once that happens, we (as a society) might value an elder man's experience and wisdom more.
   
5. You've (sort of) repeated yourself from point 2. The idea of "conscious human intention" isn't the question we should be asking. It's WHOSE intention. Barack Obama's? Harry Reid's? Nancy Pelosi's? If the November election didn't convince you that the American people don't particularly like being treated like a flock, I'm not sure what would.
   
6. While it's true that self-sufficiency is largely a positive, it only makes sense for me to make my own shoes, if I have no other way of obtaining them. I'm not that good at making shoes. I AM good at other things, with which I can trade (using a proxy like currency) for shoes from the cobbler. America is good at an awful lot of things. Some of those things (like energy recovery) are kept from our industrial ability to make use. You want the unintended consequence of "conscious human intention"? Witness the limitation of oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Jobs were consciously human intended to be destroyed, and the economic benefits with them. There ARE firewalls in our system. They come from our government, as they believe they know best.
   

 

Merry Christmas, Retro. I hope you find peace of mind (and soul) and success in the new year.

[Roadtrip]

Change happens - but Detroit is a shame and a disaster. What we've let happen to "the rust belt" over the last 30 years is unconscionable. Setting aside the moral issue of human suffering, even in mere material terms, what a staggering waste of effort, resources, and potential in our slash and burn economy. Don't think that I mean to get a death grip on the economy and freeze it at 1968. However:

1.) Just as the advent of electronic transactions has brought wild instability to the markets, the pace of change in the economy in general is greatly accelerated. For most of the 20th century you had 2 or 3 generations working to retirement at one of the big 3. Now, conventional wisdom is that a person will, on average, have 3 different careers during a lifetime (I think someone here on BON posted that). Stop. Ask. Is this a good thing?

2.) We have an inherent hostility toward "planning" the economy - fear of unintended consequences and all that - so the default mode is to blindly trust in the "wisdom of the markets" (you actually hear that phrase) to decide. Point: the markets have no wisdom, and no conscience. Can we agree on that very basic point? Leaving our lives and livelihoods to the caprice of some "invisible hand" is an abdication of a basic responsibility to society. We're afraid to do anything, so we do nothing.

3.) We have an inherent hostility toward anything that might provide a cushion against these changes - fear of moral hazard and all that. Yet, with incredible self-deception, we put money into "retraining for the new economy" which, frankly, is not much of an answer for people like this guy: And there are a lot of people like this guy. Sure, he's going to hit the street with his certificate in computer programming or solar panel installation from the community college, and go head to head with 20-somethings right out of college in a market with 10% unemployment. Right. That'll work. How about we quit spending fortunes on unemployment and foolish chimera like retraining people for jobs they're not gonna get, and instead structure the economy so as to provide some semblance of stability?

4.) We have a tendency to shrug our shoulders at the causes of this - to abdicate responsibility for action: "Well, it's the global economy.[shrug]" "Well, it's technology.[shrug]" - as if we have no choice in the matter. As long as a sizable contingent of people believe that Adam Smith's invisible hand can produce a better outcome than conscious human intention, we will be unable to even have an intelligent dialogue about the forces affecting us.

5.) Lastly, just as in any ecosystem, diversity within the framework of the nation-state, and even locally - some degree of economic and industrial autonomy (not isolation, just self-sufficiency) - is healthy, as opposed to our global economic monoculture, where industries and trades exist on a monstrous scale, disconnected from human comprehension or control, and where damage spreads uncontrollably once it starts. There are no firewalls in our system. Any architect can tell you what that foolishness could lead to.

 

But I ramble again. Merry Christmas to all of my fellow BONers.

 

That is the most God-awful Christmas greeting I have ever read. With all your Marxist narrative, I'm surprised you actually didn't refer to Christmas as "X-mas."

[Edstock]

That is the most God-awful Christmas greeting I have ever read. With all your Marxist narrative, I'm surprised you actually didn't refer to Christmas as "X-mas."

Retro's comments are "Marxist narrative"? You have a comprehension problem. Please itemize where Retro's comments show a "Marxist" attitude — if you can.

 

Happy "X-mas".

 

 

 

[Roadtrip]

Retro's comments are "Marxist narrative"? You have a comprehension problem. Please itemize where Retro's comments show a "Marxist" attitude — if you can.

 

Happy "X-mas".

 

 

With his invective against free markets, citing their "instability" (1), "blindly trusting the 'wisdom of the markets'" (2), and blaming Adam Smith's Invisible Hand for negative economic outcomes (4), retro-man's rhetoric -- and not just in the post I quoted but in many of his others, as well -- sounds eerily similar to Marx & Engels on pages 34-35 in my copy of The Communist Manifesto:

 

"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his natural superiors, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."

 

Just update the 18th Century rhetorical style to the current style and Marx and retro-man are both saying the same thing: that they both blame free markets and free trade for all the economic woes of the world.

 

Or you can simply reduce retro-man's rant to this quote attributed to Karl Marx: “Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”

 

Retro-man correctly asserts that "we have an inherent hostility toward 'planning' the economy," but he is implying that planned economies aren't such a bad thing. I'm conversant enough in the subject of economics to know that a planned economy is a cornerstone of Marxist economic theory and policies. Are you? (Google the phrase "planned economy" and see where that leads you.)

