|
GM declares bankruptcy (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
He's doing both strategic and day to day... at least his hand picked appointees are. When he says the Govt will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental decisions, he's trying to make it sound like he won't be involved. But "most fundamental" are the most important, like what kind of cars to make, where to open/close plants, etc. So what he's really saying is the exact opposite of the way it sounds which is, "We're not going to get involved in minutia." But 18-20K workers being affected, which is the number here, is not a small deal. |
That's what happens when a company comes begging to the government, and the government takes a 60% stake in it. Only thing I can say is...suck it up. GM isn't nationalized because they are such a great company.
| quote: | | But it was "such an emergency" that it had to be rammed through congress immediately or we'd be facing financial collapse of epic proportions, right? So why isn't more if it pouring in now? It's no mistake that a huge chunk of it will be spent in 2010 when it's election time. |
The stimulus package wasn't to because we were "facing financial collapse of epic proportions, right?" No, not right. The name says it all. It's to stimulate investment and consumer expenditures because obviously the government can't maintain its current levels of expenditures forever. And again, $700 billion can't be spent over night. It takes time.
Did you forget we are in a recession (which began before Obama was even elected)? All of that is completely normal especially in this recession and to blame it all on Obama is ridiculous.
| quote: | | So, we've spent how many millions and billions of dollars to stop those foreclosures and it hasn't made a dent. The automobile bailouts didn't work, the bank bailouts have not worked, the bailout of the mortgage industry has not worked, stemming foreclosures has not worked.... none of the political fixes have worked which is why I am such a strong proponant of the govt. getting the hell out of the way and letting private industry work on its own through the natural cycles. |
Nobody said it would perfect or easy. The fact of the matter is, a much worse catastrophe has been averted. The very fabric of our financial system has been saved from itself. The same system you think can police and fix itself. The Fed has inflated the money supply. Good. The government has passed a stimulus package. Good. Don't expect perfection but for the situation we currently find ourselves in, they are doing a DAMN good job. Bernanke should get the freaking Nobel Prize in saving our asses from oblivion.:p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
A trivial issue??? wow. He's discrediting himself dude. |
Who is? Obama or Barney Frank? This is an issue of a Congressman going to a business owner and asking for a change in corporate policy. Not the President. You're free to assign blame to Congressional Democrats here, but you'll have to bring a bit more to the table to paint Obama with the same brush. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
The stimulus package wasn't to because we were "facing financial collapse of epic proportions, right?" No, not right. The name says it all. It's to stimulate investment and consumer expenditures because obviously the government can't maintain its current levels of expenditures forever. And again, $700 billion can't be spent over night. It takes time.
Did you forget we are in a recession (which began before Obama was even elected)? All of that is completely normal especially in this recession and to blame it all on Obama is ridiculous.
Nobody said it would perfect or easy. The fact of the matter is, a much worse catastrophe has been averted. The very fabric of our financial system has been saved from itself. The same system you think can police and fix itself. The Fed has inflated the money supply. Good. The government has passed a stimulus package. Good. Don't expect perfection but for the situation we currently find ourselves in, they are doing a DAMN good job. Bernanke should get the freaking Nobel Prize in saving our asses from oblivion.:p |
I was going to reply, but Krypton hit the nail on the head here. The stimulus package was never designed to be disbursed before summer (with the majority getting spent in Fall) - it takes time to designate where the money is going and put the programming into place.
The stimulus itself is a slow-acting agent of damage control. As its name suggests, it is supposed to stimulate demand and consumer confidence to get the economy moving again. That will have an effect on unemployment and profit margins, but that will be a delayed one.
Krypton is right to point out that consumer confidence and the stock market are already on the rise - even the anticipation of this stimulus is getting things moving in the right direction. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
That's what happens when a company comes begging to the government, and the government takes a 60% stake in it. Only thing I can say is...suck it up. GM isn't nationalized because they are such a great company. |
You're right- GM certainly wasn't a wonderfully managed company... but nationalizing it? Having a president fire the CEO and replace him with his own personal choice? Very Chavez-like. And it would have been much more productive if bankruptcy would have been filed to begin with rather than waiting till billions in taxpayer money was thrown at it, then filing. Plus giving the UAW a bigger ownership stake than the bondholders when they hadn't earned it or payed for it stinks to high hell.
