CEOs of Ford, GM Will Accept $1 Salaries in U.S. Bailout; UAW Leaders to Meet to Discuss Labor Pacts
The Big Three auto makers will submit recovery plans to Congress on Tuesday that emphasize cost-cutting, downsizing and renewed emphasis on higher-mileage cars in a bid to win support for a federal bailout.
Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Alan Mulally plans to tell Congress he is accelerating his company's development of hybrid and electric vehicles and is willing to cut his salary to $1 a year if Ford uses any federal funds.
General Motors Corp. is expected to focus on efforts to lighten the company's heavy debt load and consolidate or sell at least one of its eight automotive brands, most likely Saab, people familiar with the matter said. GM CEO Rick Wagoner also will take a $1 salary, those people said. Chrysler LLC is likely to emphasize its need for cash to stabilize the company and eventually join an alliance with one or more foreign auto makers, a person close to Chrysler said.
Meanwhile, top leaders and consultants for the United Auto Workers union, under pressure to deliver concessions, will meet Wednesday in Detroit to discuss potentially tweaking labor agreements, people familiar with the matter said Monday.
For the further article go on:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122817144031770385.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us#
Comment:
As in earlier comments discussed in this blog, the big three are struggling not only because of the bad economy but also because they missed the train to focus on highly fuel-efficient cars. Especially because they are focused on powerful cars like the huge pick-ups which a lot of Americans really like. But those trucks are not really competitive like in Europe where the focus is more on cars with alternative energy use. Finally, the big three have to realize it in a hurting way. At least, they are taking drastic measures now in order to get more competitive again and to lower the financial burden.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Thursday, December 4, 2008
China Fears Restive Migrants As Jobs Disappear in Cities
SHUANGFU VILLAGE, China -- Fan Junchao has spent most of the past five years living hundreds of miles from his small family farm here. Encouraged by the local government, he leased out his meager plot and worked on construction crews in big cities, making several times what he could have earned on crops.
Laid off migrant workers across China are returning home to villages like Shuangfu, above.
Now his construction project has been halted, and Mr. Fan has returned home. "Right now, I don't have a plan," he says. "I'm just taking it one step at a time."
Mr. Fan is among hundreds of thousands of China's 130 million migrant workers -- known as the "floating population" -- being cast out of urban jobs in factories and at construction sites.
China's roaring industrial economy has been abruptly quieted by the effects of the global financial crisis. Rural provinces that supplied much of China's factory manpower are watching the beginnings of a wave of reverse migration that has the potential to shake the stability of the world's most populous nation.
Fast-rising unemployment has led to an unusual series of strikes and protests. Normally cautious government officials have offered quick concessions and talk openly of their worries about social unrest. Laid-off factory workers in Dongguan overturned patrol cars and clashed with police last Tuesday, and hundreds of taxis parked in front of a government office in nearby Chaozhou over the weekend, one of a series of driver protests.
On Wednesday, workers let go from a liquor factory in northern China mounted a protest in Beijing, at the parent company's headquarters. In the latest sign of economic stress, China's currency fell Monday by its single largest margin on record against the dollar, on expectations the central bank might devalue it to prop up sagging growth.
As the government tries to calm tensions in the cities, it also fears that newly unemployed migrants returning home could upend the already-strained social system in the countryside.
For the rest of the article go on:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816637753369999.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us#
Comment:
China was not the economically wealthiest country before the boom started. This boom mostly has happened in urban areas. Although rural areas have not directly profited from this boom, rural citizens saw the opportunities in the big cities and migrated. The result was that these citizens from rural areas also gained indirectly a piece of that big cake.
Since China is not immune to recession the bad economy also affects China. The former rural citizens migrate back to the their homes, which will have also have an affect on China's economy. It will be interesting to follow how China will hold up.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Laid off migrant workers across China are returning home to villages like Shuangfu, above.
Now his construction project has been halted, and Mr. Fan has returned home. "Right now, I don't have a plan," he says. "I'm just taking it one step at a time."
Mr. Fan is among hundreds of thousands of China's 130 million migrant workers -- known as the "floating population" -- being cast out of urban jobs in factories and at construction sites.
