DAHIATSU A-CONCEPT [INDONESIA MS 2011]

Neanche sapevo dell' esistenza del JAKARTA AUTO SHOW.....

Pensavo... vista la poca rilevanza di questo Salone...si limitassero a presentare un modellino sotto vetro...
Invece la presenteranno oggi anche in scala 1:1

Fixing the US economy as one would fix their life

~ Actress Gywneth Paltrow as she normally looks, and in a 'fat suit' for a movie she made a while back called "Shallow Hal"-- which would you hire?

The debt ceiling - debt reduction debate is the topic du jour of the week, and it will continue growing and growing-- the scare tactics, rhetoric, etc. until either at the last second a magical solution is reached or a couple days of market selloff Panic will scare the politicians into passing something.  What will be passed is still up in the air but it is safe to say the debt ceiling will be raised at some point around or soon after Aug 2nd, and Congress & the President will hammer out some budget compromise that angers everyone and hurts the poorest and sickest the most.

There are some that believe (rightly or wrongly depending on your politics) that the US spends too much money. And in order to fix what ails this nation, we need serious and drastic reductions in spending.  This would mean serious and drastic reductions in social services and institutions like social security, food stamps, medicare, welfare,etc (I hate the word 'entitlements' because its a loaded word with negative connotation).

But I propose an argument that the opposite needs to occur to get this nation track; a concept shared by economist Paul Krugman and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich among others--  That to get out of the economic malaise we're in, the nation needs to dramatically INCREASE its spending, but not just simply spend for the sake of it.  It needs to be targetted far more effective and efficiently to areas where economic growth can occur and do so quickly.

To make my point, I will bring the argument to an individual level.  Example:  A woman is in her early 40s and unemployed.  She has limited skills and in the open job market, there's nothing exceptional to make an employer want to hire her-- she has a couple basic skill sets.  No big deal.   Her outward presentation is also blehh.. The woman is overweight, plain, frumpy and dresses very dull. She's massively in debt and in a rut with no realistic chance her life will improve economically as things stand.  

So what can she do to prevent freefall?  In order for her to get control and springboard back into a position where she can take care of herself and pay down her debts, she has to invest financially in herself.  Not money to spend on vacations and a fancy car.  Instead, money to pay for education to acquire real job skills and a real career path in a field that is needed.  Money to pay on fitness spas, new clothing, cosmetics, etc,, to present herself in job interviews as an energetic person full of energy  (No matter the economic climate, employers want people who appear to have positive, winning attitudes in their company, even if they have to fire someone else to make room)

Now the woman in the example has dramatically increased her debtload via education and an overall rebuilding of her self-worth and self-image.  But this debt increase serves a purpose-- not to find a lover or  simply to 'feel good'..  the expanding of her personal debt was a necessary component to the overall strategy of improving one's economic circumstances and empowering oneself to make the changes needed to succeed.

This works both on an individual level and nationally as well.  The US govt, has spent trillions since the 2008 crisis but its pissed that money away on the wrong things-- banks, other financial entities, both nationally and abroad.  Money given to entities so quickly that no effort was made to keep track of where the money went.  No desire to place conditions that upon receipt of funds, it was meant for specific purposes.  Corrupt people gave taxpayer money to their corrupt cronies on Wall St. which increased the National Debt but had zero impact on job creation, house price stabilization or any other problem area needing addressing.

In other words, instead of using the hose to water the grass and the flowers, government watered the sand and from it, created a quicksand which is our current debtload.

But if we had leaders with the courage and will to increase spending to a point necessary to turn around this recession, the nation could actually start feeling a Real recovery. Money to be used for Main Street; small and medium sized businesses; grants to start up businesses in bricks & mortar locations..  very low interest loans for people to go back to school and re-educate themselves in career paths that won't disappear or be outsourced...  And while you do not lower taxes on corporations, you let them know you won't increase their taxes for a few years so they can factor this into their budgets.  But.. this is with conditions that they start expanding their hiring or it will trigger tax increases  (called carrot & stick)

I believe more and more that the only way this nation has any chance of returning to a pillar of economic strength as we're all accustomed to seeing it, is with a serious hard jolt of spending that is targeted specifically in job creation and rebuilding of infrastructure.   When good paying jobs are created along with stabilization of home prices without government propping, those two things make the basis of a long and sustainable recovery, and from that the necessary tax revenues to pay down the debt while maintaining a quality standard of life, to which most Americans are accustomed.

