Greetings Seniors,
I had some trouble with my home computer this weekend so wasn't able to get the blog up sooner than Sunday night, which is not a fair amount of time to expect you all to complete a thoughtful assessment. Therefore, the ACTIVE READING ASSIGNMENT from Friday's class is still due, but the following choice assessment will be due before class on Wednesday, March 25. If you were absent on Friday, please print and actively read article A for class tomorrow.
Based on the article and notes you prepared for this week's debates on Stock Market Controversies, respond to the framing question that you were assigned:
a) Should Congressional insider trading be allowed?http://insidertrading.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=1314\
b) Should the Big Three automakers be bailed out by congress?
your response may take the format of
- a narrative blog assignment (250 word minimum)
- a pro/con graphic organizer (include at least FIVE statistics/ facts supporting each view)
- a political cartoon portfolio including either TWO original cartoons of your own design showing each side reflecting the main ideas of the reading or THREE relevant cartoons found on the internet (citations included) with summaries of their main ideas.
Should The big 3 be bailed out by congress?
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the auto industry, their economic growth and profit is all specifically based on customer satisfaction, and amount of demand for their vehicles. However based on recent studies, the Big 3, Ford Motor Corp., General Motors, and Daimler Chrysler, are reaching record money debt based on recent bad choices that these companies have done in terms of released inefficient vehicles and resulting is an all time low of American vehicle demands of The US Citizens. Now that millions of jobs are being shut down just to keep these companies afloat. Congress has recently passed a bail out fund to help restore these jobs and restore the companies out of debt and in addition, Obamas stimulus package is providing funding (or lack there of) to help the development of more fuel economic vehicles and to help regain the demand for American vehicles within the united states.
In regards to the Bail Out, yes we really should bail out these companies. In the United States economy, about 10-15% of the whole is based on the profit the Big 3 American Auto Companies bring in. If these 3 companies fell under, millions and millions of jobs would be lost, and we would have to depend on foreign vehicles where prices would have to go up based on importing and exporting taxes. HOWEVER, after bailing these companies out, we need to pass a piece of legislature where we can control how the automakers comply with Demand, budget and research for more fuel economic vehicles that are not only efficient, but very affordable cars for the everyday citizen.
I honestly feel that if these companies go under, and reform, we will find new and perhaps better revisions of these companies. However to preserve the millions of jobs that these companies provide for our American citizens, we need to bail out these companies and thanks to proper discussion and decision making, congress passed the bail out, and these companies are right now reforming in terms of proper budget and are working diligently to create high quality vehicles that are fuel efficient and provide high demand from the United States.
Should the Big Three auto companies be bailed out by congress?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the main focus of this big bail out package is where the money is going to go and whom it is going to affect the most. The Big Three auto companies are ones that run on supply/demand and customer satisfaction, thus dictating that they will always manage to pull themselves out of a rut. In this way, the congress should NOT bail out the big three.
Companies are losing money rapidly and are cutting corners to save costs, which includes cutting jobs, hours, wages, etc. Even so, these measures are just not keeping them afloat. Government money isn't going to help these companies, instead, it will go towards large pockets that just keep growing larger.
Bailing out the auto industry will have the same effect. They do not need the government's money, as they can file for bankruptcy in order to help themselves out of the rut they're in by regrouping and restructuring the way they run and the way they produce automobiles. Only about 10 - 15% of the GDP of the United States is produced by the auto industry, which in no means dictates that they NEED the government to stay afloat. They need to use their own minds and efforts to emerge on top again.
Heather Vale
ReplyDeleteBlock F
The Big Three automakers should be bailed out by congress. These three influential automakers include Chrysler, Ford and GM. According to Motor Trends, the auto industry makes up 10% of America’s gross domestic product. That’s 10% of everything we spend and use our money on. The auto industry supports one of every 10 jobs in the United States.
“For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment, not just for individual families but the repercussions across the economy would be dire. So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check,” said Barack Obama. Indeed, the auto industry should receive a bailout but up to a certain extent.
The government can’t be handing out money left and right, yet these automakers hold up 10% of our GDP. A recent study estimated that 3 million jobs nationwide could be lost in 1 year if these companies are allowed to fail. We are already currently in an economic dilemma, and by letting the Big Three fail we are allowing our country to sink into more depth.
If we let the Big Three file bankruptcy, there will be years of recovery. This means years of millions of jobs disappearing. They are called the Big Three for a reason. Thus, if they make a big impact gaining money, they will make a big impact filing bankruptcy. If the government is willing to bail out the Big Three, we should let them with opened arms. How will this bailout impact all of us personally? The government has the money, the Big Three will survive on a thread, and the American people will not be negatively affected with their finances.
Nonetheless, people argue that all companies are led to bankruptcy in the end. Yet Congress along with the Big Three companies are fighting to withstand a stable and steady economic environment. Almost like the domino effect, when one big company falls others begin to fall as a result. A bankruptcy may be needed for the Big Three to have a reality check and to start off fresh. However in this time of economic turmoil, I do not believe America can or would want to withstand Chrysler, Ford and GM filing bankruptcy.