China's roaring industrial economy has been abruptly quieted by the effects of the global financial crisis. Rural provinces that supplied much of China's factory manpower are watching the beginnings of a wave of reverse migration that has the potential to shake the stability of the world's most populous nation.
Fast-rising unemployment has led to an unusual series of strikes and protests. Normally cautious government officials have offered quick concessions and talk openly of their worries about social unrest. Laid-off factory workers in Dongguan overturned patrol cars and clashed with police last Tuesday, and hundreds of taxis parked in front of a government office in nearby Chaozhou over the weekend, one of a series of driver protests.
On Wednesday, workers let go from a liquor factory in northern China mounted a protest in Beijing, at the parent company's headquarters. In the latest sign of economic stress, China's currency fell Monday by its single largest margin on record against the dollar, on expectations the central bank might devalue it to prop up sagging growth.
As the government tries to calm tensions in the cities, it also fears that newly unemployed migrants returning home could upend the already-strained social system in the countryside.
For the rest of the article go on:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816637753369999.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us#
Comment:
China was not the economically wealthiest country before the boom started. This boom mostly has happened in urban areas. Although rural areas have not directly profited from this boom, rural citizens saw the opportunities in the big cities and migrated. The result was that these citizens from rural areas also gained indirectly a piece of that big cake.
Since China is not immune to recession the bad economy also affects China. The former rural citizens migrate back to the their homes, which will have also have an affect on China's economy. It will be interesting to follow how China will hold up.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Germany's economy – A little stimulus
Even in recession, Germany is the last of the small spenders
CHINA is to spend $586 billion to prop up growth. Japan plans $275 billion-worth of economic stimulus. America’s government is expected to pump out still more cash. Into this fiscal pot Germany has tossed a few coins: it has unfurled an “umbrella for jobs”, 15 small-bore measures that include €12 billion ($15 billion) of fresh spending over two years, or roughly 0.25% of GDP. This will trigger €50 billion of investment, promised Chancellor Angela Merkel. But pressure is on the world’s third-largest economy, which sank deeply into recession in the third quarter, to do more.
The German budget was close to balance in 2007 and may be in surplus this year, a claim few other rich countries can make (see chart). The world’s biggest exporter of goods boasts a current-account surplus that is expected to reach 7% of GDP this year. Rather than spend, Germans have been paying higher taxes and exercising wage restraint to make their firms more competitive: consumption has been flat. This suggests that Germany should be among the first to seize the Keynesian moment that the financial crisis has brought about. Its trading partners certainly think so. Germany “has the possibility to use tax policy to support demand,” says the European Union’s economics commissioner, Joaquín Almunia.
So what holds it back? Spending packages enacted to fight slumps in the 1970s produced little but new debt. Since then the prevailing wisdom has been that they do not work. Governments that boost spending in bad times rarely pare it back later. When people see that debts, and thus taxes, are heading up they tend to save more rather than spend, says Joachim Scheide of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (this phenomenon is known as Ricardian equivalence). The grand coalition of Ms Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) was set on balancing the federal budget by 2011. The target will not be met, the government admits, but that is no reason to splurge. Even the term economic package is taboo. The umbrella “is not a stimulus package of the old style,” insists the finance minister, Peer Steinbrück.
For the complete article see the link below:
Link:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12607268&fsrc=rss
Comment:
Whereas all other countries or economies spend tremendous amounts of money to get out of the recession, Germany has been more than moderate, which is very fascinating. One of the reasons is probably that Germany has a way better economic foundation, such as levying huge amounts of taxes, than most other countries do and additionally the fact that they are the world's biggest exporter. So, with these prerequisites Germany needs a little stimulus to boost the economy than their counterparts need. If Germany's plan works out, will be very interesting to follow.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Britain's recession - Job losses – When it gets personal
Job losses The downturn is now gripping the labour market
FOR many Britons, especially workers and those looking for jobs, the past few days were when it all sank in. Falling GDP is one thing, a worry to be sure but still abstract. Lay-offs are another, evoking the insecurity of the recession in the early 1990s.