Credit Card use- Fiction & Truth

Credit card use is on the rise.  And there are two ways you can interpret that. On one hand, it could mean the economy is improving and people are feeling better about themselves and where the nation is headed, because economically, to quote Obama Press Secretary John Carney this morning, we're "vastly improved".

Or it means the economic situation is either stagnant or worsening and more people are using credit cards for basic survival and paying bills.

We know the answer.  But for a little "fun", let's present both sides' argument.

Here's how credit card companies see it (from blogsite 'Credit Card Assist, written in late May):

"Increased credit card use in the first quarter of the year indicates that Americans are starting to feel the gradual improvement in the economy and are now starting to feel better about their own finances. The higher spending levels and eagerness to get back to using their credit again also helps the economic recovery. The nation’s top three payment processing companies have confirmed that, indeed, Americans have increased their spending capacity... The good news is that many consumers have started to put serious effort into reducing their overall debt levels."

And how does Banking blogsite BankRate.com view the increased credit card usage among Americans in a posting on July 14th?

"A report Tuesday from First Data Corp. showed that the number of credit card transactions grew almost 7 percent last month, while the dollar volume of those purchases jumped nearly 11 percent... Revolving credit, which is mostly credit card debt, rose 5.1 percent in May to $793.13 billion. That marked only the second increase in nearly three years (or 33 months to be exact).  Some are saying this is proof consumers are feeling better about the economy. And it certainly looks like bankers are more optimistic. More than two-thirds of bank risk professionals surveyed by FICO said they expect credit card delinquencies to fall or remain flat through the year"

So now that I filled your brains with enough propaganda spin and lies to make one feel nauseous, here is a more honest and truthful telling of why credit card use is on the rise...

From Bloomberg:

"Consumers in the U.S. are increasingly using credit cards to pay for basic necessities as income gains fail to keep pace with rising food and fuel prices.

Silvio Tavares, senior vice president at First Data, the largest credit card processor (said) "Consumers, particularly in the lower-income end, are being forced to use their credit cards for everyday spending like gas and food.  That’s because there’s been no other positive catalyst, like an increase in wages, to offset higher prices. It’s a cash-flow problem.”"

~ Notice this the same "First Data" as sourced by that bullshit banking blogsite BankRate when they make the proclamation that 'this is proof consumers are feeling better about the economy'.  There used to be a time and place this type of propagandistic empty writing was very prevalent- it was called the Soviet Union and the paper was Pravda.

Let's continue with the Bloomberg article...

"Rising costs of food and gasoline are leaving Americans less money to spend discretionary items, slowing the pace of the recovery... The value of an average transaction on credit cards outpaced the gain for debit cards, showing consumers are increasingly relying on borrowing to pay for gasoline and other necessities...

The use of credit cards is a “smoking gun” that indicates some consumers, including the long-term unemployed who have lost jobless benefits, are resorting to other sources of cash flow just to “get by,” said David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates Inc. in Toronto. “People on the margin are putting necessities on their credit cards and this is a trend that’s very consistent with what lower-end retailers have been saying about their paycheck cycles... For people to think that this rebound in credit-card usage is actually a sign of resurging consumer confidence, I think they’re looking at the situation backwards,”.

We said it before.. we say it again.. besides living in a current Great Recession, we also are living in a Great Detachment.  Politicians, media, banking interests, and those individuals with security in wealth and employment are Completely detached and unconcerned about the struggles and daily suffering of the millions who have been affected by the recession.

