Data analysis of the government's Cash for Clunkers program is beginning to surface. That analysis, coupled with some not too impressive projections, is beginning to paint a murky, if not dismal, picture of the auto industry's future. I read an excellent break down of the data, which was provided by Michelle Krebs via Edmunds Automotive Network.

First off, some analysts are claiming that while the Clunkers program did boost auto sales for the month of August, those sales were most likely moved forward on the calendar by auto buyers who were already contemplating a purchase. The supposition is that these consumers simply bought earlier to reap their government vouchers (you're welcome). Dismal September sales numbers are being projected for auto makers.

We might be tempted to think, in this day and age, that a move as stupid as this one could not happen in our enlightened business world. However, the CEO of American Apparel (AMEX: APP), seems to think otherwise.

According to a story provided by Gawker.com; "American Apparel's ... madman CEO, Dov Charney is demanding the firing of employees he deems unattractive and thus detrimental to the "AA aesthetic."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that people (especially in America) are ultra sensitive to negative comments about appearance. It also does not take a great deal of intelligence to recognize that the firing of employees based on their looks is a stupidly discriminatory practice. So, being that this project is being undertaken at the sole direction of CEO Charney, one does not have to spend much time analyzing exactly who is the stupid one over there.

What does it mean when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) considers issuing bonds to raise cash? Obviously, the organization would be seeking more money to pursue its agenda, but what else could be inferred by this? How would the dynamics of world economic power wielding be affected? What effect could this have on the natural ebb and flow of free market capitalism? How would U.S. Treasuries be affected?

This possible bond issue was examined recently by Bloomberg.com. The Bloomberg article points to what I think is the most significant aspect that an IMF bond issue would present. I'm concerned that IMF bonds would directly compete with U.S. Treasury bonds. That possibility is fodder for a great deal of speculation.

Here's the tip: It might be time to pull investments from Chinese manufacturing and export interests.

According to an Associated Press report, which features some mind numbing quotes from Li Gao, China's chief climate negotiator, it may soon become far more economically practical to manufacture products here, at home, in the good old USA.

It seems that the obviously arrogant Mr. Gao, and the communist nation that he represents, have decided that we, consumers, should bear the brunt of the expense for that nation's carbon emission load. The logic used to back this assertion, while certainly passing as logic, serves as nothing more than a spotlight on the fundamentally flawed "cap and trade" carbon emissions boondoggle that is slowly unfolding.

Things have again become spicy in the world of Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT). Reports are circulating that Microsoft miscalculated the severance payouts to some of the approximately 1,400 employees that the company recently laid off.

According to CNET News, Microsoft Corp. has sent out letters requesting a return of funds from those former employees who received apparent overpayment of severance benefits.The report also indicates that some of the laid off workers may have received severance underpayments.

The rumor mill announced yesterday that Playboy Enterprises (NYSE: PLA) is going to suck it up, pull out, and move its entire operation to its home port of Chicago. According to a blurb in The New York Post, "Playboy is combining its Web site and magazine staff into one editorial organization." Evidently, the company is feeling the squeeze from 1.5 million free internet porn sites, give or take several million.

In the matter of nudity as entertainment, has the adage "sex sells" been supplanted by the new phase of "sex is free for the taking?" In the world of high gloss paper media, such would seem to be the case. So, what is a gnarly old, skin peddling millionaire to do? Whatever shall become of our most familiar white bunny head?

Hugh Hefner is still smiling, and it seems obvious that he still has some faith in his production staff. However, getting a continuing rise out of the public, and getting them to continue opening their wallets, is quite another matter. The company is doing fairly well in it's non-media operations, but in the world of cheesecake, it looks pretty much all down hill.

I'm guessing that in the halls of Playboy there have been some extremely hot and sweaty brain storming sessions going on. There is one thing in this situation that I'm almost absolutely certain of: If the gang at Playboy Enterprises can't continue to do something to stimulate some growth, we're sure to see some serious bunny fur fly.

You read that right. Bloomberg.com has reported that The bank of England has lowered it's benchmark interest rate to it's lowest point since the bank was founded in 1694. How much more proof is needed to make obvious the fact that people and businesses just aren't borrowing money any more?

Even if some stalwart soul had the inclination to borrow some money, are there banks out there which are lending it? In the face of unemployment levels which some say honest calculations put up as high as 16%, banks are becoming adverse to lending money to anyone who might actually need it. Of course I can get you credit card applications all day long, if you're willing to pay upwards of 19% interest on new money.

So you have to wonder, when is it all going to break loose. Honestly folks, if the promise of increased revenue reserves was in any way going to help us, don't you think the contraction would have slowed by now? The only way additional cash will correct anything is if that cash is put directly into the hands of the people who pay the bills. Of course, we all know that will never happen. Our government will continue to drop wads of our yet unpaid tax dollars into the laps of their corporate sponsors. That, for now, is where the buck now stops.

