interesting stats:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/25-facts-about-the-fall-of-detroit-that-will-leave-you-shaking-your-head
some notable accomplishments:
-An astounding 47 percent of the residents of the city of Detroit are functionally illiterate.
-When you call the police in Detroit, it takes them an average of 58 minutes to respond.
And the Chapter 9 is back on:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-24/detroit-chapter-9-bankruptcy-objections-denied
You didn't really think they'd let a county judge block a 20 billion dollar deal, did you?
Black Democrats have been running Detroit into the ground for 36 years, but...YOU GUESSED IT...IT'S WHITEY'S FAULT!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/msnbcs-michael-eric-dyson-blames-racism-detroit-ba/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&google_editors_picks=true
In case it comes back up, I'd like to point out that the art from the DIA cannot be sold to go towards the cities debts. I posted the below to another board a day or two ago:
The art will not be sold for the purpose of satisfying the debts of the city.
Section F of chapter 5 of the DIA's Collections Management Policy is titled "Use of net proceeds of disposition", and specifically notes that funds from deaccessioning be placed in a fund and used only for acquisition of other materials. DIA CMP: http://usmuseumsurvey.claimscon.org/PDF/1326-58.pdf
The state attorney general also has issued an opinion that the collection may not be sold in such a manner: http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2013/06/attorney_general_issues_opinio.html
The state legislature is also currently in the process of making a law against this particular situation.
The question is: Was the art considered as collateral backing any of the issued debt? Or is the DIA not part of the bankruptcy? Or does any of it matter as they just make new rules up whenever they feel like it these days? (Think GM and Chrysler. Secured bond holder? BERKELEY YOU, HA HA HA HA!!!)
Think of the art as both a tangible item with value, AND an intangible like the rights to a song, but that those can't be separated. Usually, the museum has limited rights to the piece and what they can do with it, even if they "own it". Not sure if there's ever been a similar situation, but i really cannot fathom a bankruptcy court overiding the typical rules, laws etc. that apply.
oldsaw wrote: Maybe Detroit is posed for its' own version of the Renaissance but it won't happen until it rids itself of the disease-carrying vermin that led to its' collapse. Just sayin...
Who, exactly, are the "disease-carrying vermin" you are referring to?
In reply to Xceler8x:
He's talking about the city government.
To put it in a paragraph, what happened to Detroit is the city gov started a bunch of social programs for the poor they couldn't afford(to get votes from them). Then jacked the taxes to compensate, remember that Detroit has a CITY income tax. So after that, combined with a good race riot ( I don't want to go there, they had some decent reasons to riot), all the people with money packed up and headed north, this is that "white flight" you hear about. At the same time(post WW2-70s) you have a lot of poor blacks coming up from the south trying to escape oppression.
Then give it 40 years and you have Detroit, a empty decaying town whose only residents are reliant on a failed micro nanny state. In 1960, it was one of the richest places in the USA. This is what happens when you give the liberals full control of something.
Xceler8x wrote:oldsaw wrote: Maybe Detroit is posed for its' own version of the Renaissance but it won't happen until it rids itself of the disease-carrying vermin that led to its' collapse. Just sayin...Who, exactly, are the "disease-carrying vermin" you are referring to?
My guess would be the corrupt political machine that ran the city into the ground.
I didn't think the Feds would let a small court Judge slow them down.
Speaking of broke...
Yeah, I've been trying to let this go but can't.
Detroit is broke. No denying that. I'd say that all expenditures within Detroit caused this to come about. It wasn't just social programs. It wasn't just poor black folks. Educated or not. It was all the money flying out the coffers for anything. That includes corporate tax breaks to large corporations. (Link) That also includes an agreement with the state of Michigan to lower it's income tax. Guess who that benefits most? It's not the poor. (Link). That link in part talks about how the state has essentially defaulted on an agreement that cost Detroit $224 million dollars. That also includes subsidies to corporations who under pay their employees. This in turn requires Detroit, and other cities, to subsidize the corporations employees requiring all the social programs needed to feed a family when your only income is a minimum wage that has less earning potential than it did in 1968. (Link) By the way, 40% of Americans now earn this wage. Let's also consider (from the same link):
Had the minimum wage kept pace with gains in the country's productivity since 1968, it would be $16.54 an hour today, as opposed to the current level of $7.25 per hour.
Admittedly this is more of a national problem than Detroit specific. It's still a factor as Detroit has been fighting the growing gulf between the rich and poor for longer than many other major cities. It's quite possible Detroit is the canary in a coal mine for the rest of the country in this case.