Scarcely a day goes past now without an announcement of job cuts. On November 13th BT, a telecoms company that has cut 4,000 jobs since April, said it planned to get rid of a further 6,000 by next spring; most of the losses, which include workers employed by outside contractors as well as the firm’s own staff, will be in Britain. On November 17th Citigroup outlined big job losses around the world; among these will be some of the American bank’s 11,000 employees in Britain. The following day Wolseley, a building-materials firm, said that it would cut around 2,000 British jobs.
Already, unemployment has started a menacing climb. The jobless rate has risen from 5.2% in the first three months of 2008 to 5.8% in the third quarter. That has taken the number of people out of work and looking for jobs to over 1.8m, the highest since 1997. The narrower measure of people claiming unemployment benefit (which excludes in particular many jobless women because their partners’ earnings make them ineligible for it) is poised to break through the politically sensitive 1m mark. The three months to October saw a rise of 108,500, the biggest such increase since the end of 1992.
It will get a lot worse before it gets better. A forecast from the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) this week portrays the pain that lies ahead. The employers’ group thinks the claimant count will rise to 1.9m in 2010, and the wider measure of unemployment to 2.9m. That will push the jobless rate to 9%, worryingly close to the previous peak of 10.7% in 1993 (see chart).
All this will put a chill in the air after 15 years in which workers have generally not had to worry about losing their jobs. Indeed, employment grew steadily, on an annual basis, from a low of 25.3m in 1993 to a peak of 29.5m this spring. When the economy slowed, as it did in 2002 and 2005, employers did not sack workers but instead clung on to them.
But in the third quarter of this year, employment fell by almost 100,000 from the previous three months. That decline looks set to worsen as firms batten down the hatches. Employers were reluctant to get rid of staff because redundancies are expensive and destroy morale among those who keep their jobs, says John Philpott, chief economist of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Now many believe they have no other option. Although a slowdown in immigration may soften the blow for those seeking work, the impact will still be severe.
Initially, job cuts were most apparent in finance and homebuilding. Now they are spreading throughout the private sector, says Lai Wah Co, the CBI’s head of economic analysis. Manufacturers surveyed by her group are more pessimistic about the outlook for production over the next three months than at any time since 1980.
The regional profile of the recession is changing too. London is particularly vulnerable because of its dependence on financial services. A study for the Local Government Association published this week suggests that London will lose 374,000 jobs—a bigger share of its employment than elsewhere—over the next two years.
But early hopes that other regions might get off lightly have been dashed. Over the past year, the jobless rate has risen more in the north-east and in Yorkshire and the Humber than in London, and by as much in Wales. As the economic woe ripples out from finance, no part of the country will be spared a sharp rise in unemployment, says Mr Philpott. Across Britain, the recession is turning personal.
Link:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=12641916
Comment:
The recession started in the U.S., belongs to one of the causes why recessions in other countries started as well. The affects of the U.S. recession have also an impact on Great Britain's economy, because American companies located in GB cut back in labor.
Great Britain is facing the worst recession since the early 1990s. Job losses belong to the agenda.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Oil demand
The world’s demand for primary energy will grow by 45% between 2006 and 2030, according to new forecasts from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The global demand for oil is expected to rise from 85m to 106m barrels a day. The thirst for oil among the mostly rich countries in the OECD is set to fall—so that all and more of the increase in oil demand will come from developing economies. The IEA reckons China will account for 43% of the rise in demand, with India and the Middle East contributing around 20% each. With oil consumption comes pollution. The IEA predicts that three-quarters of the increase in emissions between now and 2030 will come from China, India and the Middle East.Link:
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12607120&fsrc=rss
Comment:
The economy is very oil hungry which the chart above shows clearly. The economy is doing remarkable efforts in every aspect to improve fuel efficiency or invent alternative usages of other energy sources, such as hybrid cars, photovoltaics, etc. But all these efforts and ideas seem to develop very slow compared to our hunger for more and more oil. Without shifting in the highest gear for more improvements and consistent usage of alternative energy by everybody, there will be a disaster once all oil resources exhausted.
Oezguer (Oscar).
The car industry – Pass the plate
If Detroit’s carmakers are bailed out, Europe’s will be next in line
NOT only in Washington, DC, is there a fierce debate over state aid to the beleaguered car industry. On November 18th, just as the bosses of General Motors (GM), Ford and Chrysler were lining up before the Senate banking committee to ask for help, the directors of the European Investment Bank, the European Union’s lending arm, were considering whether to give Europe’s carmakers €40 billion ($51 billion) in soft loans. The previous day the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, had met executives of GM’s European subsidiary, Opel, to discuss guaranteeing a €1 billion liquidity line in the “worst case” of its American parent going bankrupt.