| quote: | | The stimulus package wasn't to because we were "facing financial collapse of epic proportions, right?" No, not right. The name says it all. It's to stimulate investment and consumer expenditures because obviously the government can't maintain its current levels of expenditures forever. And again, $700 billion can't be spent over night. It takes time. |
No I'm saying, that's what we were being force-fed... that there wasn't time to read it line by line and we HAD to pass it NOW or else- was the tone coming out of Washington. The truth was that the more time people had to dig into it, the more pork they'd uncover and see how much of that money was actually "stimulating" certain congressional districts and voter blocks (still trying to figure out how $50 million to re-vamp the Smithsonian is stimulation). So, even for the purpose you just stated it was for, it obviously is not working. If it were a crisis, as Obama mentioned a thousand times per speech, a hell of a lot more than 6% would be getting spent by now; we're 5-6 months into term.
| quote: | | Did you forget we are in a recession (which began before Obama was even elected)? All of that is completely normal especially in this recession and to blame it all on Obama is ridiculous. |
How can you say all of this is completely normal? I understand the economy goes in cycles, but what we are seeing now is worse than it should be because of Obama's policies. I know it started with the last president, but when that mini-stimulus a year ago didn't have any effect doubling down on the same bad idea was stupid. Spending us into a $12 trillion debt over the next 10 years is not the way to stimulate the economy... Bush got killed for deficit spending and now it's ok? Our money is about to be worth less than the paper it's printed on.
New unemployment numbers out today... even worse again than expected: 9.4%. Further proof that the "stimulus" is bull is that Dr. Christine Romer, who prepared the administrtion's battle plan in Januarty, warned that if the stimulus wasn't passed, we could see unemployment crest at 8.8%. With the stimulus, it's already higher and climbing. Federal government debt per househould is now $546,000! (source: http://minx.cc/?post=288016), and that doesn't count universial health care or the fact tht the FED is about to need a bailout. That's not Bush's doing.
| quote: | | Nobody said it would perfect or easy. The fact of the matter is, a much worse catastrophe has been averted. The very fabric of our financial system has been saved from itself. The same system you think can police and fix itself. The Fed has inflated the money supply. Good. The government has passed a stimulus package. Good. Don't expect perfection but for the situation we currently find ourselves in, they are doing a DAMN good job. Bernanke should get the freaking Nobel Prize in saving our asses from oblivion.:p |
Saved from itself or saved from purposeful, conscious government spending? The problem is that we could have just kept the money and rode out unemployment while reducing spending and raising the credibility of our currency. Instead, a premium was put on chasing every democrat constituency with money and ignoring those all important "mortgage backed securities" that have become the real cancer on the financial system. Speaking of Bernanke, he said this the other day:
| quote: | He said financial markets had improved, thanks in part to the Fed’s efforts to restore lending, but he also took note of the recent spike in yields on longer-term Treasury debt and fixed-rate mortgages, which some analysts worry could choke off an economic recovery.
“These increases appear to reflect concerns about large federal deficits but also other causes, including greater optimism about the economic outlook, a reversal of flight-to-quality flows, and technical factors related to the hedging of mortgage holdings,” Bernanke said. |
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousi...E5523SI20090603
If his prediction about debt interfering with the recovery proves correct, Obama will have a miserable midterm election. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Who is? Obama or Barney Frank? This is an issue of a Congressman going to a business owner and asking for a change in corporate policy. Not the President. You're free to assign blame to Congressional Democrats here, but you'll have to bring a bit more to the table to paint Obama with the same brush. |
I was saying Obama is discrediting himself. Like Obama can't stop Frank from doing something that makes him look like a liar? |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Lots and lots of spending happened from 1933 on, which prolonged The Depression. |
How? I just read an article this morning about how The New Deal is actually a major way that helped us OUT of the depression.
| quote: | | No, people stop spending money when prices are too high. Your logic doesn't make any sense. |
Really? Can you say HOUSING BUBBLE?! ing idiot.
| quote: | | The private institutions have to get the money somewhere and it is hardly from depositors. Haven't you ever heard of fractional reserve banking? It is how our entire banking system works! Look it up! Fractional Reserving Banking! Holy Hell you are ignorant. |
No dude. They leverage the borrowing against DEPOSITORS. I didn't even take Econ in school, and I know this . you are an ignoramus. |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Did you fail math? Total production was 1117 units according to your numbers. So, my number was OVER the actual production.
