Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Trickle down economics and the airlines

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
more on the IMF.....


  • OCTOBER 23, 2008
IMF Regains Some Global Clout

Once-Scorned Lender Fashions Rescue Packages for Those With No Alternatives

By BOB DAVIS


WASHINGTON -- After years on the outs with developing nations, the International Monetary Fund is again starting to play a big role in crisis management.
Over the past few days, the IMF has begun to step in with rescue packages for Ukraine, Iceland, Hungary and Pakistan.
View Full Image



Landov Members of various delegations listen as World Bank President Robert Zoelick speaks during the International Monetary Fund and World Bank 2008 Annual Boards of Governors Meeting in Washington on Oct. 13.

BTN_insetClose.gif





Getting to that point hasn't been easy. During the global boom after 2002, governments in Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia and Russia scored big points domestically by paying off IMF debts, sometimes early, and swearing off IMF loans. Many of them fattened their reserves to insulate themselves somewhat from global capital flows, but also to ensure that they wouldn't have to turn to the IMF again in time of crisis.
Brazil was typical. When it paid off the IMF early in 2005, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva went on national television to exult that "we can safely say that Brazil can walk with its own legs."
Now, the global economic downturn has brought developing nations back to the IMF's offices in Washington -- largely because they have no alternative.
The turnaround comes at an uncomfortable moment for the IMF as Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the fund, is trying to survive a scandal stemming from an affair he had with a female subordinate. A law firm retained by the IMF is investigating whether he abused his power in connection with the relationship and is expected to report its findings over the next few days.
Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Wednesday said he would sue anyone passing malicious rumors about him. "I have been instructed by Mr. Strauss-Kahn to sue for libel anyone peddling rumors about my client," said Mr. Strauss-Kahn's French lawyer, Jean Veil. He said the warning was aimed at the French, not at IMF staffers who might have information about Mr. Strauss-Kahn.
Since the 1980s, the IMF has played a major role in Latin America, bailing out Argentina, Brazil and Mexico when they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The apex of its power was the 1997-98 Asia financial crisis, when Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia and Brazil turned to the IMF, with a strong assist by the U.S. Treasury, for rescue packages of tens of billions of dollars each.


While those nations eventually started growing rapidly again, the IMF's tough requirements for loans -- slash budgets, privatize industries, open markets -- produced a global wave of resentment. IMF lending dropped to about $2 billion last year, down from about $32 billion in 1998, at current exchange rates.
For the past year or so, the IMF had forecast that countries in central and eastern Europe were likely to run into trouble because they had wide trade deficits and were deeply indebted.
Now those countries are stumbling badly, and the lending so far in 2008 has bounced up to $5 billion. Over the past year or so, for instance, Pakistan's economy crumbled because of sagging foreign investment due to terrorist attacks, big budget deficits and diminished exports. They scrambled for relief from China and the U.S. When that didn't come through, top officials turned to an IMF loan as a "Plan B."
Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that an IMF mission will begin discussions with Pakistani authorities in the next few days "on a program aimed at strengthening economic stability and enhancing confidence in the financial system."
Within the IMF, senior officials are sketching out plans to make the IMF a power again in global financial issues by making it a center of analysis and recommendations for new financial arrangements. Britain and other European countries are pushing for a more-central role for the IMF, against the wishes of the U.S.
In the past, the U.S. has been able to sideline European efforts to boost the IMF's role, but the financial crisis, which started in America, may have weakened Washington's hand.
—David Gauthier-Villars in Paris contributed to this article.
 
Rez,
I can't stand Paul Bremer. He was a complete failure and was one of Bush's biggest mistakes. He had ZERO experience in Middle Eastern culture and affairs. He had ZERO experience or talents in forming a post war government.


He wasn't there to form a post war gov't. He was to create a privatized capitalistic economy.



The History Channel had a great documentary on how badly he screwed things up. Aside of that, I think your assumptions on the two above cases are wrong.

They are not my assumptions. There are documented in The Shock Doctrine.


First, the infrastructure in Iraq was in shambles and maybe a flat tax was a acceptable way to start bringing in some income for the formation of the Iraqi government.