 

And this sentence could have been written by Marx himself: "As long as a sizable contingent of people believe that Adam Smith's invisible hand can produce a better outcome than conscious human intention, we will be unable to even have an intelligent dialogue about the forces affecting us." Aside from the fact that that sentence is a direct insult to the intelligence of those who disagree with him, the phrase "conscious human intention" is just a euphemism for a planned economy. "Conscious human intention" on the part of those who would plan a country's economy constitutes much of what Marxism is all about. And that is a fact.

 

From everything I've read on these forums, many of retro-man's posts are in complete agreement with Karl Marx on these basic principals: that free markets and free trade are bad; that the government should always intervene in the economy on the behalf, and in favor, of workers; that the inequities (that are a natural result) of free-market capitalism require government intervention; that personal economic failures on the part of individuals in a free-market economy are a consequence of free-market economic policies and not of the individuals' own doing; and finally, that the economy can and should be managed (and in retro-man's case, regulated, regulated, and regulated some more) to the benefit of all by someone or some central authority. You know how the old saying goes about something that walks and quacks like a duck.

 

So I don't think I have a reading comprehension problem. However, if you can't correlate what retro-man is saying with Marxism, then maybe you ought to read a little Marx. You might enjoy it: After all, retro-man and Karl Marx share a propensity for hyperbole, exaggeration, and distortion.

[jpd80]

Just update the 18th Century rhetorical style to the current style and Marx and retro-man are both saying the same thing: that they both blame free markets and free trade for all the economic woes of the world.

That's a pretty accurate reflection of the recent economic crisis, just add in a huge helping of personal

greed and lack of responsibility from the population and you have all the ingredients for a complete disaster.

Edited December 26, 2010 by jpd80

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Sad to say nothing has changed, greedy banking culture is still the same bankers casino banking is carrying on unabated untouched by governments around the world.

 

Londons top investment bankers are still kept on a £300,000 retainers if they lose billions on a lot deals they lose absolutely nothing at all, make a profit on just on deal then that goes towards the million pound bonuses at the end of the year it can't be touched.

They can end up losing billions on the majarity of deals over a year, and still come out with a million £ bonus of few good deals that went right, its win win win there is no fail.

 

Mean time 80,000 Britts that are low paid bank staff that serve you at the counter of your local bank lost their jobs to pay down for the casino bankers cock-ups. Britains over taxed taxpayer had to bail out British banks the Bank of Scotland to the tune of £120 billions because of the wreckless few, now 1.4 million British public sector/attached private sector workers will pay the price in the next few years as the British Government looks to save £80 billions in austerity cutback plans to reign in government spending on things like bank bailouts & QE. UK keeps threatning banks but it its still falling on deaf ears the big risk with no risk at all to the investment bankers big bonuses are still carrying on sad to say nothing has changed at all in the city of London.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxDCTtbdZs

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YLHBHTY-xY

 

BBC - Carry on Banking

Pts 2 & 3 on you tube

Edited December 26, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Flipside of greedy banks that still have not changed & with bankers big bonuses that still get paid whilst the banks still looses billions, how can Detriot abandon and let this poor ole lady rot in hell at the same time like this? Its immoral.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHr2mLQZUtU

Edited December 26, 2010 by Ford Jellymoulds

[suv_guy_19]

That's a pretty accurate reflection of the recent economic crisis, just add in a huge helping of personal

greed and lack of responsibility from the population and you have all the ingredients for a complete disaster.

 

That's right. To call for better regulation isn't marxist at all. To mot trust greed and infinite monetary free will isn't marxist at all. Here, we have a superior financial regulatory system to pretty much anywhere in the world. In the ast two weeks, our 6 charter banks have begun buying up weakened US financials. TD Financial Group just bought Chrysler Financial from Cerberus Capital Management for more than $6B, and The Bank of Montreal just bought Marshall & Ilsley for about $4B. Many say it's only the beginning.

Here's the story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hxUIhrnF88R91VOf86xTg6_mHYpw?docId=CNG.68697541854bfd3351f30efeb7965b11.3a1

Edited December 26, 2010 by suv_guy_19

[jpd80]

That's right. To call for better regulation isn't marxist at all. To mot trust greed and infinite monetary free will isn't marxist at all. Here, we have a superior financial regulatory system to pretty much anywhere in the world. In the ast two weeks, our 6 charter banks have begun buying up weakened US financials. TD Financial Group just bought Chrysler Financial from Cerberus Capital Management for more than $6B, and The Bank of Montreal just bought Marshall & Ilsley for about $4B. Many say it's only the beginning.

Here's the story: http://www.google.co...efeb7965b11.3a1

For mine, retro was more about how companies hadn't embraced the changing world and missed a lot of opportunity.

Imagine if Ford, GM and Chrysler had reinvented themselves in the 1980s, as companies providing a full range of

affordable quality vehicles. Companies like Toyota, Honda and Hyundai may have found the local competition more

like Europe and much harder to penetrate. The knock on effect may well have been that those three companies would have kept around a combined 70% of the US market and enough to keep them buoyant in troubled times...

Edited December 26, 2010 by jpd80

[Edstock]

You might enjoy it: After all, retro-man and Karl Marx share a propensity for hyperbole, exaggeration, and distortion.

Actually, I didn't; Marx is so turgid to read (but not as bad as Stalin), and you're right, given to the hyperbole, exaggeration and distortion that you don't find in Retro's writing.