Football and Capitalism...

#76
#76
volconomist said:
And as of the last couple of days, GM has issued an IPO to begin paying it all back.
Click to expand...

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/paybacks-a-*****-new-gm-stock-must-hit-68-billion/

To recover the money poured down the GM rathole so far, not including “extraneous” bailouts to lender cum banks, suppliers, dealers and car buyers, the automaker’s stock must rise to the point where it’s worth $68 billion. And remain at the level as the feds attempt to off-load their/our 60 percent share. As we like to say in these parts, good luck with that. Or, as the WaPo puts it, “Even at its recent 2000 peak, GM’s stock was worth only $56 billion.”
Click to expand...

Basically GM is never going to pay us back.
 
#77
#77
KB5252 said:
And the union will relinquish it's even tighter stranglehold on the company? Remember the people running the show, along with the unions were to blame for GM being in the position to need that bail out.
Click to expand...

and of course the union payout was intended to make the union pensions whole. what happes if gm goes bankrupt before the UAW sells it's stake? whose going to make that whole? the workers certainly aren't going to take the hit. the taxpayers very well might end up giving hte unions tens of billions TWICE.
 
#78
#78
I'll just end this now, because I'm not going to change your minds, and neither are you going to change my mind.

In an effort of full disclosure; I didn't like the bailout of GM, I don't like the way the stimulus was handled, I'm a Randian objectivist who is tired of conservatives going around yelling about a free market when they have no clue what one is.

We all probably agree more than you realize.
 
#80
#80
volconomist said:
I'll just end this now, because I'm not going to change your minds, and neither are you going to change my mind.

In an effort of full disclosure; I didn't like the bailout of GM, I don't like the way the stimulus was handled, I'm a Randian objectivist who is tired of conservatives going around yelling about a free market when they have no clue what one is.

We all probably agree more than you realize.
Click to expand...

conservatives have no idea what a free market is because we don't currently have a free market economy? are you serious? is it really oh so hard to realize what moves are anti free market and what moves are pro?
 
#81
#81
droski said:
conservatives have no idea what a free market is because we don't currently have a free market economy? are you serious? is it really oh so hard to realize what moves are anti free market and what moves are pro?
Click to expand...

On your last point, yes I think it is.
 
#84
#84
droski said:
can you give me an example of something conservatives think is anti free market and you think is not?
Click to expand...

Targeted tax concessions.

If the gov't gives a tax break to one company but not all in the same sector, that is an anti-free market move.
 
#89
#89
droski said:
the foundation of debt underwriting in this country is if a company goes bankrupt the bondholders own the company. end of story. violating this in favor of his union buddies was unspeakable. why in the world would anyone buy debt of any union company as long as obama is in office?
Click to expand...

distilling the 6 or so pages of predictable idealistic rancor down to the point your making I would have to agree. Debtors are paid first out of a firms bankruptcy.

But do you give any consideration to this being an extremely irregular case involving a firm whos health affects its entire industry and the economy as a whole?

The Government in this case has to weigh the full implication of this event from tax revenue to unemployment, to competition in the industry going foward. Taken in a vacuum in a classic case you would be right. But do you agree that this case demands special attention?

Also I would dissagree with the Governments actions being "unspeakable", I just feel like that is sensationalist, and that we as a nation should spend less time being outraged by everything and more time trying to understand from each others point of view.
 
#90
#90
alwaysorange81 said:
distilling the 6 or so pages of predictable idealistic rancor down to the point your making I would have to agree. Debtors are paid first out of a firms bankruptcy.

But do you give any consideration to this being an extremely irregular case involving a firm whos health affects its entire industry and the economy as a whole?

The Government in this case has to weigh the full implication of this event from tax revenue to unemployment, to competition in the industry going foward. Taken in a vacuum in a classic case you would be right. But do you agree that this case demands special attention?

Also I would dissagree with the Governments actions being "unspeakable", I just feel like that is sensationalist, and that we as a nation should spend less time being outraged by everything and more time trying to understand from each others point of view.
Click to expand...

Let us start right now............

I would love to know how 13 trillion on non sense is a wonderful thing.
 
#92
#92
alwaysorange81 said:
distilling the 6 or so pages of predictable idealistic rancor down to the point your making I would have to agree. Debtors are paid first out of a firms bankruptcy.

But do you give any consideration to this being an extremely irregular case involving a firm whos health affects its entire industry and the economy as a whole?

The Government in this case has to weigh the full implication of this event from tax revenue to unemployment, to competition in the industry going foward. Taken in a vacuum in a classic case you would be right. But do you agree that this case demands special attention?