With 50% of Iraqi's unemployed/in poverty.... how would taxing them help?


Taxes are how governments are funded. Order #39 in my opinion was a good deal for the country. The CPA was charged with bringing foreign investment into the country and providing jobs. It would have been a huge risk fo companies to invest in Iraq at the time.


I disagree. Companies were eager to get into Iraq. It was the Wild Wild West of capitalism. The slate wiped clean and new laws via Bremer that favored corporations.

The reconstruction companies like Halliburton and Bechtel didn't hire locals. They used foreign labor. Unemployed angry Iraqi's turned to radical fanatics and fought the US occupation.

What if the contractors were required to hire locals. The same game plan occur ed in New Orleans. Locals sitting in refugee camps as out of state workers "rebuilt" New Orleans.



The best way to get that investment in was to offer the tax break on profits.

How does one tax 100% profits that left the country?


People are still employed and the country moves forward. Get the companies in and get them working towards employing the largely unemployed population.

As I stated before the CPA didn't require contractors to hire Iraqis. In addition, there was the case of soviet style concrete plants that worked but not as efficient as the west. But in time the contractors could not get their own concrete production working so they went back to the local concrete plants.

Same with other State factories. The goal was to privatize them and lay off Iraqi workers. The Iraqis were so angry they were ready to destroy the factories. Why? The jobs were all they had. If they couldn't have it, then no one would...


Work on taxing the profits later. It seemed to me to be a good deal for Iraq. What is your problem with it?

If it is/was such a good deal... then why didn't it work....??

The entire Iraq War was nothing but a scam to inject a radical freemarket into the middle east. It failed there and radical free markets have failed here in the US.

The goal of the CPA was to leech or be a virus off of the Iraqi people for pure corporate profits. Just like corporations function here in the US.



Your thoughts?
 
Obama won?!?!?!??! I did not know that!

IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll: Day Eleven

Posted: Thursday, October 23, 2008
McCain has cut into Obama's lead for a second day and is now just 1.1 points behind. The spread was 3.7 Wednesday and 6.0 Tuesday. The Republican is making headway with middle- and working- class voters, and has surged 10 points in two days among those earning between $30,000 and $75,000. He has also gone from an 11-point deficit to a 9-point lead among Catholics.
View Results From Prior Days
About IBD/TIPP: An analysis of Final Certified Results for the 2004 election showed IBD's polling partner, TIPP, was the most accurate pollster of the campaign season. Learn more at www.TIPPonline.com.


Polls often vary, and while the 2004 results show this was the most accurate poll then, it may not be now. As the common disclaimer goes - past results are no guarantee of future performance. Simply put, the most accurate poll will not be known until election results are in.

The latest numbers available show the following:

CBS/NY Times - Obama by 13%
Gallup (Traditional) - Obama by 4%
Gallup (Expanded) - Obama by 6%
Rasmussen Reports - Obama by 7%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby - Obama by 12%
Hotline/FD - Obama by 5%
Fox News - Obama by 9%
ABC/Washington Post - Obama by 11%
IBD/TIPP - Obama by 1%
GWU/Battleground - Obama by 4%
NBC/Wall Street Journal - Obama by 10%
Associated Press/GfK - Obama Obama by 1%
Ipsos/McClatchy - Obama by 8%
CNN/Opinion Research - Obama by 5%
Pew Research - Obama by 14%

Average Obama lead 7.5%

Interestingly traditionally conservative FOX shows Obama with a bigger lead than traditionally liberal CNN.

In the key battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania the polls show the following averages:

Ohio - Obama by 6%
Pennsylvania - Obama by 10.5%
Florida - Obama by 2%

As we learned from 2000, you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, so a "national" poll doesn't mean too much, it is the state by state polls that one should pay attention to. And looking at it this way, the very safe money is on Obama to win. By most counts, Obama just has to hold on to just one of those three battleground states and he'll seal up the electoral vote.
 
Does not matter who the president is,if you cannot afford the service then you will not patronize the business.
 
