Some valid points made, and while I acknowledged those, I am highlighting the BS.

This, from Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild, who is a British financier and a member of the Rothschild banking family of England.

If you think hypocrisy has its limits, think again.

The rest of the article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7754768.stm

True, but out of curiosity, who made easy credit available? Didn't it come from the banks? Thought so.

Complex accounting? How about fraudulent accounting?

I don't remember ANY bankers apologizing, and this is a rather odd thing to say by a member of the British banking family.

Sounds like he's rubbing it in.

I wonder why he failed to bring up Wall Street. I don't know who is more incompetent, the 3 companies asking for a $25 Billion LOAN or the banks asking for TRILLIONS of BAILOUT money?

Golden words! Why should taxpayers help those who defaulted on their mortgages and the banks? Indeed, why should taxpayers help those who have so frequently refused to accept responsibility themselves?

Again, if you can't see past this, you must be blind. He is talking about $25 billion. Where did the US gov't get the $700 billion to go to the banks? I guess its credit is much better than imagined - you do have unlimited credit if you can control the printing presses.

The taxpayers were refusing the bankers bailout. Who listened to them?

Don't get me wrong, it's true that things need to change at the Big 3, but they changed, and are continuing to change.

This is just more brainwashing the public over how irresponsible they and these corporations are, with no mention of Wall Street, the Fed, IMF, WorldBank. What a perfect scapegoat for the current recession.

Last I read as of 2002, New York City was hemorrhaging money and it was bailed out either in the 1980s or 1990s. Will check my reference again when I get home.

 

The biggest difference between Wall St. and Detroit when it comes to bailouts and taxpayer loans is an equitable business model. Wall St, AIG, Citigroup, Freddy, Fannie and the lot certainly engaged in the kind of gambling with people’s money that should land them all in jail without the key. But they have a lot of equity and can show a plan to get back on track. Had the economy not gone down they would still be making money albeit on very risky deals but profitable none the less. They don't build anything and thus they play the game of moving numbers and can easily move the numbers back if given some capital and support. This point of view has been helped by their strong support of Washington as they knew playing it close meant one day they could lose it.

The automakers on the other hand have not shown a strong business model and have been loosing market share and money for a long time now. There is speculation that one or two of them would've gone out of business even without this economic collapse within a decade or so anyway. They fought Washington on many fronts and so set themselves up for a stiff battle if they ever needed help. The only reason they are getting their day in front of Congress is because of the economic collapse.

I agree it seems like a double standard and it is in many respects. But we’ve got Washington playing favorites between overachiever Wall St. and rest on its laurels Detroit. Who did you think would have the easier time getting the deal? Money and power talk and Detroit hasn’t had either for quite some time.
I don't agree with it but that's the way it is.

 

Absolutely fantastic post.

I shall try to do a bit of reading and research on this gent and his perfect historical behavior.

I am not defending the carmakers or banks either one, but he should not be the first one to cast a stone at others, that is for sure!

 

The puppets in power are answerable to this man. This man calls the shots and he is clearly sharpening his knife on Detroit.

Remember, America is weakened without a viable automotive industry... and so too are the many other countries where Detroit's Big 3 have a manufacturing base.

 

I think Rothschild's contribution piece to BBC speaks volumes. Why would the biggest czar in the world need to concern himself with automakers in the US, especially since his line of business is strictly banking (supposedly)?

If he came out of the woods just to speak against the automakers (but did not speak about AIG, or Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac, or Citigroup, or Lehman Brothers, or Bear Stearns, it shows he has a vested interest in Detroit, good or evil.

It's either a distraction to direct world eyes (and bailout anger) to the automaker, or there is some (not-so-friendly) history between his cartel and Detroit.

 

He has a vested interest in everything that matters (media, oil, banks, politics, Vatican...). Oh, Detroit is just a drop in the ocean for him when it comes to how much of the world he really owns.

It's a bit hypocritical of him to state Detroit should be making more fuel efficient cars (I don't believe him, I'd like to know what his ulterior motives are for making those comments!) when BMW, Merc... and even Toyota/Lexus essentially make gas guzzlers, too! Hey, didn't I make the comment he owns most of Shell's shares?

And I wonder why he goes on about taxes? Maybe it's because of the taxes we pay, 30% (that's around 4 months worth) ends up in his pockets!!!

And I wonder what he considers a 'fair wage for a day's work' given the amount of work being outsourced to places like India and China, particularly by financial institutions, which he controls?

 

I checked, New York City was indeed BAILED OUT in mid 70s. It was hopelessly in debt, and it went before Congress to ask for $2 BILLION. Congress was told the usual what chaos would ensue should the city not be bailed out. Garbage collection would stop, sanitation services, etc, etc, they even had a political figure from Germany testify before Congress on what huge impact such a catastrophe will have on global economy.

Congress listened...

So what this chap (de Rothschild) says is the opposite of what actually happened.

This is right out of 1984 - Ministry of Truth, department of records.

 

So what you're saying muckz is that that the man is full of it.

Quite a few contradictions there.