Welcome to Way Off Wall Street, a column dedicated to providing Main Street opinions on topics of interest to investors. Each installment highlights the views of Americans who are far removed from the canyons of Wall Street -- and who often see things more clearly as a result.

After reading nearly 400 publicly posted reader comments regarding the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scandal, I believe that I may have a good feel for the grass roots mood on the subject. In a nutshell, the average American internet crawler is thoroughly disgusted with our financial system and its regulatory agencies. They are fed up, strung out and unequivocally irate. As for Bernard Madoff himself, the overwhelming assertion is that he should be strung up immediately. That sentiment is not meant in a figurative sense either. People want Bernard Madoff publicly hanged, and they want it done with much fanfare in a place such as New York City's Central Park. Yes, this sounds rather coarse. Perhaps it's even uncivilized, but as the internet is my witness, this is what people are saying.

Very few of the comments I have read indicate a feeling that Madoff's investors simply got what they deserved. I did, however, read many statements regarding the fact that high level greed obviously forced many large eggs into one very questionable basket. I myself have not much pity for those investors who lost "everything" to Madoff's twisted dealings. It is my opinion that if investors don't have the sense to diversify, and thereby somewhat protect themselves, they are not very deserving of much wealth. Even my own paltry savings reside in no less than five separate accounts, however paltry.

A press release that was sent out by the American Small Business League (ASBL) in late December 2007 is pitting American small businesses against the interests of large and wealthy venture capitalists. The press release states that indicated potential policy changes and Obama administrative appointments are sending a clear message that when it comes to government monies, small businesses should brace themselves for being left out in the cold.

The PR Newswire press release, which I encountered at the Las Vegas Business Press website, claims that potential Obama policy seeks to rewrite the federal definition of a small business. Currently, that definition describes small businesses as being independently owned. The release indicates a belief that by changing that technical definition, the doors shall then be thrown open for a small group of wealthy venture capital firms to compete head to head against small businesses in bidding on billions of dollars worth of contracts which have traditionally been reserved specifically for small businesses. Additionally, the ASBL release hints at some favorable reductions in capital gains taxation for these venture capital firms.

The ASBL press release states, in part: "The Obama Administration's new pro-venture capital policy could virtually repeal the Small Business Act for legitimate American small businesses... Under the proposed Obama Administration policy, "independently owned" will be changed to include firms that are not independently owned, but are actually controlled by wealthy investors and possibly some of the nation's largest venture capital firms."

It remains to be seen whether or not ASBL advocates are indeed correctly interpreting these potentially devastating changes. However, one thing appears to be quite clear already; with President-elect Obama's appointment of wealthy venture capitalist Karen Mills to the lead position of the Small Business Administration, it would appear that Mr. Obama intends to put small businesses well under the thumb of big business. This revelation certainly shall not make many of our next president's middle class supporters very happy.

In the month of December alone, the state of Hawaii has raised $226 million through the sale of tax-free bonds to investors. These bond sales are to help underwrite over $1.8 billion in statewide infrastructure development projects. Slated improvement projects for the island state include port development, widening of a major highway, various housing projects and even termite treatments for local schools.

The Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported: "Hawaii County Mayor Billy Kenoi said he's "very grateful" hundreds of millions of dollars will flow into Hawaii Island's economy "so we can keep our workers working."

Hawaii Governor, Linda Lingle indicates her intent to keep her state's economy healthy by keeping its construction industry busy. Working with a consortium of contractors, developers, labor interests and government agencies, Hawaii has no less than 1,500 capital improvement projects now in various stages of progress. In all, Hawaii is committed to initiating $1,865,522,037 worth of new development and improvement projects. Bidding for much of the project volume stretches through 2009, and into the first quarter of 2010.

These are the type of capital investments that President-elect Barack Obama has been telling us about. The possible difference here is that Hawaii is using an investment strategy, rather than a taxation strategy, to generate the needed capital. Kudos to Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle, for overseeing the infusion of large amounts of new capital into her state, without placing the entire burden upon the taxpayers there.

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

It's hard to dispute the fact that 2008 has been a lousy year for singer/actress, Jessica Simpson. She entered the year with her new beau, Tony Romo of the Dallas Cowboys, and was immediately blamed for his troubling performance on the field. The release of her feature movie, Blonde Ambition, went straight to DVD without even blinking. Her debut into the country music realm has all but fallen flat. The kindest professional critique of her maiden country album, Do You Know, referred to that effort as "solid yet simple." The reviews go steeply downward from there.

In defense of the minx with the jinx, I think Jessica Simpson has been mistreated a bit. I mean, blaming her for the flat performance of Romo's Cowboys just isn't fair. But then again, we Packer fans know that those Cowboys are just loaded with handy excuses. It's just a powerful shame that they had to make Jessica Simpson one. Perhaps it's due to the shock of no longer finding Brett Favre at Lambeau Field.