Polls often vary, and while the 2004 results show this was the most accurate poll then, it may not be now. As the common disclaimer goes - past results are no guarantee of future performance. Simply put, the most accurate poll will not be known until election results are in.

The latest numbers available show the following:

CBS/NY Times - Obama by 13%
Gallup (Traditional) - Obama by 4%
Gallup (Expanded) - Obama by 6%
Rasmussen Reports - Obama by 7%
Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby - Obama by 12%
Hotline/FD - Obama by 5%
Fox News - Obama by 9%
ABC/Washington Post - Obama by 11%
IBD/TIPP - Obama by 1%
GWU/Battleground - Obama by 4%
NBC/Wall Street Journal - Obama by 10%
Associated Press/GfK - Obama Obama by 1%
Ipsos/McClatchy - Obama by 8%
CNN/Opinion Research - Obama by 5%
Pew Research - Obama by 14%

Average Obama lead 7.5%

Interestingly traditionally conservative FOX shows Obama with a bigger lead than traditionally liberal CNN.

In the key battleground states of Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania the polls show the following averages:

Ohio - Obama by 6%
Pennsylvania - Obama by 10.5%
Florida - Obama by 2%

As we learned from 2000, you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, so a "national" poll doesn't mean too much, it is the state by state polls that one should pay attention to. And looking at it this way, the very safe money is on Obama to win. By most counts, Obama just has to hold on to just one of those three battleground states and he'll seal up the electoral vote.

Game, Set, Match

Look for an Obama win Nov. 4th by landslide.
 
Obama's tax plan is not wealth redistribution. Its simply a restoration of taxes back to the Clinton years.

That's funny, he calls it 'spreading the wealth around.' I guess you know what he means better than he does. But you should be against going back to those policies. Tax revenues are (or were) at an all time high as a percentage of GDP. For the years 2004-2007, total tax revenues were at 18.8% of GDP. 0.4% higher than the average of the 1990's. Individual tax returns were at 8.4% of GDP, another 0.4% higher than the average of the 1990s. So, I guess I should be for Obama, his policies will bring those numbers back down...hmmm, maybe I am a Democrat! Less money to spend! Join me and we'll vote Obama in!!!

Figures from Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the United States Government: 2007 Historical Tables," Table 2.3
 
Game, Set, Match

Look for an Obama win Nov. 4th by landslide.


I kind of hope he loses just to see the left come unglued again. Oh the humanity. The left won't be able to claim voter fraud or miscounts this time. I'm starting to think that the undecideds are going to go with the safe choice, McCain. All this talk of super majority makes things lean a little too far to the left. Perhaps that hurts him in the final weeks.

I think the best part of all this is that Obama is spending 2-3 times what McCain is, McCain is running a terrible campaign, and Obama is barely leading. I've already bought the stickers for both sides, I've always liked putting the loser's stickers in my little storage locker/time capsule. This time, I'm putting both in there.
 
I kind of hope he loses just to see the left come unglued again.

The losing side always comes "unglued".

Do you remember the "end of the world" pronouncements made by Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans after Clinton won in 1992? I sure do, I was a rabid dittohead back then.
 
I think the best part of all this is that Obama is spending 2-3 times what McCain is, McCain is running a terrible campaign, and Obama is barely leading. I've already bought the stickers for both sides, I've always liked putting the loser's stickers in my little storage locker/time capsule. This time, I'm putting both in there.
An 8 point spread nationally is HUGE! Reagan won by 9 points and that equated to a 350+ electoral victory.

Projections for Obama have him at 375+ on election night. It won't be 2000 and 2004, this thing will be over by the Mississippi River.

Of course, this is all projecting. But when you say "barely leading" might want to do some research about what a big lead is.
 
Trickle down economics, oh yeah the good ole' steal from the middle class and give to the rich. The last thirty years of all out war on the middle class has caused a disparity beween the middle class and the wealthy we haven't seen since just before the great depression.
 
The losing side always comes "unglued".

Do you remember the "end of the world" pronouncements made by Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans after Clinton won in 1992? I sure do, I was a rabid dittohead back then.


No, I remember the lawsuits and the recounts...
 