Also I would dissagree with the Governments actions being "unspeakable", I just feel like that is sensationalist, and that we as a nation should spend less time being outraged by everything and more time trying to understand from each others point of view.
Click to expand...

no. GM would not have ceased to exist if it went bankrupt AND even if you agree they had to be bailed out there is absolutely zero justification to hand the company to the unions in favor of the bondholders. obama didn't want the chapter 11 judge to void the union contracts (as he undoubtably would have). i'd love to hear any argument as to why the unions needed the money. if GM gets a direct loan from the govt that itself ensures the retention of jobs. as for competition i'd argue GM woudl hvae been FAR more competitive if they got their union contracts voided.
 
#93
#93
alwaysorange81 said:
and that we as a nation should spend less time being outraged by everything and more time trying to understand from each others point of view.
Click to expand...

While I think there may be some merit to the part I've put in italics the part in bold is a tried in true way to, at best, reduce us to the lowest common denominator and at worst simply cease getting anything done whatsoever.
 
#94
#94
droski said:
who says targeted tax concessions are pro free market?
Click to expand...

Well considering politicians do this all the the time, and many are self-proclaimed advocates of free markets, I could see how it would overlap. But I'd be surprised if any announced such tax concessions as evidence of their pro-free market principles.
 
#95
#95
alwaysorange81 said:
distilling the 6 or so pages of predictable idealistic rancor down to the point your making I would have to agree. Debtors are paid first out of a firms bankruptcy.

But do you give any consideration to this being an extremely irregular case involving a firm whos health affects its entire industry and the economy as a whole?

The Government in this case has to weigh the full implication of this event from tax revenue to unemployment, to competition in the industry going foward. Taken in a vacuum in a classic case you would be right. But do you agree that this case demands special attention?

Also I would dissagree with the Governments actions being "unspeakable", I just feel like that is sensationalist, and that we as a nation should spend less time being outraged by everything and more time trying to understand from each others point of view.
Click to expand...

:jawdrop:
 
#96
#96
droski said:
no. GM would not have ceased to exist if it went bankrupt AND even if you agree they had to be bailed out there is absolutely zero justification to hand the company to the unions in favor of the bondholders. obama didn't want the chapter 11 judge to void the union contracts (as he undoubtably would have). i'd love to hear any argument as to why the unions needed the money. if GM gets a direct loan from the govt that itself ensures the retention of jobs. as for competition i'd argue GM woudl hvae been FAR more competitive if they got their union contracts voided.
Click to expand...

I think it comes down to what legal agreement is more "breechable". The contracts entered into of the free will and volition of management and union representatives, or the promised first payment of debt to bondholders. I understand the message you send to potential investors, but those investors can choose to put their money in less industry dominant enterprises that would escape the intervention of government in the event of chapter 11. Workers don't have such luxury.

As for the political implication, I believe elected officials do, and should, represent the interests of those who elected him / her. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Lincoln did it. There is no great travesty in politics unless you are the minority.
 
#97
#97
hndog609 said:
While I think there may be some merit to the part I've put in italics the part in bold is a tried in true way to, at best, reduce us to the lowest common denominator and at worst simply cease getting anything done whatsoever.
Click to expand...

it has been my experience that working from a common understanding is in fact a fine method of getting things done.

I of course am also open to playing the game of "who eats the smallest bite of the crap pie". Just don't complain when it's time to swallow your share.
 
#98
#98
alwaysorange81 said:
I think it comes down to what legal agreement is more "breechable". The contracts entered into of the free will and volition of management and union representatives, or the promised first payment of debt to bondholders. I understand the message you send to potential investors, but those investors can choose to put their money in less industry dominant enterprises that would escape the intervention of government in the event of chapter 11. Workers don't have such luxury.

As for the political implication, I believe elected officials do, and should, represent the interests of those who elected him / her. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Lincoln did it. There is no great travesty in politics unless you are the minority.
Click to expand...

the law says that bondholders rights are not breachable in bankruptcy and workers contract are breachable in bankruptcy. it's really not a compicated or debatable issue. unless you want to change the law. workers have the luxury to work wherever they want and to quit a job if they feel tehy are getting a raw deal. they have no legal right to keep their job, their pay, or their benefits. bondholders have many legal rights. again. if you have a problem with that change hte law.
 
#100
#100
droski said:
the law says that bondholders rights are not breachable in bankruptcy and workers contract are breachable in bankruptcy. it's really not a compicated or debatable issue. unless you want to change the law. workers have the luxury to work wherever they want and to quit a job if they feel tehy are getting a raw deal. they have no legal right to keep their job, their pay, or their benefits. bondholders have many legal rights. again. if you have a problem with that change hte law.
Click to expand...

evidently it has been changed. I don't have a problem with it either way. As an economic principle, I believe debtors, and work contract parties are equally entitled to protection in the event of bankruptcy.

As a legal matter, I think you can add it to the very long list of peculiar usages of executive power. I don't believe it's anything to call Kenneth Star about, unless we're willing to open a whole can of worms containing everything from warrantless wiretaps to secret Nixon recordings. The Presidents handling of this matter will be revisited in 2012.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top