And because of this detachment, politicians will not craft legislation to create jobs or expand unemployment.  And media will rarely cover the ongoing recession honestly without injecting empty optimism.  And the banks and financials will look at the 'peons' as simply revenue streams while double-talking the reality in banking industry blogsites.  And others look and say, 'Oh, those people..   they don't want to work..   they are (fill in the blank)'

Its important you know how you're looked by others if you're struggling to make it and doing the best you can to raise a family, because the first sign of true independence of thought and spirit is to stop admiring and respecting the entities that are constantly putting you down.

A US History of War- 'Moral & Just'?

~ Spanish American War (1898) veteran in 1948

This posting is a little different that normal in that the focus isn't so much on economics and finance as is it the military and the US history of being at war.

I was watching a documentary last night on the Vietnam War made in 1972 where servicemen stationed at various military bases who had been deployed previously and returned, and those about to be sent off, were speaking honestly about the conflict.  Many spoke of feeling that Vietnam was not a 'moral and just' war.

And that got me thinking.. In the entire history of the US military from Revolutionary War until the present conflicts, how many wars have we truly fought that were 'moral and just'? Or was the situation in Vietnam something new?  So I decided to break down each war the US has been involved in militarily to see if it can fit as 'moral and just'.  No judgments are made on those who serve or have served.  This exercise was meant to look at government's decision making processes and rationales.

Revolutionary War (1775-1781) -  Obviously Americans feel it was a moral and just war because it brought about independence and a new nation.  But let's get beyond that Civics 101 nonsense- What provoked the war to take place?  Merchants in New England did not want to pay increased taxes by the British govt' to fund a past war (French & Indian War) that city-dwelling colonists did not get any direct benefit from.

So the masses were riled up into a lather by cheap merchants, and from Boston Tea Party to Boston  'Massacre', the rebellion drum was beaten harder and harder until eventually shots were fired. And if the colonists' cause was so just and moral, why was it that the British offered full freedom to any black man who took up arms to help crush the rebellion?  Wouldn't emancipation have been something we ourselves would offer since we were supposedly fighting for it?

Much more I could write but for brevity sake, I won't...

War of 1812 (1812-1814)-  This was the second fight with the British and our 2nd economic fight.  This was a war over free trade, control of the seas, impressement  (opposing nations coming on board and taking sailors to commandeer to serve as sailor in that nation's fleet).  The war essentially ended in a draw though the Battle of New Orleans was fought months after the Treaty of Ghent had officially ended the war in 1814. The Battle was a rout, a great achievement by General (and future President) Andrew Jackson.  Nonetheless, the conflict was not a 'moral and just' one.

Indian Wars (1810s- 1840s)- There were many small wars between US military and the Native American population during this period. Collectively, the goal was to push the various tribes west from the Appalacians, Ohio Valley and still recently new Louisiana Purchase territory.  Some US successes, some failures but nothing moral about the "Trail of Tears", Seminole Wars and other military actions around this time.

Mexican War (1846-1848)-  Some will say the war was fought to liberate Texas and make it a US state. The US was also big on a concept called 'manifest destiny' which is a way of saying it is the US' destiny to expand its empire as far as eye could see and westward to the Pacific.  The US won and acquired a lot of land- future states of TX, OK, NM, AZ, CA, CO and NV.  The war was a great success for America; just not a moral and just one.

US Civil War (1861-1865)- Now at this point you're going 'Aha!' But let's really understand what happened and not what your history teacher/asst. football coach taught you in HS.   The Civil War was not fought over slavery in terms of human bondage, rather the economics of the institution.   Slavery meant free labor which undercut northern businesses. They used mostly immigrant labor who were treated to horrible working conditions by northern owners.  But they still received a wage and that meant greater profits for Southerners who paid none. In addition, Southern cotton was exported across the Atlantic to Liverpool England to be milled because it was more economically cost-effective than to send the cotton to northern mills. Many Northern industrialists wanted to stop this practice.