Trickle down economics, oh yeah the good ole' steal from the middle class and give to the rich. The last thirty years of all out war on the middle class has caused a disparity beween the middle class and the wealthy we haven't seen since just before the great depression.


The old disparity argument. Care to back it up with some facts? Show us please the census or income data that shows more people moving up into the top tax bracket and people in the middle moving down the brackets, this I would love to see.
 
Consider this:

Obama wins every state that is considered "safe" for him, and hangs on to win every "leaning" state in which he has at least a ten point lead in.

McCain wins all his "safe" states and his "leaning" states. He overtakes Obama in the Obama "leaning" states where the lead is less than ten, and wins all other "tossup" states.

The final tally:

Obama 287 Electoral votes
McCain 251 Electoral votes

Note - this counts Maine giving one electoral vote to McCain as it gives two electoral votes to the winner of the state popular vote, and one each to the popular winner in each of its two congressional districts.
 
Are you aware that McCain lost 5 airplanes and was disobeying orders when he got shot down and landed in the Hanoi Hilton. Yep, he's a Maverick all right. Quite the sacrifice. Especially the life of privilege he's led since he cheated on his wife and kids with Cindy, then left them, married her, and rode off into the sunset.


I am aware of his checkered 22 Naval career, his very ugly divorce from his first wife, and his carpet-bagging into office in Arizona. For the "moral majority", all of this may disqualify him for high office. It seems unfair, after all, that many conservatives attacked one Clinton for adultery, the other Clinton for carpet-bagging, and Kerry for upgrading from rich wife 1.0 to even richer wife 2.0. Why shouldn't the left attack McCain for essentially the same personal failings?

Because none of these facts are relevant to the personal sacrifices he gave for his comrades in arms and his countrymen while being repeatedly tortured in a Vietnamese prison. Leaving aside his qualifications for President, the man understands sacrifice and love of country to a degree I thank God I'll probably never have to.

Obama has done some "community organizing" with ACORN, Ayers, and Rezco while teaching constitutional law at a university. This may be admirable (to some), but it is hardly "sacrifice" in the sense of what John McCain went through.

There are plenty of "nutter" criticisms of BO (and JM) out there which I will not traffic in on this forum nor anywhere else. To discuss them is to reveal prejudices, ignorance, and deep, irrational hatreds that speak more about the writer than the person they are trying to discredit.

Lord knows, there's plenty of objective, non-hyperbolic reasons to oppose (or support) either candidate.

Your glib summation and diminution of McCain's wartime heroics and sacrifice are in a word, obscene.


 
The "Trickle Down" theory was something coined by the Democratic Party in the 80's when they were opposing Regan. However, if you look throughout history and basic economic theory, that is the way things work. The people with money invest money in ventures that employ the "less fortunate" and give them jobs and money to spend. Look at the development of the trans-continental railroad. It was Eastern money that met with Western money that gambled millions (in a day that millions meant something) on something that may or may not work. In the meantime thousands of workers were paid to construct the railroad and after it was constructed millions of people prospered because of a few people with money who were willing to gamble on a very high risk venture. Sure, the original investors benefitted greatly. But so did so many others. If it wasn't for the original venture capitalists the railway would have never happened. At least not as soon as it did. I'm sure there were shady deals and shinanigans that occurred during the process. But, we as a nation, cannot deny the value of those who chose to risk the money they had for the prospect of gaining on their investment. I can relate a similar story in regards to the iron mining industry in my home in Northeastern Minnesota. It was Eastern money that gambled on that as well. It never would have been found as soon as it was if it weren't for people with money that wanted to make more money. Generations have been employed by the ambition of the "rich" who existed a hundred years ago. It is all "trickle down". Money is like water. It does not flow up hill. I, like all of you, are part of the "middle class". But at least I am able to say that nobody owes me anything. If I wanted to be a millionaire I wouldn't be flying an airplane. I would own the damned thing. If I had the desire and creativity to be a money guy I could be I'm sure. I just have an affliction for aviation.

Sorry for rambling.
 