Despite the appearance of similarity on both sides of the Atlantic, however, there are big differences. For one thing, the plight of the Detroit Three is much more urgent. GM’s boss, Rick Wagoner, told the senators that the economy faced “catastrophic collapse” if bridging loans were not quickly made available. He gave warning that by the year’s end GM might not have enough money to pay its bills. Ford’s cash position is stronger—company insiders reckon that it might be able to scrape through on its own resources—but its chief executive, Alan Mulally, was not on Capitol Hill just for the ride. He fears that if either Chrysler or GM (particularly GM, since it is so much bigger) were to fail, the impact on the parts suppliers on which all three firms depend could bring down Ford as well.
The Detroit Three can be reasonably confident of getting some help—eventually. Next year a sympathetic President Obama, and big Democratic majorities in both houses of the new Congress, should ensure that. But will that be too late? As The Economist went to press there seemed little chance that the Senate would pass a bill to allow the carmakers to get $25 billion of bridging finance from the $700 billion package set up to bail out the financial system. Many Republicans strongly opposed the idea of diverting funds to carmakers.
The condition of Europe’s carmakers is hardly healthy, but unlike their Detroit counterparts they are still some way from the critical list. J.D. Power, a market-research firm, forecasts that the western European market will shrink by 7.9% this year, compared with a 16% drop in America. But things are getting grimmer by the day. J.D. Power expects a further 10.5% contraction in Europe in 2009. Renault, which is cutting 6,000 jobs in Europe, thinks the market could shrink by 20%.
As in America, there is disagreement both within the industry and among politicians about whether special aid is needed and, if so, what form it should take. Already, there has been a chorus of dissent over the prospect of Opel being singled out for help. And if aid is provided, what strings should be attached? The European Commission, which has been battling the carmakers over the introduction of tough CO2-emission rules in 2012, will want to make any aid dependent on assurances that the industry will build more fuel-efficient cars (an echo of a $25 billion package approved by Congress in September, from which nothing has yet been disbursed).
The German makers, who build the biggest, fastest cars, and are therefore having to spend most to reduce their emissions, are in favour of such a subsidy. But the French and Italians, who specialise in producing economical cars, say they are quite capable of complying with the new rules without any help from the taxpayer—and do not see why the Germans should benefit from their own profligacy. They would prefer Europe-wide “scrapping” incentives to encourage sales of new cars.
Even within the commission, there are differences. “I’d welcome it if everything was done to prevent an important and traditional car producer in Europe from dropping out of the competition for reasons it is not responsible for,” says the industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen. But Neelie Kroes, the competition commissioner, rejects any comparison between the car industry and the financial sector, and has warned member countries against offering their carmakers unfair subsidies.
Much depends on what the Americans decide to do. One option for Europe, assuming the Detroit Three get their money, would be to complain to the World Trade Organisation. But Ford and GM are too important to Europe’s car industry to make that probable. The betting is that Europe’s carmakers will get a helping hand too—even if they do not really need it.
Link:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12638642&fsrc=rss
Comment:
It seems that Europe is playing tough hardball with the big three compared to the U.S. Europe does not want to grant the money right away like the U.S. government and waits up the worst case. In my point of view, the earlier the big three get the money the better they can turn things around. If Europe waits too long, it is just going to get more difficult for the car companies to get out of that mess. On the other hand, the big three are not the only car companies who are affected. So, by granting them the governmental help, other European car companies will jump on the band wagon and solicit money as well.
Oezguer (Oscar).
NOT only in Washington, DC, is there a fierce debate over state aid to the beleaguered car industry. On November 18th, just as the bosses of General Motors (GM), Ford and Chrysler were lining up before the Senate banking committee to ask for help, the directors of the European Investment Bank, the European Union’s lending arm, were considering whether to give Europe’s carmakers €40 billion ($51 billion) in soft loans. The previous day the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, had met executives of GM’s European subsidiary, Opel, to discuss guaranteeing a €1 billion liquidity line in the “worst case” of its American parent going bankrupt.