Jaclyn Mallozzi
ReplyDeleteBlock C
With the current economic recession, the big three automobile industries are also struggling. The big three should get a bailout. Without the bailout, over a million jobs will probably disappear. The auto industry supports one out of every ten jobs in the United States, which means about 3 million jobs nationwide could be lost if there is no bailout. With the already overly high amount of jobs lost, this bailout could literally be saving millions of lives.
In addition, the bailout could help save the American economy. “For America to compete in the global marketplace in the 21st century, it needs a strong manufacturing base and a vital domestic auto industry.” So many Americans rely on transportation via automobiles, which means they will continue to purchase cars which can help the big three thrive, especially after the recession. It could also effect other companies, since the automobile industry buys an abundance of U.S. made steel, aluminum, iron, copper, plastics, rubber, electronics, and computer chips.
Although many people may be concerned that the government does not have the money to be bailing out a major industry right now, there would be an even greater debt if all of those jobs were lost. Tens of billions of dollars in pension liabilities would be transferred to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. This corporation is the federal insurance fund that protects the pensions of about 44 million American workers. If the estimated 3 million estimated jobs were lost in one year, imagine all of the new pension liabilities for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which is already in $10.7 billion in debt.
It’s true that the companies made some mistakes, but allowing them to go bankrupt would be a bigger mistake. According to Spencer Abraham, JD, without the bailout, “We will set in motion a chain of events that will cause us, in six months, to ask again: How did we let this happen?” This bailout could help the economy and millions of people that are in risk of losing their jobs or medical insurance.
anthony fontana
ReplyDeleteBlock C
Should the Big Three Auto companies be bailed out?
Bailouts are such a huge waste of time and money. They are practically putting gum on a dam that is about to burst. Bailing out General Motors, Chrysler and Ford was a socialist approach to fixing the economy. Notice how Toyota, Honda, and, Hyundai had not suffered nearly the amount of earning loss. They took a risk and looked to the future, producing fuel-efficient cars. The Big Three however went with the popular demand of “gas guzzlers.” As oil went up people seized consuming SUV’s and Crossovers, and started to buy economy cars. GM, Ford, and Chrysler have been poorly run companies and deserve to suffer for it. Their heavily over paid CEO’s should be put before the Board of Directors and fired for making such awful decisions. Bailing out the Big Three would have taught them no lesson. This would eliminate competition because “why work harder and change our mistakes we just got a Get out of Jail Free card?” Also, this is a tax-dollar funded bailout so taxpayers are going to suffer with higher taxes and such. These auto industries should have filed for bankruptcy and work to their full potential to turn themselves around. This bailout taught them nothing. The only HUGE downside to not giving this bailout is that the thousands of jobs that will be cut if they did not get this money. Filing for bankruptcy and little government help would have been the best pathway for this problem because you could almost guarantee this problem would not show up again.
Farooq hussain
ReplyDeleteC-block
In the stock market many people invest money with the fair chance of 50/50. Of either making a huge profit or losing their money. However some are privy to information that helps them make wiser decision in which stock or industry they should invest in and how a company is dealing with influx on investments. These people are congressmen who receive tips about when to invest in or pull out of a stock. Many of these insider tips also help congress regulate business laws. This may seem fair for them however; it is hypocritical to call America a free market economy when the government manipulates it from the inside. There is no stipulation that ensures that the congressman do not use this information for personal gain. Many congressmen establish connections with these information providers that enable them to secure funds in the future. The insider information could potentially hurt the industries as well bring down their productivity. These insider tips allow the legislators to change or make new laws in which they can indirectly control the stock markets and the industry
The insider trading is not only harmful to the companies but to the public investors as well. Many cannot understand when a seemingly sound investment goes wrong and realize it’s due to a new law or bill passed by the government. This also gives the public the limited control of the economy, where as it should be run according to the wishes of the public. The insider trading gives the congressmen an unfair advantage over the public investors and also allows them to manipulate the industries as they please, and gain from it.
Sarah Berfond
ReplyDeleteBlock F
Trading on insider information for profit occurs when a person obtains information which the general public cannot discover. Insider trading by the private sector has been illegal for many years. Government agencies are also prohibited from buying and selling stock in companies they oversee. Congress is exempt from insider trading laws and its members are free to use the information they obtain to engage in insider trading. There has been a movement to prohibit this type of activity by congressmen and senators. It seems unnecessary to create new laws preventing insider trading. The information obtained by members of congress is different from the information used by Wall Street professionals. On Wall Street, the connection is direct and the profit is guaranteed. In Congress, there are many committees and procedural hurdles for legislation to become law. Therefore, it would be very hard to connect information to a specific trade. In addition, members of congress get information from many sources not connected to their representation. Making insider trading by senators a crime would create an environment where every trade would be subject to a new investigation. This would be a waste of time and money. Supporters of the legislation argue that restrictions on insider trading should be implemented because it is unfair for senators to use their position to profit where the ordinary citizen cannot. Members of congress have access to valuable information not available to the general public. This type of advantage is the same as those on Wall Street who are convicted of violating the securities law.