By the time the war began in April, 1861, the fight had nothing to do with slavery on a human level and the Union had zero concerns on the institution or curtailing it.  To paraphrase Lincoln, if he could unite the Union by freeing some of the slaves in some of the states or all of them or none of them, the focus was preserving one nation.  The Emancipation Proclamation came about in early-mid 1862 as a means to motivate Union soldiers to re-enlist at years' end by making the war a 'moral' one.  It turned out to be good propaganda because the ruse worked nd re-enlistment soared by New Years, 1863 even though Lincoln held off releasing it for months until there was a Union victory as not to appear 'weak' and it only freed slaves in states it had no jurisdiction--the Confederacy itself.  Border states that aligned with the Union were allowed to keep slavery.

Indian Wars (1860's- 1890's)-  A continuation of first series of Native American wars upon various tribes. Some American setback, some victories and ultimately pushed millions of people into territories then 'Americanized' them by giving them Christian names and clothing to attempt to take away all sense of heritage identity and pride.  All this done so railroads could expand and connect to California.

Spanish American War (1898)- Not much moral about it.. we wanted ownership of Cuba and Philippines so the US provoked armed conflict by rigging an explosion upon the USS Maine (Remember the Maine!) and blaming it on Spanish provocateurs.  The conflict ended rather quickly.

Military involvement in Central & South America (early 1900s)- Marines sent to numerous places (Haiti, Nicaragua, etc) to occupy various nations while assisting US business interests in gaining a foothold in this part of the world.

World War I (1914-1918)- US involvement was only the last 9 months of the war even though official declaration was in 1917.  Most believe we declared war on Germany because of the sinking of the Lusitania and/or the Zimmerman Telegram where Germany's Ambassador to Mexico promised them they would be given back territory lost during the Mexican War if they opened a military front on the Mexican-US border.

Both incidents were part of the overall reason but in 1917 the war was going badly for the Triple Entente (Britain, France & Russia)  When the Russian people rose up and overthrew Czar Nicholas II, that took Russia out of the war.  And had Germany won, American investors who had heavily backed England would have taken a Severe financial beating.  So they pressured Woodrow Wilson to eventually enter a war he had spent years promising he wouldn't involve the US military in.  WWI was not a moral and just war and neither was US' involvement.  After the war, Wilson tried to push through his highly idealistic and naive 14 Points, but neither Europeans or the opposition party at home wanted anything to do with it.

World War II (1939-1945)-  Ok.. This is The Moral War if there ever was one, right? Obviously when you look at the number of lives lost and in particular the millions of innocents exterminated for their religion, ethnicity or outright hate.  But its important to look with objectivity too.  The war began in September, 1939.  It took 27 months for the US to enter.  And what provoked US involvement- some horrific act the Nazis perpetrated upon innocents?  No, it was an attack by Japan.  In fact, in 1940 the US govt sent many boats full of emigres and those escaping persecution from Germany BACK to Germany, the "Spirit of St. Louis" being a famous example (not specifically Charles Lindbergh's plane)

The war ended by dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan.  I am not saying it was wrong since many experts on WWII argue had that action not occurred, it would have taken a million US soldiers invading Japan and many more years of fighting to truly end the war.   So one can not discard elements of necessity.  But a moral and just war, by definition does not end with the destruction that 2 atom bombs create.  Nonetheless, this war was the closest the US has come to fighting a truly moral and just war, especially considering the monsterous enemy which was defeated, particularly in Europe.

Cold War (1945-1990)- For time constraints, I incorporated Korean War (1950-53), Vietnam (1964-75) and every other military action we took to try to stop the spread of Communism as the argument went.  If you truly believe communism is an insidious evil, then you believe all the armed conflicts of the period were necessary to protect freedom and democracy.  If you feel that the 'domino theory' and fear of communism spreading and infecting like a virus is a bunch of BS, then you don't look at any part of this period as being moral or just.

Modern War (1991-present)- In this list, I include Operation Desert Storm (1991) with current invasion and occupation of Iraq (2003- present) since I see Desert Storm as a prelude, rather than a conflict distinct in itself.  I also bunch together operations in the Balkans (mid-late 1990s), Afghanistan (2001- present), Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, on 'n on 'n on.... Some say we're fighting terrorism.  Others feel we're being colonists and nation builders to serve our geo-political and varied corporate interests.

