Looking over the recent history of America's automakers, one theme seems to stand out. Regardless of their situation, the economy, or the issue at hand, the Big Three have an almost preternatural ability to determine the most foolish course of action and pursue it with amazing vigor.

Regardless of whether we're talking about the Ford Motor Company's (NYSE: F) decision to focus its attention on cars (to the detriment of its truck lines), Chrysler's decision to channel stuff its dealerships, or General Motors' (NYSE: GM) decision to sit on its fuel cell cars, Detroit seems determined to misjudge the economy and the customers.

At their best, the three have minimized innovation while milking their successes. At their worst, they have spent time and money on expensive acquisitions or dead-end technologies, to the detriment of their bottom line.

Oil prices inched up slightly today, despite the fact that inventories swelled much more than the market had anticipated last week. Going into today's inventory report from the U.S. Department of Energy, analysts had been expecting to see an increase in oil inventories last week. But, on average, analysts had been expecting that the increase would be around 3.4 million barrels, and the actual increase was much larger, with a reported 6.2 million increase: a very bearish indicator.

Typically when we see inventories rise so much higher than expected, we would expect to see traders push oil prices lower, but not today. Instead, oil was able to move a bit higher on the day, trading up 58 cents a barrel to $42.16. Earlier in the session prices had been up as high as $43.60.

Shares of Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT) have moved strongly higher in today's action after the defense contractor put up better than expected numbers for its fourth quarter this morning.

Going into today's earnings release, analysts had been expecting to see the company show $1.92 per share, but the company came in well above those estimates, with a reported $2.05 a share for its quarter ending December 31.

This morning's good news was slightly balanced by the company's announcement that its upcoming full year 2009 profit was probably going to be lower than it had previously forecast, a result of increasing pension expenses. The market was tough on the company's pension plan in 2008, and drove the plan's value down by 28%. The resulting increase in pension expenses forced Lockheed Martin to lower its full year 2009 profit guidance down to between $7.05 and $7.25 from a previous estimate of between $7.65 and $7.90 per share.

Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S) has urged President Obama's administration to pony up $2 billion dollars to build and enable a nationwide emergency wireless network that could help response teams and first responders immensely when a disaster occurs. While that may not be high on the new President's priority list, it should fall in there somewhere in the next 18 months.

There is still no nationwide advanced communications network to assist responders as soon and efficiently as possible in the wake of a terrorist or natural disaster. Thinking back to overloaded wireless networks (and non-functioning towers) during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, there's the proof that something like this is needed. Is Sprint the right company to build it? It says $2 billion and one year is all that it would take.

Sprint's suggestion says the $2 billion -- which would come from the "bailout money" (whatever that is, heh) -- would make a new emergency network operable for up to five years. It would include 100 satellite-based cells placed strategically around the U.S. and 100,000 ready-to-use handsets to work on the new network. Perhaps this is Sprint's way to continue utilizing its Nextel assets for something other than a network that loses customers every quarter.

The honeymoon between President-elect Barack Obama and the American people may end about the time crews finish cleaning up from tomorrow's inauguration festivities. For now, the American people and Congress are willing to cut the charismatic politician some slack, especially when it comes to his troubled nominee for Treasury Secretary.

Priority number one for the first African-American leader of the free world is the U.S. economy. It's more important than the war in Gaza, more important than education and more important than the fight against terrorism. The U.S. economy is in its worst shape since the early 1980s. If the slump, which has already lasted 12 months, lingers for more than 16 months than it will equal the Great Depression, according to Reuters.

Obama is well aware of the challenges that lie ahead. CNN reports that he is planning to meet with his top aides Wednesday "to map out how to step up his personal lobbying efforts to get Congress to pass his stimulus plan, which has a price tag of $825 billion."

When Hank Paulson scared Congress into passing the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP) last fall, he said that it would be used to buy toxic waste from banks. That never happened. All we know is that $350 billion of our taxpayer money is gone and that most of it went to banks and a bit to the auto industry. What are they doing with our money? How is the government measuring the success of TARP? Is it helping? Until we get those answers, we should not allow more good money to be thrown after bad.

What we have now is a bunch of talk. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) said "Without the first TARP, we may have a Dow at 4,000 right now and the economy in an absolutely free fall." Thanks Kent -- I'd like to see your proof for that claim. Why not Dow 400? Progress on finding out what happened to the money is coming from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) who got Treasury to cough up contracts between the government and 10 financial institutions -- by threatening a subpoena.

The so-called "death tax" refuses to die.

Despite pleading from Republicans to kill the estate tax, President-elect Barack Obama plans to do no such thing. According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama and congressional leaders "plan to move soon to block the estate tax from disappearing in 2010."

