Government as the Recruiter of Last Resort

This is an article that I picked up from the Wall Street Journal about how the government is firing all of the corporate officials at Chrysler and how they are looking to find people to fill their spots. The real question is why does the government think that this is within their power when they only own 8% of the company and why aren't they doing anything about the people who run AIG or the other companies responsible for the economic collapse. It seems that Chrysler is a victim of the poor economy but it is no doubt that it has been mismanaged. I personally think that Fiat, which owns a majority of the company should be the one changing things up for Chrysler and not the U.S government. The government is totally disregarding Fiat's rights to control a majority of its business because it has a majority share of the company. On the other hand the government owns about 80% of AIG and still they are only talking about changing leadership there.

Why is there a discrepancy? The government should be going to town on AIG and putting those guys in jail for misleading Americans and killing our economy. Their assets should be taken and given to the people if this government is all about socialism, not something I want. I rather see the government take the personal assets of the people who run AIG and put it towards honest businesses or ones that are suffering that didn't cause this mess. 

Check out this article at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139467875781705.html

Auto Buying Trends in the U.S

According to the LA Times in an article titled, Buying Habits are the Latest Automotive Import. For the first time since 1963 consumer spending on cars is down and it is due to the weakened economy and the spike in gas prices. Two things have changed, according to the article, the amount of cars that we buy and also the kinds of cars we buy. This is because the baby boomers no longer have the money they thought they were going to have to retire on and so they are spending less on cars and aren't buying cars to take a lot of gas. They are also not able to tap into the equity of their homes to use that cash to buy new cars because their homes have gone down in value. Car companies are struggling to get people to take cars off their lots and it seems that people are looking for cars that are reliable and are fuel efficient. In certain ways we have been becoming more like our European counterparts in the way that we shop for our cars and it is a new dynamic that was never thought to appear in the spending habits of U.S consumers. The article states that in the past people were buying about 6 cars per every 100 people in the country per year. This year it is closer to 3 people per every 100. This is killing car sales in the U.S and the people who may had bought a new car this year has shrunk just because they are afraid to spend the money. 

I feel that this is something that we are going to see forever in the buying habits of people, especially when buying something as expensive as a car. The repercussions of this recession will be felt for a long time after it is done and my gut feeling is that the people of my generation will always carry a bit more of a cautious attitude about their spending. That said, I also think that when the article says that car sales will be back by 2014 is conservative but I guess the writer feels that time frame is enough time for the economy to rebound. Only time will tell if things have changed in the minds of American consumers, if the past is any indication, things will go back to the way they were just as the 1920's saw great innovations in auto design, followed by the 30's and the generic cars of that time and then 40's and 50's with some of the greatest cars designs of the 20th century. If money and fuel are plenty the auto market will reflect those trends.

Article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-auto-outlook4-2009may04,0,6898636.story

Pakistan's Nuclear Arsenal and Al Queda

This post is in response to a article that I read on The New York Times website. It was titled, Pakistan Strife Raises U.S Doubts on Nuclear Arms. In the past few weeks Al Queda has been infiltrating Northern Pakistan and some officials in the U.S are afraid that it is possible that nuclear weapons may be able to get into the hands of people who would hurt the U.S. The United States has questioned Pakistan to figure out where their arsenals lay and how vulnerable they really are but Pakistan has not be cooperative in giving us that information, they fear we will destroy the weapons if the Al Queda threat is considered "imminent". Many of the people in the U.S government know that Pakistan does not keep their weapons in one central location but actually in different locations or constantly being moved to respond to tensions on the India boarder. 

I had forgotten about how violative Pakistan has been in the past few years and this article has reminded me that a critical situation is always moments from happening in that part of the world. Pakistan with its current political instability is a disaster waiting to happen and we, as the world community should do something to stabilize the situation. It would be a good idea for the U.N to possibly pressure Pakistan to release information about where its nuclear arms are located and also, if necessary send U.N peacekeepers or a coalition to quell violence in the region. If met with the prospect of an international force sent to settle any unrest it may be enough to force the Pakistani's to seek a peaceful resolution and also clear their nation of terrorist supporters. If we, meaning the world, don't do something but watch this situation develop we may be seeing mushroom clouds, the question is where? 

Classmates Blog

For my response to a classmates blog I choose to do Nicco's Blog and his post on Californians and their opinion of the media in the politics. Nicco brings up some good points and says that the video is biased as do I. I feel that too many of these videos exist in which make people draw conclusions without knowing all the details. Just because its a video doesn't mean that seeing is believing. I also think that too many of these videos exist and are taken seriously, we need more objective news if we are going to increase the probability of solving issues in the future.

Local news at 11

So, for this post I will discuss the local news at 11. The local news that I chose to watch was News 4 New York. This particular news program was not very political other than mentioning that a senator from Staten Island recently died on vacation. It did consist of many human interest stories, topics ranging from how to find missing make up that has been discontinued and the weather. The news was pretty entertaining and they talk about fires and how Swine Flu is still around. The Swine Flu story has died down a little bit since last week but is definitely still going to be around for awhile. I wouldn't say that the local news was as entertaining as the Daily Show but it was entertaining considering it was just local stories and things that I could relate to because I live in this area. I feel that there wasn't enough political content and I really would like at least a few more minutes focused on the economy or what Obama is doing to make the U.S strong again. The local news didn't even cover how local politicians are trying to tackle the issues in this area and I would also like to see some more coverage of that kind of story. 

Network News and the Daily Show

The difference between network news and the Daily Show is actually not incredibly different in the sense of content. At times I feel like the Daily Show does actually go into topics that the network news doesn't even bother to go into, probably because they feel that average Americans can't relate to the stories. It's even more interesting to see that even though many people don't understand the issues, the Daily Show is still a huge source for many people my age to get their news. I know that when I watch the network news I am not as interested and I have subconsciously established filters on what I listen to and what I just ignore. When I watch the Daily Show I am waiting for jokes and desiring to be entertained so I listen to more of what is being said just so I can get the most out of the program. 

I feel that shows like the Daily Show should not be used as a sole means of information but its not a bad place to kindle interest in different issues. It also is a good way to get a different point of view on topics that are tired and over played on the network news stations. I also like the Daily Show because it usually makes fun of the network news, and I do truly resent them. 

Fox News V.S CNN

These two news networks definitely cover the big events differently. They do cover similar events in most cases but the spin that each network puts on the stories is apparent and it that is even reflected in the shows played during the day. Each network has people that they interview during the day to support their stories and many times they interview people that are purposely set up so that when they try to go against the network they are then pummeled by the newscasters. It is quite sad that both of these networks are still in business, I personally hate both and I occasionally watch the BBC if I'm in the mood for the news. Many times the BBC at least brings the perspective of an outsider and doesn't have to worry about party politics. Although both Fox and CNN have their flaws, they both play their role in society. They make people with different views polarize their opinions and in the end nothing is accomplished. CNN does have plenty of negative stories that run about how the economy is bad, why its bad, why the Untied States is wrong, and of course why its all Bush's fault. On the flip side you have Fox and their negative and quite unprofessional anchors talking about the end of the world and how it sucks that Obama is President. They also like hire crazy people who think that the Patriot Act and the censorship and spying of the government on the people is a great idea. Even though CNN can suck sometimes, nothing beats Fox and their group of nuts. I feel that one day that news networks like these will be different, I can't see how Americans can watch this stuff on TV and not got nauseous, I know I do.