Our financial system is crumbling this week.

[TimeForGuinness]

I like eating organic food because it makes me feel more important than poor people.

[Jocephus]

AT&T to slash 12,000 jobs due to economic downturn
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081204/at_t_jobs.html

DuPont warns of quarterly loss, to cut 2,500 jobs
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081204/business_us_dupont.html

Viacom to cut 850 jobs, freeze some raises in 2009
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081204/viacom_cuts.html

Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_ ... l_meltdown

[KyCardinalFan]

AT&T to slash 12,000 jobs due to economic downturn
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081204/at_t_jobs.html

DuPont warns of quarterly loss, to cut 2,500 jobs
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081204/business_us_dupont.html

Viacom to cut 850 jobs, freeze some raises in 2009
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081204/viacom_cuts.html

Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_ ... l_meltdown

So now I'm wondering, if they don't bail out the auto industry, what will the unemployment % be when the 1-2 million who rely on the auto industry lose their jobs? Do you suppose anyone has done a cost comparison of what the auto bailout is versus what unemployment, food stamps, COBRA, lost tax revenues, etc. will cost the government?

[Jocephus]

AT&T to slash 12,000 jobs due to economic downturn
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081204/at_t_jobs.html

DuPont warns of quarterly loss, to cut 2,500 jobs
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/081204/business_us_dupont.html

Viacom to cut 850 jobs, freeze some raises in 2009
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081204/viacom_cuts.html

Employers cut 533K jobs in Nov., most in 34 years

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_ ... l_meltdown

So now I'm wondering, if they don't bail out the auto industry, what will the unemployment % be when the 1-2 million who rely on the auto industry lose their jobs? Do you suppose anyone has done a cost comparison of what the auto bailout is versus what unemployment, food stamps, COBRA, lost tax revenues, etc. will cost the government?

brian williams was on jay leno and they had a good exchange about the auto industry...i was starting to fall asleep so i dont remember all of it, but williams had some stat like...1 in 3 people have a chrysler in their home and if they go under, their car is going to depreciate, where are they going to find parts, who would want a car from a no longer existing company etc...they also mentioned how wall st. got a bailout even though they pretty much did illegal activities and committed fraud...but the car companies are/were just dumb in their planning/ingenuity and might not get one...but then again, leno is a car freak so hes all for them getting a bailout...

it pisses me off that they (the car GM's) just go to DC and say "oh yeah, we have a month left before we go broke...give us public money"

edit: i realize i didn't answer your question...it was more just an addition...

[sparks]

Bush acknowledges recession, automakers' troubles

WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush publicly acknowledged for the first time Friday that the U.S. economy is in a recession and worried aloud that Detroit's Big Three automakers may not all survive their mounting troubles.

While repeatedly listing the serious problems in the economy, the White House has refused to embrace the actual term until Monday, when a panel for the National Bureau of Economic Research said the recession began last December and is ongoing.

He might not be completely responsible for the financial problems we are in but he had a big hand in it. I will be glad to see him go.

[Hungary Jack]

Word is that Chrysler has retained a well-known bankruptcy law firm on the heels of yesterday's begging session before Congress.

If Cerberus refuses to put more cash into Chrysler, what does this say about the company's long term prospects? The TN Senator yesterday basically asserted that the Nardelli was hoping to hold out long enough to find a "marriage partner" (buyer), which is probably quite close to the truth. If the price gets low enough, I wonder if Nissan would buy the company. Carlos Ghosn is one smart CEO.

[TimeForGuinness]

Word is that Chrysler has retained a well-known bankruptcy law firm on the heels of yesterday's begging session before Congress.

If Cerberus refuses to put more cash into Chrysler, what does this say about the company's long term prospects? The TN Senator yesterday basically asserted that the Nardelli was hoping to hold out long enough to find a "marriage partner" (buyer), which is probably quite close to the truth. If the price gets low enough, I wonder if Nissan would buy the company. Carlos Ghosn is one smart CEO.

I know GM said that they would listen to buying Chrysler...which made my brain explode.

[Hungary Jack]

I thought I read a few months ago (or less) that Chrysler had a nice pile of cash to cushion them for awhile, but perhaps this was in reference to Cerberus. But combining Chrysler and GM would solve absolutely nothing as their brands largely compete with eachother (except minivans) while both firms have excess capacity.

None of this will end well, I'm afraid....

[Arthur Dent]

That is why there are such violent reactions to the questioning of the idea that the higher food culture is really about doing the world a big favor.

Okay, Mr Swarty Pants, just what does that mean? As to the violent reaction part of the comment, if you are referring to me then you should understand that my reaction had less to do with some alleged Higher Food Culture than it did with a smarmy know-it-all who, like most know-it-alls, doesn't.

I would like to point out that Mr Pollan is a well respected science writer who writes about and uses the science involved in our food systems. One who had read his writings might understand that he does believe we have abandoned cultural knowledge in pursuit of The Next Big Thing whether that be a diet fad or greater corporate return on investment.
Sure, he incorporates sentimental pap like his belief that humans are social creatures that do better when eating together. Interestingly, that tends to be rooted in an understanding of humans as animals and in evolution. Oddly, rather science-y points of view.

The comment that touched this off was the claim that eating local food is a good way to reduce carbon emissions. Attempts to study this have found less than clear environmental benefits of buying local. It turns out that transportation is not the major carbon source in food production, and local distribution often means inefficient transportation anyway. Some studies have identified cases where buying local dramatically increases carbon emissions. But this doesn't matter because it's the idea of buying local that matters, not the practical environmental consequences. Sadly, I've just missed this chance to pay $35 to eat a locally produced "farm to table" dinner where one of the actual farmers was on hand to discuss my meal. Sounds like an opportunity to celebrate some concept of community production rather than any great environmental gain.

As to Michael Pollan, consider this recent Pollan letter to our new "farmer in chief". In it, he points out the very real problem of high carbon emissions from food production. However, rather than seeing this as part of the larger problem of over reliance on fossil fuels, Pollan instead focuses on the unnatural aspect saying, "we are eating oil." Pollan wants to eliminate the use of synthetic fertilizers in favor of a less productive "sun food agenda" ignoring the possibility of, for example, using alternative energy in fertilizer production. Turning to meat production, Pollan recommends grazing rather than grain feeding, but fails to notice that grass fed beef emit much more carbon than grain fed as this contradicts his ideology of naturalness. And it goes on.

Again, much of what Pollan is writing about are real problems, but he views them through an ideological lens that presumes that the most "natural" solutions are the best ones. What is viewed as "natural" is very often, in reality, a romantic vision of the agrarian past. This is perfectly fine thing for individuals to indulge in if they like but is not a good basis for national policy. Further, I think this romantic ideology has helped spread the impression that environmentalism is really about fashionable consumption and proving that you are greener than thou.

Anyway, my suspicion of this whole area comes not from my status as a technogeek, but rather from my grandfather who was a professor of biology (the old school kind that grew stuff not molecular science) and avid gardener. A strong environmentalist and lover of nature, he nevertheless felt that the reverence for organic methods was a foolish refusal to use human knowledge.

But since we're jumping straight to the name calling phase, I should have probably skipped all that, and just called you a hippie or something.

[Michael]

Debating the merits of organic food is really the final frontier. What else does GRB have left?