Also, 1200 units is still VERY low. You can't make any sort of dent doing that. In 1 month, before this recession, .5m cars were sold a month in the US. |
You missed the point of the argument completely |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by we_R_DNA
You missed the point of the argument completely |
I didn't. I made a point that you tried to counter with other things, that obviates the fact that 1500 cars isn't even a wide enough sample to figure out if it was viable. The Ford Fiesta that is coming to the US has 100 cars here. Why? For one reason, and one reason only. To drum up hype for the vehicle. They were using the EV-1 to test the viability, not to test demand. |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
I didn't. I made a point that you tried to counter with other things, that obviates the fact that 1500 cars isn't even a wide enough sample to figure out if it was viable. The Ford Fiesta that is coming to the US has 100 cars here. Why? For one reason, and one reason only. To drum up hype for the vehicle. They were using the EV-1 to test the viability, not to test demand. |
I was not obviating facts; I was supplying numbers you assumed incorrectly. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by we_R_DNA
I was not obviating facts; I was supplying numbers you assumed incorrectly. |
I was over by 300. You doubled the total number that was reported. Hmm, I smell fail. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I was saying Obama is discrediting himself. Like Obama can't stop Frank from doing something that makes him look like a liar? |
Barney Frank isn't a puppet... like Obama is going to reach across the Atlantic all the way from Egypt and clamp his hand over the mouth of a free-willed human being? Wouldn't that piss you off even more?
Seriously now... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
You're right- GM certainly wasn't a wonderfully managed company... but nationalizing it? Having a president fire the CEO and replace him with his own personal choice? Very Chavez-like. And it would have been much more productive if bankruptcy would have been filed to begin with rather than waiting till billions in taxpayer money was thrown at it, then filing. Plus giving the UAW a bigger ownership stake than the bondholders when they hadn't earned it or payed for it stinks to high hell. |
You forget it isn't the government that went to GM, but it was GM coming begging at the feet of the government to save them. The difference between this situation and Venezuela is that Chavez was the one initiating nationalization, nobody was coming to Chavez begging to be nationalized.
Additionally, as I said earlier, 60% stakeholder in any company has the right to influence strategic decisions. If GM becomes profitable again, and they probably will, then the government will make its money back.
| quote: | | No I'm saying, that's what we were being force-fed... that there wasn't time to read it line by line and we HAD to pass it NOW or else- was the tone coming out of Washington. The truth was that the more time people had to dig into it, the more pork they'd uncover and see how much of that money was actually "stimulating" certain congressional districts and voter blocks (still trying to figure out how $50 million to re-vamp the Smithsonian is stimulation). So, even for the purpose you just stated it was for, it obviously is not working. If it were a crisis, as Obama mentioned a thousand times per speech, a hell of a lot more than 6% would be getting spent by now; we're 5-6 months into term. |
You can't say it's not working because you yourself have made it known, it's barely been spent. The "pork" which you are talking about is an insignificantly small percentage of the overall stimulus package. It was a crisis, because consumer and investment expenditures were declining precipitously. If the government did nothing, you'd probably be complaining about that. If the government is doing something about, you complain about that. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Not only you, but Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. Those s would have complained no matter what Obama does.
| quote: | | How can you say all of this is completely normal? I understand the economy goes in cycles, but what we are seeing now is worse than it should be because of Obama's policies. I know it started with the last president, but when that mini-stimulus a year ago didn't have any effect doubling down on the same bad idea was stupid. Spending us into a $12 trillion debt over the next 10 years is not the way to stimulate the economy... Bush got killed for deficit spending and now it's ok? Our money is about to be worth less than the paper it's printed on. |
How can I say it's completely normal? Easy, during recessions, unemployment goes up, businesses fail, defaults rates rise, etc. Blaming it all on Obama is nonsense. He's only been in office for 5 months. I find it laughable when someone blames Obama for this recession.
| quote: | | New unemployment numbers out today... even worse again than expected: 9.4%. Further proof that the "stimulus" is bull is that Dr. Christine Romer, who prepared the administrtion's battle plan in Januarty, warned that if the stimulus wasn't passed, we could see unemployment crest at 8.8%. With the stimulus, it's already higher and climbing. Federal government debt per househould is now $546,000! (source: http://minx.cc/?post=288016), and that doesn't count universial health care or the fact tht the FED is about to need a bailout. That's not Bush's doing. |
Linking unemployment numbers with the stimulus package that hasn't been spent yet is ridiculous. We'r in a recession, unemployment is expected to go up. I wonder why this is such a surprise to you.
| quote: | Saved from itself or saved from purposeful, conscious government spending? The problem is that we could have just kept the money and rode out unemployment while reducing spending and raising the credibility of our currency. Instead, a premium was put on chasing every democrat constituency with money and ignoring those all important "mortgage backed securities" that have become the real cancer on the financial system. Speaking of Bernanke, he said this the other day:
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousi...E5523SI20090603
If his prediction about debt interfering with the recovery proves correct, Obama will have a miserable midterm election. |
Yes, saved from itself. The financial sector was doing a great job at collapsing, going insolvent. Blaming the government for Lehman Bros or Bear Sterns insolvencies is short-sighted at best. Yea, let's blame the government for the banks being ing retards. |
|
|
|
|