American soldiers throughout history have generally speaking, been very moral and honorable men and women. And this posting was not meant to disparage them,  There's always exceptions who do not represent the military in its entirety but overall US soldiers over history have conducted themselves admirably.

But in terms of US government policy specifically, the causes and justifications to go to war, and military involvement with adversaries domestic and abroad, America has a very poor historical track record.  And even when we fight in wars with moralistic aims and goals,  it always seems to take a backseat to the economic interests of special interests and financiers.

MAKING OF: LANCIA Y

In versione mascherina LANCIA con listelli verticali, forse avrebbe guadagnato qlk punto in più sul design.

Quick Thoughts -- 7/20/11

Looks like another slow week in world of economics and finance; a week full of sadistic fear mongering, saber-rattling and demagoguing, all in the attempt by political leaders to scare common folk into voting for them in 16 months.  'Quick Thoughts' had to pick the bottom of the barrel this time but to paraphrase an old adage, a wild squirrel always finds his/her nut.  Onto today's "Quick Thoughts"...


Public Tilts to Lifting Debt Limit (WSJ) -- 38% say it should, 31% say it shouldn't and the other 31% will wait until after Aug 2nd to commit either way to a response

BofA reports worst ever loss, margins shrink (Reuters) -- No truth to my daydream that Bank of America be forced into bankruptcy & liquidation with all branches to close within 6 months and CEO Ken Lay be arrested for financial terrorism.

Borders to Close All of its Stores (WSJ) -- Expect liquidation discounts of 5-10% for weeks and weeks until all the quality books are gone, then Amazon-like sale prices on the garbage within the last 48 hours.

16 Arrested as F.B.I. Hits the Hacking Group Anonymous (NY Times) -- The arrests were in connection with strikes carried out by a loose, secretive federation of hackers called Anonymous.  Among those arrested were the hacker names "LivesWithParents47", "HarryPotterSuperPhan" and "RogaineWarrior".

Greece Threatened with Longterm, Widespread Poverty (der Spiegel International) -- To which the ECB, IMF, EU, Investors, Traders, and Bankers collectively shrugged then pretended to be moral, ethical people.

June housing starts at 6-month high, permits up (Reuters) -- Oh that's good news.. Yay.  But this is due to growing demand in rental apartments.  Oh.. thats' um sorta-good.. "Confronted with plummeting home values, Americans are shunning homeownership"  Oh.. thats.. um.. bad.


T-Mobile to Offer Unlimited Data Plans -  Horray! ..  But they were bought out last year by AT&T who does Not offer unlimited plans.. Boo!  Unlimited plans will be available with a two-year agreement for new and existing customers.  But.. Um. Huh?

Test Finds U.S. Students Slacking in the Geography Department (ABC News) -- This is important because students need to know just exactly where they will be immigrating to when they reach adulthood and find there simply not enough work to be found here.

Yao Ming Retires (AP) -- And so closes the book on the basketball career of the first Communist Multi-Millionaire NBA player; the human oxymoron.

Nissan Will Raise Price of the Leaf, Its Electric Car (NY Times) -- The vehicle's price is to be raised by $2450 to a starting price of just over $36k.  Good thing wages are rising by that much to keep up.  Oh, they're not?  Oh.. 

Debt Ceiling 'crisis'- A&G's view

This is a topic I've avoided writing much on because this like everything else dealing with corrupt governments and banking systems both in US and abroad, the laws of physics never apply.  Some refer to it like a soap opera with constant twists and turns that never get resolved.  Others may refer to these so-called 'crises' as financial "cockteases" where you think the banks and investors are Finally going to get their comeuppance and then thanks to magic, tricks and/or schemes, the baddies win.

But its important to present to readers a different and more comprehensive view of this issue than what one would get watching TV or reading the newspaper.

It will be assumed in writing this posting that people know that according to Treasury Secretary Tim "The Ferret" Geithner that after August 2nd, if the debt ceiling (which stands currently at $14.3 Trillion) isn't raised that we will be in a default.  Credit ratings agencies have threatened to downgrade our AAA credit rating and almost every politician under the sun has threatened doom and gloom if an agreement can not be met in time. Even the President has subtly threatened to withhold Social Security and Medicare checks as a means of scaring the sick and elderly.