Soverytired

I've seen you post and, while I don't agree with all you say, it appears to me you raise some good points (I remember your posts regarding Go)
I think you quit Mesa and went to another regional.
So, my question is, if you're flying for a regional, why do you think you would not better under Obamas plan??

Heh. Well, no longer at the regionals: Mesa abused me so much it gave me the much needed kick in the pants to actually look for better work. Found it about 2 years ago and I couldn't be happier. But Mesa was my first love; even though she turned out to be a 1st class be-yotch, I still troll around the regional forum for news on how the ole' whore is doing. :)

"If you're flying for a regional, why would you not be better under Obama? "
  • Your federal taxes will rise. I know the spiel about no taxes for those under the $250k/yr bracket; it's impossible, and no serious economist believes it. Both the 1st Bush and Clinton reneged on their tax promises: Obama will be no different, and I think he's left himself plenty of wiggle room for this.
  • Health care is likely to go to a single payer system. While you may not like your current plan, it's unlikely a single payer system will be either better or cheaper (think "public schools", "public DMV", "public restrooms", "public post office", etc.).
  • The FAA and ATC are unlikely to be reformed in any fundamental way. It will get more expensive, however . . . do you think BO would threaten mass firings if, say, controllers went on strike? Guess what . . either way, the flying public and your airline will pay for all this.
  • Ditto the TSA. Shouldn't they be making $50-$75k/year? Aren't they loyal, hard working Americans who are critical to your flying safety? Once BO lets them organize, they'll have the fate of your airline in their hands.
  • Fuel costs will rise. BO talks about alternative energy, but I don't think he means it. Subsidizes for solar, wind, and ethanol, high carbon taxes for airplanes .. yes. Nuclear, coal, and oil . . no.
  • The economy will stagnate. I don't know this for a fact, but with taxes on the rise and government spending going on like crazy, it's unlikely the economy will grow like gangbusters. Legacies and SWA will survive. Regional lift and leisure-travel airlines won't, at least not like they do now.
  • The end of 401(k)'s. This reason alone would be enough for me not to vote for ANY candidate who failed to vociferously defend the sanctity of the 401(k) plan . . a plan that encourages hard work and long term individual planning.
  • A terrorist attack is far more likely. I'm not Muslim, but it would seem that Allah hates airplanes.
And so on, and so forth. Actually, my oposition to Obama goes far, far beyond mere concerns about long term viability of the aviation industry.

No point pontificating: everyone should know by now what to expect from BO, Pelosi, and Reid when they have the reins.
 
Last edited:
What makes you think I didn't spend decades of hard work and sacrifice to get where I am? Oh I know, I'm a girl and got hired just because I have tits. Of course!

Darl'n, no one here mentions your gender more than you. I assure you, 99.9% don't give a flying "f" what you have between your legs or that your mammaries are bigger than [most of] our "moobs" .

The male pilots you fly with assume you were hired because you can a.) fly and b.) successfully completed an interview process. Just like everyone else.

20 years ago, women pilots were pioneers who had to put up with unbelievable amounts of "shirt". Now, they're just another interchangeable cog in the wheel. They're great girl pilots, they're poor girl pilots . . but for the most part they're just average.

(Just like guy pilots. Interchangeable. Average. With Moobs.)
 
Funny how nobody bashes Microsoft for being successful or Bill Gates for being one of the richest men in the world. Yet, everyone is so quick to bash "Big Oil", and the unnamed CEO's that work for those companies for their extreme profits. Give me an iPod and iTunes and I'll be happy. Make me participate in a world economy coupled with crazy speculation about oil prices and I'm gonna get pissed. Yeah, that's long-term planning.
 
Funny how nobody bashes Microsoft for being successful or Bill Gates for being one of the richest men in the world. Yet, everyone is so quick to bash "Big Oil", and the unnamed CEO's that work for those companies for their extreme profits. Give me an iPod and iTunes and I'll be happy. Make me participate in a world economy coupled with crazy speculation about oil prices and I'm gonna get pissed. Yeah, that's long-term planning.

There's a considerable difference between innovation and extortion.

PIPE
 

Latest resources

Back
Top