It sounds like you blame the poor and black for a bankrupt Detroit. Social programs, white flight, poor blacks. I think the lot of you blaming black folks or the poor for Detroit's problems should take into account the expenditures made to the entities who needed it the least - Corporations and the rich. You should also remember that the rich and corporate also sucked at Detroit's teat for decades and often for much more gain than the poor or black.
Also, I see some of you post about how black folks are to blame for this. You're implying that if this were a white city, it wouldn't have happened. You should take a long stern look at yourself and ask why race has anything to do with this. There are a lot of cities teetering on the brink in this economy. They're not all red. They're not all blue. It's a mix so liberalism and conservatism often don't factor into whether a state has a thriving economy. Not all of them are predominantly black. What are you going to blame then?
Also, This?
Kenny_McCormic wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: This is what happens when you give the liberals full control of something.
This is what's wrong with the country today. If you think this is a liberal vs conservative thing you're way past blind. It's not about politics or race. It's about what it's always been about...money. If you don't know what side you're on, check your bank account. If it has less digits than the politician representing you, you're on my side. Don't let the current crop of bought and paid for politicians divide and conquer us to the benefit of the ruling class. If you doubt we have a ruling class...watch who always walks when their court case is done.
"Had the minimum wage kept pace with gains in the country's productivity since 1968, it would be $16.54 an hour today, as opposed to the current level of $7.25 per hour."
If this was the case there would be no small businesses left in the USA.
You've got me all wrong man. Both political parties suck, but in this case, it was a bunch of corrupt liberal democrats and democrat voting unions with unchecked control for decades that destroyed Detroit. You cant deny that.
You certainly are right about Detroit being an example of things to come in this country.
Kenny_McCormic wrote: You certainly are right about Detroit being an example of things to come in this country.
So does that mean every city will see an influx of hipsters and our economy will be based upon "artisan" t-shirt companies and a loan company who somehow survived the recession even though they handed out sub-prime mortgages like candy?
Mazda787b wrote:Kenny_McCormic wrote: You certainly are right about Detroit being an example of things to come in this country.So does that mean every city will see an influx of hipsters and our economy will be based upon "artisan" t-shirt companies and a loan company who somehow survived the recession even though they handed out sub-prime mortgages like candy?
After 30-40 years of economic ruin, fleeing populations and decay, probably.
aussiesmg wrote: "Had the minimum wage kept pace with gains in the country's productivity since 1968, it would be $16.54 an hour today, as opposed to the current level of $7.25 per hour." If this was the case there would be no small businesses left in the USA.
How do you know that? There were plenty of small businesses in 1968 and they survived than. Australia now has a min wage equal to $16.88USD and they seem to be doing OK too, infact people were holding up Australia as a bastion of freedom just the other day on here, yet their evil government insists that people are paid at least $16.88 an hour.
Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: and look at prices in Australia. Wages are higher, but so are things you buy.
Consumer and cost of livin gprices look to be about 30-35% higher there offset by a minimum wage 130% higher. Seems like a good deal for the working poor and economic growth doesn't seem to be suffering there.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
in addition to what looks like a nearly zero sum game based on the limited numberset you gave...
absent from your post is Australia's tax liabilities.
madmallard wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: in addition to what looks like a nearly zero sum game based on the limited numberset you gave... absent from your post is Australia's tax liabilities.
Not arguing, but there are a lot of countries with min wages way higher than here and they haven't ground to a halt. The min wage will kill small business line get's rolled out every time, and it never comes to pass.
We're floundering up the Detroit bashing to let's get back to our regularly schedualed bashing OK?
All I know is the Redwings suck. 
93EXCivic wrote: All I know is the Redwings suck.
Redwings? what's that? oh yeah a bunch of guys playing a girls game, don't care about them, insult away.
93EXCivic wrote: All I know is the Redwings suck.
The Pistons do as well.....this might have been the best thing that happened in detroit in the last decade....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-swicCpWmNE
yamaha wrote: The Pistons do as well
Maybe they should switch to Rotaries?
yamaha wrote:93EXCivic wrote: All I know is the Redwings suck.The Pistons do as well.....this might have been the best thing that happened in detroit in the last decade....
You mean aside from the CHAMPIONSHIP that the Wings won in 2008 (their fourth since 1997) and the two world series appearances by the Tigers? Let's not forget that the brawl happened when the Pistons were the defending CHAMPIONS and were in the midst of something like 6 straight conference final appearances.
Now, the Lions, on the other hand...... 
You'll need to log in to post.