It's always someone else's fault--  notice that?  Everything about this issue is politically manipulated as a means to set both parties' economic platforms for the 2012 election.   So if you follow this issue very closely, you're bound to be endlessly frustrated because both parties are putting on a show.  Both are completely Owned by Wall Street and since it is not in their interest to see a long term default, it will not happen.  That doesn't mean there isn't the possibility of a short term one.  And that's where things get dicey.

So with this rhetoric from politicians and powerful people in finance saying terrible things are going to happen if we default-- what do I believe?

Before I answer, I will state my personal view in that this is a contrived crisis.  All other times previously, there was a straight Yea or Nay vote on raising the ceiling, it was agreed, then the President signed into law.  This time its intentionally and purposely complicated by attaching a bill meant to reduce the National Debt.   Let me also state that if it wasn't for politicians using 70million people as 'human shields' by being non-committal about Soc. Sec. and Medicare continuing to be covered, I personally would be against the ceiling being raised and let the banks and investors take the bloodbath they should have been forced to take back in Autumn, 2008.  

That is not to say I take the Tea Party platform-- Far Far from it.  Any discussion of lowering the National Debt must start with two things simultaneously:  dramatic cutbacks in military spending and graduated increases in taxes for those making $2.5 million/yr or more.   Notice I didn't say $250k.   That may be a lot of $ to some but I don't know too many earning that income with yachts docked in the Caymans.

So, back to the question at hand... what do I believe?   For one thing, even if August 2nd passes with no agreement, I expect Geithner to make paying creditors and interest on debt his #1 priority.  So none of them will get hurt.  It is said that US generates $200billion/month in revenue so it could very easily pay its debts, Soc. Sec, Medicare, welfare, military pay and all other basics to keep the nation from rioting.  But it would be forced to cut non-essentials like military operations currently in 6 nations.  Odds are, the govt would rather you and I starve, then have to drop one less bomb.

I believe the markets will take a hit at first because Investors are cowards who lack any sort of gender-neutral "manhood" to hold fast and ride financial storms.  But once they see the debts are being paid or speculator opportunities on oil or some other precious commodity the world needs for survival, they'll spike back up. (Today the Dow jumped over 200pts based on Nothing but Obama saying there's 'progress' and the price of oil spiking up)  So don't worry about Investors-- remember, cockroaches and other bottom feeders can survive anything.

Interest rates will also go up if the ratings agencies go through with their threat to downgrade US credit which will mean it will cost us more to pay back our debts and cost everyone else more to borrow.  But there are two plus sides as well.. 1)  Your savings rate will increase which means after 3 years of Bernanke keeping it artificially at near zero, it will begin to rise and pay some dividend.  2)  Americans are suffocated with debt overall.  Buying more things that one really does not need simply because interest is low, is not smart.  To be truly free and independent, you have to be free of financial obligations to banks and other creditors..this means a single-minded focus to become debt free.  

What will happen to Social Security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps and such?  Logic tells me that even in a default all those are safe because the combined affect would cause civil unrest and widespread panic i.e. rioting and looting the likes of which has never been seen in this nation before.  Think post-Katrina x 1000.   And do scummy, selfish politicians really have the guts to see what would happen if you deprive someone of their Only means of economic subsistence??    

That said, if I was dependent on such income or had to take care of someone who was, I'd be saving pennies and making contingency plans to cover my ability to pay for essentials for at least a week or two after the 2nd of August.  The reason I am not 100% confident that logic will carry the day is the Tea Party movement are stubborn bastards- they refuse to see taxes raised 1 penny, don't believe the world will end after the 2nd and are willing to see their theory put into practice.

In summary, there's no way to predict truly how this all will play out.  Too many egos.  Too many agendas.  Too many innocent 'human shields' affected by these games.  All one can do is not buy anything that isn't essential and put the $ away for emergency use until this debt ceiling charade gets settled in one way or another.