Forward!

#51
#51
rjd970 said:
All of that may be true, and I don't disagree on principle.

But lets be honest with ourselves, without the banking bailout, the GM bailout would have been a much harder sell, if not impossible. The banks played the political angle to get what they needed to stay in business, and GM and the unions did the same. I see issue with both and fail to make the distinction about one being better than the other, on fundamental level of how it happened. Saying one is better than the other is like saying dog crap smells better than cow crap.
Click to expand...

Agree with the first part but not the second. We would have all been knee deep in canine and bovine crap without some form of TARP. Some crap on our shoes without GM bailout.

I have my idealistic side (no bailouts) and practical (we have to do something to prevent an all out collapse) side.
 
#52
#52
volinbham said:
I have my idealistic side (no bailouts) and practical (we have to do something to prevent an all out collapse) side.
Click to expand...

pretty much where I am too (although part of me still thinks we could survive it)
 
#53
#53
volinbham said:
Agree with the first part but not the second. We would have all been knee deep in canine and bovine crap without some form of TARP. Some crap on our shoes without GM bailout.

I have my idealistic side (no bailouts) and practical (we have to do something to prevent an all out collapse) side.
Click to expand...

Agreed, from a practical point of view, there is a difference.

From an idealistic point of view, there is zero difference.

But by saying you can make a practical justification for the bank bailout you are saying you aren't completely against the idea of bailouts, ie, there are instances where it is justifiable. This doesn't fit into the idea of capitalism and thus arguing against the GM bailout on prinicple is impossible.
 
#54
#54
volinbham said:
But it is always more a matter of degree than real policy difference. There is no doubt that the Obama admin is a least a standard deviation more towards the side of Federal government should have more involvement in every aspect of American life and activity.

80%+ will be the same with Romney but the 20% does make a difference. We need something that will slow the undetered growth of the Federal government in all phases our life.
Click to expand...

IMO that is a perceived difference based on rhetoric. Outlays, growth of the federal government and the executive branch won't slow down one iota with him. The rate of change hasn't differed by any meaningful extent under either party in nearly 80 years -- that 20% is more like a .01%.
 
#55
#55
milohimself said:
IMO that is a perceived difference based on rhetoric. Outlays, growth of the federal government and the executive branch won't slow down one iota with him. The rate of change hasn't differed by any meaningful extent under either party in nearly 80 years -- that 20% is more like a .01%.
Click to expand...

This.

Mike Fink will eat his hat if Romney significantly slows spending (if at all). It would be a pleasant surprise, though.
 
#56
#56
utvolpj said:
the GM fallout would not have collapsed the economy. They could have restructured and still come out in the end. Not sure the same can be said of the banking industry



not sure how this is directed at me since I don't give a damn if GM survived or not. Had they taken steps earlier it wouldn't have been an issue. There was still the probability they would have still been around
Click to expand...
There was no restructuring on the table. GM needed capital, and there was zero available. When a company needs capital and there is none, then it ceases to exist. Managed bankruptcy was not an option at the time. It was either get the government to pay the light bill or go under.

And the second part was more directed at Mitt in general; GM should have been allowed to fail, but the fact is that would have also cost a great number of jobs and a deepened, prolonged recession (or market correction, whichever term you'd like to use).

It's politically unpopular to support the bailout, but it's also politically unpopular to say let GM go under. Mitt was trying to have it both ways.

rjd970 said:
All of that may be true, and I don't disagree on principle.

But lets be honest with ourselves, without the banking bailout, the GM bailout would have been a much harder sell, if not impossible. The banks played the political angle to get what they needed to stay in business, and GM and the unions did the same. I see issue with both and fail to make the distinction about one being better than the other, on fundamental level of how it happened. Saying one is better than the other is like saying dog crap smells better than cow crap.
Click to expand...
I don't think the banks played the political angle Paulson and Bernanke were completely in unknown waters by that point. Whether or not political favoritism played a part in the bank bailouts is still unknown; what is known is that the Fed pushed TARP money on all the major banks, even the ones that didn't want it, and some of Paulson's old rivals. I think your take on GM is more or less accurate though.
 
#57
#57
milohimself said:
There was no restructuring on the table. GM needed capital, and there was zero available. When a company needs capital and there is none, then it ceases to exist. Managed bankruptcy was not an option at the time. It was either get the government to pay the light bill or go under.
Click to expand...

and why is that? More examples of poor leadership within GM and kowtowing to the unions. If my company is a failure I don't really expect to have a lifetime job. Don't forget they are still using govt funds to pay workers bonuses. I don't get that at my company either
 
#58
#58
utvolpj said:
pretty much where I am too (although part of me still thinks we could survive it)
Click to expand...

Is it just a coincidence that you change your favorite sports teams to the "Clippers" and "Coyotes" in the midst of playoff series in which they are both squared off against Tennessee teams?

I resounding assume no.
 
#59
#59
rjd970 said:
Agreed, from a practical point of view, there is a difference.

From an idealistic point of view, there is zero difference.

But by saying you can make a practical justification for the bank bailout you are saying you aren't completely against the idea of bailouts, ie, there are instances where it is justifiable. This doesn't fit into the idea of capitalism and thus arguing against the GM bailout on prinicple is impossible.
Click to expand...

Too rigid for me.

1) I'm not for completely unfettered capitalism
2) I do believe the government has a role to play
3) I think that role should be as minimal as possible
4) I can argue on principle that government should not be bailing out individual institutions. That it should not bail out groups of institutions unless it is critical to prevent collapse of the economy.