Despite the appearance of similarity on both sides of the Atlantic, however, there are big differences. For one thing, the plight of the Detroit Three is much more urgent. GM’s boss, Rick Wagoner, told the senators that the economy faced “catastrophic collapse” if bridging loans were not quickly made available. He gave warning that by the year’s end GM might not have enough money to pay its bills. Ford’s cash position is stronger—company insiders reckon that it might be able to scrape through on its own resources—but its chief executive, Alan Mulally, was not on Capitol Hill just for the ride. He fears that if either Chrysler or GM (particularly GM, since it is so much bigger) were to fail, the impact on the parts suppliers on which all three firms depend could bring down Ford as well.
The Detroit Three can be reasonably confident of getting some help—eventually. Next year a sympathetic President Obama, and big Democratic majorities in both houses of the new Congress, should ensure that. But will that be too late? As The Economist went to press there seemed little chance that the Senate would pass a bill to allow the carmakers to get $25 billion of bridging finance from the $700 billion package set up to bail out the financial system. Many Republicans strongly opposed the idea of diverting funds to carmakers.
The condition of Europe’s carmakers is hardly healthy, but unlike their Detroit counterparts they are still some way from the critical list. J.D. Power, a market-research firm, forecasts that the western European market will shrink by 7.9% this year, compared with a 16% drop in America. But things are getting grimmer by the day. J.D. Power expects a further 10.5% contraction in Europe in 2009. Renault, which is cutting 6,000 jobs in Europe, thinks the market could shrink by 20%.
As in America, there is disagreement both within the industry and among politicians about whether special aid is needed and, if so, what form it should take. Already, there has been a chorus of dissent over the prospect of Opel being singled out for help. And if aid is provided, what strings should be attached? The European Commission, which has been battling the carmakers over the introduction of tough CO2-emission rules in 2012, will want to make any aid dependent on assurances that the industry will build more fuel-efficient cars (an echo of a $25 billion package approved by Congress in September, from which nothing has yet been disbursed).
The German makers, who build the biggest, fastest cars, and are therefore having to spend most to reduce their emissions, are in favour of such a subsidy. But the French and Italians, who specialise in producing economical cars, say they are quite capable of complying with the new rules without any help from the taxpayer—and do not see why the Germans should benefit from their own profligacy. They would prefer Europe-wide “scrapping” incentives to encourage sales of new cars.
Even within the commission, there are differences. “I’d welcome it if everything was done to prevent an important and traditional car producer in Europe from dropping out of the competition for reasons it is not responsible for,” says the industry commissioner, Günter Verheugen. But Neelie Kroes, the competition commissioner, rejects any comparison between the car industry and the financial sector, and has warned member countries against offering their carmakers unfair subsidies.
Much depends on what the Americans decide to do. One option for Europe, assuming the Detroit Three get their money, would be to complain to the World Trade Organisation. But Ford and GM are too important to Europe’s car industry to make that probable. The betting is that Europe’s carmakers will get a helping hand too—even if they do not really need it.
Link:
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12638642&fsrc=rss
Comment:
It seems that Europe is playing tough hardball with the big three compared to the U.S. Europe does not want to grant the money right away like the U.S. government and waits up the worst case. In my point of view, the earlier the big three get the money the better they can turn things around. If Europe waits too long, it is just going to get more difficult for the car companies to get out of that mess. On the other hand, the big three are not the only car companies who are affected. So, by granting them the governmental help, other European car companies will jump on the band wagon and solicit money as well.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Gun sales – Booming
A surge in the run-up to the election
MANY sorts of Americans are happy that Barack Obama has been elected to be their 44th president: blacks, rich whites, Hispanics, women, the young. But no one seems happier, at the moment, than the owners of gun shops.
According to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (the FBI body that oversees applications for people who want to buy guns), the number of checks run between January and October this year rose by 9%, compared with the same period in 2007. Even more dramatically, the body reports that 15.4% more checks took place in October 2008 than in October 2007.