George W. Bush has made eliminating the death tax one of the cornerstones of his economic policy before the current crisis. Critics of the tax dubbed it "the death tax" as if Uncle Sam in standing before the pearly gates of heaven with his hat in his hand. They claim it is a huge burden to small businesses. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Data from experts show that a small number -- several hundred -- small family businesses ever pay the tax. Only individuals with estates of more than $2 million and couples with more than $4 million estates are subject to the tax. Estate taxes are designed -- in theory anyway -- to prevent the U.S. from developing a European-style aristocracy based on familial wealth. That's why Warren Buffett backs the tax.

Steve Rattner -- a major Democratic party fundraiser who heads the investment firm Quadrangle Group is the leading candidate for a position that does not formally -- and should never in my view -- exist. That is, Rattner for Car Czar. The Car Czar's job -- if Congress creates it -- will fix the U.S. automobile industry by using the threat of throwing the companies into bankruptcy to force economic "haircuts" on labor unions, dealers, bondholders and others.

I worked with Rattner in the Kerry presidential campaign and hold him in high regard. He worked to raise money for Hillary Clinton and when she did not win the nomination Rattner raised $100,000 for Barack Obama. And Rattner does not just serve Democrats -- reportedly he is managing independent New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $13 billion fortune. I find that feat to be a remarkable testimony to Rattner's investment acumen.

Nevertheless, I think it would be better to find a different way to use Rattner's talents. If the Car Czar position does get created, it should go to an individual with demonstrated experience turning around large organizations in deep trouble. The person who comes to mind is Louis Gerstner who fixed International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM). Gerstner is not a car guy but he knows how to fix a big organization and could bring in automotive expertise as needed.

Rattner would be an asset to Obama's administration, but if there must be a Car Czar -- find a better fit.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College. His eighth book is You Can't Order Change: Lessons from Jim McNerney's Turnaround at Boeing. He has no financial interest in IBM securities.

In February 1964, John glanced out his airplane window as the jetliner slowly approached the terminal at the then newly-renamed John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and saw what looked like thousands of people gathered, packed together, mostly female, mostly young, waving frantically.

They were waving their hats, their hands, pushing against the dozens of New York City policemen, who tried, mostly in vain, to maintain some semblance of a police line.

Paul and George then quickly rushed to their airplane windows and saw the crowd, as well.

Ringo then glanced over from his seat on the other side of the plane, and upon seeing the crowd, mumbled, "I guess the governor or do you think maybe the president has just arrived?"

It was at that point that John, Paul, George, and Ringo suddenly realized who the crowd had gathered for.

**
On January 20, 2009 an enormous crowd - - perhaps 2 million or maybe more - - will gather in Washington, D.C. to see Barack Obama inaugurated as the 44th president of the United States. And they'll no doubt be lots of cheers and people waving frantically.

This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Willard Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, was the wealthiest of all the 2008 presidential candidates. When he formally announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president on February 13, 2007, the former venture capitalist was believed to have amassed a fortune worth as much as $250 million.

After the first fundraiser for his presidential campaign committee on January 9, 2007, Romney had already brought in $6.5 million, more than the amounts raised by any other Republican contender. Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay and a former colleague of Romney, signed on as a financial co-chair of his presidential campaign. And first quarter 2007 fund-raising information showed Romney leading the Republican field with more than $23 million, though that was less than funds raised by Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the same period. Fund-raising results for the second quarter revealed that Romney had lent $8.9 million to his campaign from his personal funds, as well as that he had spent $20.7 million, more than any other Republican candidate. By the end of 2007, he had raised $88.5 million, but $35.4 million of that came from his own pocket.

Winning the money race, strategically outspending other candidates on advertising in the early primary states, and promising to donate his salary as president to charity (as he had done as governor) wasn't enough to secure Romney the nomination. He dropped out of the race after disappointing Super Tuesday results in February 2008, when opponent John McCain solidified his position as the party's frontrunner. Romney won only 11 state primaries and caucuses, 4.7 million votes, and 291 delegates. According to Federal Election Commission filings, all told, the campaign spent $113.6 million, $44.6 of which came from Romney himself.

President-elect Barack Obama campaigned -- and has continued to generate positive press -- on his commitment to job creation.

I've been scratching my head at this for awhile and wondering: Why is job creation a worthy goal? Shouldn't the goal be economic growth, and job creation is a happy byproduct of that?