Loretta Au
ReplyDeleteBlock F
Should the Big Three car manufacturers be bailed out by the US government?
The Big Three car manufacturers are GM, Ford, and Chrysler. They have thus far had a significant role in the economy. The auto industry benefits every state and community the U.S by purchasing materials and services and all the states. In 2008, Big Three alone spent $156 billion in that portion. However, the Big Three are experiencing bankruptcy. I agree that the government should help bail them out because of their significance in the economy. With the government’s assistance, the Big Three will have no debts, and only have the task of reorganizing their industry.
What I think is most important in our current economic instability is employment. In our present economic crisis 15% of the American population is unemployed. The hunt for employment is extremely competitive as everyone is struggling find a job. If the government does no bailout these auto industries, then an additional three million Americans will be added to the 15% of unemployed Americans in the first year. The auto industry supports one of every ten jobs in the U.S. So if three million Americans lose a job in the first year, billions of dollars would be transferred to the federal insurance fund that protects the retirement funds of about 44 million American works. According to the CEO of GM, “Such assistance will save millions of jobs now, and produce enormous benefits for years to come.”
Elizabeth Che - Block C
ReplyDeleteTopic: Should insider trading in Congress be allowed?
Insider trading deals with Senator's ability to obtain valuable insider information and their lack of restriction to buying and selling, whenever they want. As Alan J. Ziobrowski states, "So what?" Everybody has the chance to earn money through the stock market. Yet, congressmen are being criticized for unfair insider dealings which opponents think, violates the founding idea of equality. In reality, equality only exists as an idea, never in practice.
The argument over insider trading is on the basis of morals rather than the effects it has on the economy. Senators obtain "insider" information through discussions with lobbyists and use the collected data to make informed laws. Such methods of information gathering is not illegal and can't be seen to be the same as those in the general public found guilty of violating the Law of Securities. The difference lies in the position, although there are arguments stating that congressmen shouldn't be given extra for their work, such information are resources, necessary for Congress to function, none of which are extra nor unrelated to their job.
Laws passed by the Congress will ultimately affect the general public and companies with regard to its content, but this is not through individual senators participation in the stock market. For example, Congress may veto a bill proposing a new source of energy in favor of gasoline because a certain car company is producing a new car model that uses gasoline.
Insider trading should continue to exist being that the information given to senators will not stop when lobbyists are trying to gain an upper hand over rivaling companies. If need be, the purchase and sale of stocks give the government a better grip on the economy and ability to manipulate it for the better good.
Veronica Geager
ReplyDeleteA block *Late*
Insider trading occurs, when people who own stock within a company have more information than other stock holders. This is considered illegal, however in some cases the information is necessary to have. Congressional insider trading should be allowed. Since Congress does set the budget, it is essential that they know exactly how the stock market is shaping up, as far as trends go. If Congress does not know who the stock market is doing, they cannot make a budget that suites the American economy. Citizens should not be so skeptical of our Congressional members,with regard to knowing this information. They should trust the people they elect to know how to use this information to benefit the American public, and outline a budget that suites the United States as a world super power. If congress does not have this information, it would be impossible for them to come up with a national budget that is better shapes the economy, and can bring the united States out of whatever turmoil it maybe in.
Teresa Konopka
ReplyDeleteIndependent Study
Narrative Blog
Words 309
Congressional insider trading should not be allowed. There are many flaws in the system, which Henry G. Manne so clearly points out. So many economic consequences are terrible for the state and should--as he claims--be outlawed. The main argument in his piece is that congressional men may receive extra compensation for doing their economic magic, so to speak. Basically, in laymen’s terms, the government officials are getting extra money for doing crafty trading that could have and should have went to hard American workers trying to make ends meat. Also, some government officials may use their secret information for their own personal gain, not just for the gain of the nation. The Securities and Exchange Commission won’t even closely monitor these insider trades. As Manne puts it, the stocks should be left to the brokers, not to the Congressmen.
With that being said, the Big Three automakers should not be bailed out by Congress. Like insider trading, this bail out is simply giving more money to men in power while neglecting hardworking Americans. If a small business owner loses money, no one bails them out. Yet, when Big Name automakers whine to the State, they are being tossed money. If anything, the Big Three should go bankrupt, as Gary Becker puts it. That way, the Big Three would get more competition by selling their companies out to other ones and sharing labor contracts. Also, bankruptcy will make rates less expensive and less of a strain on the American wallet.
Response to peer:
Heather Vale’s passage brings up some good points. She points out that bankruptcy will result in less jobs, as well as years of recovery. I agree with this, but still am against bailing out large companies while ignoring smaller ones. That is just the price that has to be paid.