Gun enthusiasts reckon there is a simple reason: Barack Obama. “It’s clear from President-elect Obama’s voting record and statements that gun-control policies, including gun bans, will be back on the table. Law-abiding Americans are recognising this and acting accordingly,” says Ted Novin, director of public relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Mr Novin is perplexed by, and therefore wary of, the seemingly contradictory messages on guns that Mr Obama has put out during his time as an Illinois senator and as a presidential candidate. Back in the old days, Mr Obama used to sound supportive of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. But when this was overturned by the Supreme Court in June, Mr Obama welcomed the decision. Mr Novin says he does not understand what the president-elect means when he calls for “commonsense safety measures” for guns. To add to his perplexity, he notes that Mr Obama’s website stated that he “believes that the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” What to believe?
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is equally unimpressed. “The President-elect’s campaign rhetoric did not match his voting record,” states Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. The NRA thinks that next year the Democratic president and the incoming, more strongly Democratic, Congress will start by going for a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles, such as the Russian-made AK-47, or AR-15’s, which are a favourite with police departments. The association has sponsored a website, www.gunbanobama.com, whose title is self-explanatory.
Meanwhile, gun sales are going like gangbusters. Chuck Wiggins, manager of the Patriot Arms gun shop in a suburb of Tampa, Florida, says that ever since Mr Obama became a contender “the sales of assault rifles here have at least tripled; I can’t keep enough of them stocked. And ammunition is selling out so fast that I’m calling manufacturers to try to find some more to buy.”
Link:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/economist/full_print_edition/~3/UZbPM2YaGg8/displaystory.cfm
Comment:
In my point of view people should not be allowed to carry guns at all. It just raises the potential of crimes. Even though some might use their guns only for self-protection, there is most likely the risk that criminals have it easier to obtain guns as well.
President Obama is very contradictory in his statements and when he supports gun bans once again, that will hurt his credibility. He has to be more careful especially in his position as the president of the United States.
Oezguer (Oscar).
MANY sorts of Americans are happy that Barack Obama has been elected to be their 44th president: blacks, rich whites, Hispanics, women, the young. But no one seems happier, at the moment, than the owners of gun shops.
According to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (the FBI body that oversees applications for people who want to buy guns), the number of checks run between January and October this year rose by 9%, compared with the same period in 2007. Even more dramatically, the body reports that 15.4% more checks took place in October 2008 than in October 2007.
Gun enthusiasts reckon there is a simple reason: Barack Obama. “It’s clear from President-elect Obama’s voting record and statements that gun-control policies, including gun bans, will be back on the table. Law-abiding Americans are recognising this and acting accordingly,” says Ted Novin, director of public relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Mr Novin is perplexed by, and therefore wary of, the seemingly contradictory messages on guns that Mr Obama has put out during his time as an Illinois senator and as a presidential candidate. Back in the old days, Mr Obama used to sound supportive of the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns. But when this was overturned by the Supreme Court in June, Mr Obama welcomed the decision. Mr Novin says he does not understand what the president-elect means when he calls for “commonsense safety measures” for guns. To add to his perplexity, he notes that Mr Obama’s website stated that he “believes that the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” What to believe?
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is equally unimpressed. “The President-elect’s campaign rhetoric did not match his voting record,” states Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. The NRA thinks that next year the Democratic president and the incoming, more strongly Democratic, Congress will start by going for a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles, such as the Russian-made AK-47, or AR-15’s, which are a favourite with police departments. The association has sponsored a website, www.gunbanobama.com, whose title is self-explanatory.
Meanwhile, gun sales are going like gangbusters. Chuck Wiggins, manager of the Patriot Arms gun shop in a suburb of Tampa, Florida, says that ever since Mr Obama became a contender “the sales of assault rifles here have at least tripled; I can’t keep enough of them stocked. And ammunition is selling out so fast that I’m calling manufacturers to try to find some more to buy.”
Link:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/economist/full_print_edition/~3/UZbPM2YaGg8/displaystory.cfm
Comment:
In my point of view people should not be allowed to carry guns at all. It just raises the potential of crimes. Even though some might use their guns only for self-protection, there is most likely the risk that criminals have it easier to obtain guns as well.
President Obama is very contradictory in his statements and when he supports gun bans once again, that will hurt his credibility. He has to be more careful especially in his position as the president of the United States.
Oezguer (Oscar).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)