Writing in Reason, Jacob Sullum, dissects exactly why Obama's rhetoric on job creation is nonsensical, illogical, and flies in the face of economics:

Obama also wants to spend $60 billion to "provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation." He says "these projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity. Fixing a bridge, widening a highway or building a light rail system may or may not make economic sense. But the fact that it involves paying people to operate jackhammers and pour concrete does not make it any more worthwhile. If creating jobs can justify transportation projects, why not fill the country with bridges to nowhere.

My optimistic hope is that Obama realizes that job creation is not a worthy goal and mentions only because he's politically savvy enough to know that it will generate consensus around his ambitious proposals. But if his billions of dollars in infrastructure projects are motivated by a desire to create jobs, we are in a lot of trouble.

This post is part of our feature on Money Losers of 2008. See all 20.

Hillary Clinton is easily one of the most polarizing figures in U.S. politics. Perhaps it's because she combines the DNA of a female with the ruthlessness, grit, and cold-blooded calculation of the average male politician -- journalists never know whether to criticize her hairstyle, or her foreign policy credentials! (Governor Sarah Palin received similarly schizophrenic coverage: Yes, she's got an opinion about offshore drilling, but what kind of statement are those pumps making?)

In any event, it was a given that Hillary would run for president in 2008. As an idealistic, card-carrying young feminist, I'd personally been chanting "Hillary '08!" ever since I cast my vote for her in the 2000 Senate race in New York. Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton, it seems that most of her fervent supporters have a certain characteristic in common with me. No, it's not two X chromosomes; apparently, we're all broke.

When she suspended her presidential campaign in June, it was a bitter defeat for Hillary. Not only was she edged out in the primaries by an Ivy League rookie, but she also had to contend with a whopping campaign debt load. Reports indicate that the future Secretary of State poured $11.4 million of her own money into the campaign, just for starters. At the beginning of November, she still owed $7.5 million to various vendors, and the primaries haven't even been paid for yet.

When President-elect Barack Obama was Candidate Obama on the campaign trail, there was talk of raising the tax level on long term capital gains from the current 15% to as high as 29% but soon became 25%. It has not been that high for quite some time.

Obama was challenged by this throughout the campaign and it was one of the questions he faced in the presidential debates. He had to answer a direct question as to why he would raise this particular tax in light of evidence that the reduced rate had benefited the government coffers and investors. He replied that he was interested in balancing the budget and fairness in the system, but that he would be weighing all of the issues under discussion and he might temper his opinion.

Well, as I recall, toward the end of the campaign he tempered his opinion all the way down to 20%.

Now what brings this to mind as we close out the year is that I have been reviewing 2008 with my accountant and making projections for the purpose of last minute adjustments I might need to consider. As we were discussing capital gains for 2008 we, like many of you reading this, discovered there would not be any. The losses outweighed the gains.

Then I started thinking about Obama wanting to raise the tax and realized he could raise the tax to 100% because this year and next many people may not be paying any due to their accumulated losses. As a matter of fact, in extreme cases some folks may not be paying any capital gains even if he is in office eight years.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money.

Regulators did not just drop the ball in the Bernard Madoff scandal. They never held it in the first place.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the SEC discovered in 2006 that Madoff had misled the agency about how he managed customers' money. Moreover, investor Henry Markopolos spent the past decade trying to convince the agency that Madoff's returns were too good to be true. Markopolos and his friends tried to replicate his returns using complex mathematical models and could not.

Barron's reported that no one understood how Madoff made money and that the investors were pressured to never reveal that they had money with him. Ever hear of an asset manager who did not want rich people to brag about how well they did with them? But people did not need to try that hard to figure out that Madoff is a crook. All they needed was common sense.

Anyone who promises investors consistent double-digit returns is either a crook or a fool. The stock market does not work that way. It never has. The one aspect of this scandal that baffles me is how Madoff was able to convince sophisticated people at banks, charities and some of the nation's wealthiest families that the reality of the market did not apply to them.

This post is part of our feature on Money Winners of 2008. See all 20.

Barack Obama became the king of fund raising in 2008, having received a record amount in donations for his presidential campaign in the neighborhood of $750 million, and finishing with over $100 million in the bank. These contributions factored into a winning, grass-roots campaign strategy.

Actually he used a two-prong approach that enabled him to tap into the existing Democratic fund-raising machine attracting large donors through various traditional means, such as banquets and A-list parties. At the same time he was able to play the role of outsider and underdog to rally his grass-roots support among the young and commonly disenfranchised, handshake by handshake, and through a very adept use of the internet. The internet provided a constant source of connectivity with his followers, and allowed his team to respond to any news item with immediacy.

Now, president-elect Obama will be hoping to continue to amaze as he is tasked with guiding a devastated economy on the brink of collapse back to some semblance of equilibrium.