As far as Jessica Simpson's acting career, I thought we had settled that issue with The Dukes of Hazard. As a matter of fact, I thought we settled it with her Pizza Hut commercial. You know, that's the commercial where they made her come out and say "Hi, Yaw" as if it was something she would normally say. Worst of all, they used the cut where her telltale neck tick makes her whole head jerk to the side. I suppose I need to reissue my "Jessica is not an actress" memo to Hollywood.

Welcome to Way Off Wall Street, a column dedicated to providing Main Street opinions on topics of interest to investors. Each installment highlights the views of Americans who are far removed from the canyons of Wall Street -- and who often see things more clearly as a result.

Now that the dust has settled, it's nice to see that the factory sit-in at Republic Doors and Windows in Chicago was successfully resolved. The fact that the tumultuous event was dealt with in such a solid and peaceful manner speaks well of modern organized labor. It cannot be denied that the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America union, played a large part in bringing an acceptable resolution to the matter. This raises an important question: can and should America's labor unions find ways to be more deeply engaged in the current attempts to fix what is wrong with our nation's economy? It seems to me, in this time of great economic turmoil, that America's labor unions have stayed conspicuously on the sidelines.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2007 the number of Americans belonging to labor unions totaled approximately 15.7 million. I expect that for 2008 that total has declined a bit, but not much. This means labor unions watch over about 12% of our nation's hourly and salaried workers. Those aren't numbers to be taken lightly. The question is, how much of that union clout exists simply to compel corporate America to conform to it's whims, and how much of it is dedicated to particularly benefiting the overall good of the labor force without deference to what form that good might take? Labor unions exist, in essence, to protect laborers from oppression and exploitation. What is a union's part when that oppression is brought on by the larger global economy, and that exploitation is perpetrated by governments, rather than by a particular employer?

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

As far as pop star phenomenons go, Miley Cyrus, aka Destiny Hope Cyrus, certainly is one. At just 16 years of age, the bright personality of this moderately talented female offspring of Billy Ray Cyrus has been effectively parlayed into a several-million-dollar property by none other than media giant Disney (NYSE: DIS). She is being exploited in classic Hollywood style, right down to her "morning after" bed sheet clad, Vanity Fair photo shoot. Smile pretty baby, and say cha ching!

The question is, how much is Miley Cyrus really worth? With earnings of $25 million from June 2007 to June 2008, Cyrus is listed as #35 on the Forbes Celebrity 100. Somehow though, that figure seems just a bit misleading. With concert appearances that have tickets selling out in minutes, a hit television show, multiple albums, movie deals, guest appearances, and a host of other deals pending, it's virtually impossible to place a true monetary value on the girl. It is speculated that the Hannah Montana franchise, which features Miley Cyrus, will net Disney in excess of $1 billion. The Baltimore Sun recently reported that Miley Cyrus is currently out-earning names as big as Sandra Bullock and Jennifer Aniston. Her concerts are reported to be out-drawing Bruce Springsteen. Who's the boss now, baby.

This post is part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst in Money 2008 feature.

Does it say something about American society when we consider the broad acceptance of the infomercial? At the very least, it says quick-hit, impulse item merchandising is alive and doing well. It also tells us that potential snake oil salesmen will always find their marks. What was once a marketing style reserved for county fairs and roadside stands is now considered to be mainstream business as usual.

Which of the following infomercial offerings made you sit up and take notice this past year? Did PedEggs get you up on your feet? Did you give in to a ShamWow craving and find yourself all wet, or did you buy some Aqua Globes and find yourself a bit dried out? Did Green Bags make you green behind the gills, wishing you had kept your greenbacks to your self? In the video marketing temple of Billy Mays On High, we must be careful whence our consumerist tithes may flow.

There are a few things about these product offerings that I want to know. Such as, why does that ShamWow barker have a head set on anyway? Who are we supposed to believe that he's talking to? Why would I need a PedEgg to accomplish what a little sandpaper can do? Wouldn't letting the ethylene gas from a banana escape into the atmosphere preserve the fruit just as long as sucking that gas into the interior of a Green Bag? How does an Aqua Globe measure the percentage of water in the soil that surrounds it?

This post is part of AOL Money & Finance's Best & Worst in Money 2008 feature.

As we undertake a hasty exit from the tumult of 2008 and plunge headlong into the mysteries of 2009, we might find it interesting to consider some business entities that could benefit from a little "freshening up." Four familiar names; Kmart, Playboy, Starbucks, and Wall Street, are each in need of a timely makeover, to varying degrees. But if you could chose just one of these big name operations to fix up for 2009, which one would it be, and how would you fix it?

First let's consider Kmart, the adopted son of Sears Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: SHLD). What are the changes that Kmart might need to remain competitive going into 2009? Should the company try playing the boutique angle, which failed to work for Wal-Mart Stores Inc (NYSE: WMT)? Should the company tighten up and consolidate, while pursuing a deeper product value play, or should it attempt to spread out its market coverage and work over its wholesale vendors, while engaging Wal-Mart in a game of cut-throat retail price points? If you were CEO of Kmart, what would you change?