Why are we suddenly dealing in absolutes? I doubt you'll find many proponents of fully unfettered and unregulated capitalism - particularly when it comes to financial markets given their role in underpining the economy.

The other aspect to criticize GM and not TARP is that there were other established means (bankruptcy laws) that could have handled GM but not so with the financial industry bailout. The manner in which the GM bailout (wiping out bond holders) was also legally problematic.
 
#60
#60
someone needs to explain to me why making things like energy more expensive (and thus nearly everything else) is considered moving "forward"
 
#62
#62
milohimself said:
There was no restructuring on the table. GM needed capital, and there was zero available. When a company needs capital and there is none, then it ceases to exist. Managed bankruptcy was not an option at the time. It was either get the government to pay the light bill or go under.
Click to expand...

I don't know that there was ever an opportunity to put restructuring on the table. It was a bit of a pre-emptive strike.

There were options too where the government could have provided loan guarantees or actual working capital to float the company into restructuring.
 
#64
#64
I don't understand then. Either you are for government bailout of private institutions, or you aren't. Rationalizing away the principle based on certain situations or who a company or industry is...while holding other situations and companies to that principle doesn't make sense to me.

Bottom line is GM and the Bank bailouts were cut from the same cloth. The cloth may have been different, but a bailout is a bailout.
 
#65
#65
Scotty's Flat Top said:
Is it just a coincidence that you change your favorite sports teams to the "Clippers" and "Coyotes" in the midst of playoff series in which they are both squared off against Tennessee teams?

I resounding assume no.
Click to expand...

I was a Coyote's fan since about 2000. I've been to lots of games since we had corp tickets. I also made quite a bit of money supplying pipe and other things to their new arena (not the underground crap from China that failed though). So no, that is not new. Almost exact same story with the AZ Cards too

Now the Clippers thing... :whistling:
 
#66
#66
rjd970 said:
I don't understand then. Either you are for government bailout of private institutions, or you aren't. Rationalizing away the principle based on certain situations or who a company or industry is...while holding other situations and companies to that principle doesn't make sense to me.

Bottom line is GM and the Bank bailouts were cut from the same cloth. The cloth may have been different, but a bailout is a bailout.
Click to expand...

Your with us or your against us?

You are for all regulation or no regulation?

Can you see where there might be a position in between?
 
#68
#68
volinbham said:
Your with us or your against us?

You are for all regulation or no regulation?

Can you see where there might be a position in between?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about regulation. I'm talking about bailing out companies who have failed. No, I don't see a position in between. I'm hearing unions don't deserve a bailout, but wall street types do...being argued that one is ok because the economic consequences would have been worse.
 
#69
#69
n_huffhines said:
I'm trying to understand how small "as small as possible" is, if that's what you advocate.
Click to expand...

Financial - ensure transparency of financial products and services so investors/users can properly assess risk.

Environmental - some type of safety regulations/standards on water/air quality

Food/drugs - some type of safety regulations

Transportation - some mechanism to coordinate interstate transportation systems/some safety standards.

Partial list. It is a matter of degree. I recognize the slippery slope but I simply do not see complete removal of the federal government from all forms of economic activity as the height of efficiency or effectiveness.
 
#70
#70
rjd970 said:
I'm not talking about regulation. I'm talking about bailing out companies who have failed. No, I don't see a position in between. I'm hearing unions don't deserve a bailout, but wall street types do...being argued that one is ok because the economic consequences would have been worse.
Click to expand...

Okay - I am pro-bailout in very limited instances; when to not do so has far-reaching dire economic consequences. It's not about unions vs wall-street types; neither is more deserving. It is about consequences of failure.

If we were talking AIG only vs GM only then I'd be much less sympathetic. Since we are talking multiple banking institutions that collectively support the economy vs two auto producers that could be partially salvaged via other means then I see the situations as distinct.

Put another way, if banks were full of union workers and GM full of wall street types then I would feel the same way. It is not about bailing out the institution and it's workers. It is about preventing massive economic distress to others beyond those institutions.
 
#71
#71
volinbham said:
I don't know that there was ever an opportunity to put restructuring on the table. It was a bit of a pre-emptive strike.

There were options too where the government could have provided loan guarantees or actual working capital to float the company into restructuring.
Click to expand...

More or less what I was saying. Mitt basically holds the position that GM should have gone through a restructuring, entirely private market solution and that the government shouldn't have played any role in it (presumably beyond advisory) -- Those were mutually exclusive paths of action at the time. The only reason GM even exists right now is because of guvahment cheddah.

I'm not taking either position that the government should have soaked the bondholders and hooked up the UAW OR said 'peace out' to GM and let that come with all it brings. Just pointing out that this particular situation was black and white, and Mitt is trying to plant a foot in both circles.
 
#72
#72
volinbham said:
Financial - ensure transparency of financial products and services so investors/users can properly assess risk.

Environmental - some type of safety regulations/standards on water/air quality

Food/drugs - some type of safety regulations

Transportation - some mechanism to coordinate interstate transportation systems/some safety standards.

Partial list. It is a matter of degree. I recognize the slippery slope but I simply do not see complete removal of the federal government from all forms of economic activity as the height of efficiency or effectiveness.
Click to expand...

This is how I see it, and there is an economic means of quantifying these things, but that's a whole 'nother thread.
 
#73
#73
volinbham said:
Okay - I am pro-bailout in very limited instances; when to not do so has far-reaching dire economic consequences. It's not about unions vs wall-street types; neither is more deserving. It is about consequences of failure.

If we were talking AIG only vs GM only then I'd be much less sympathetic. Since we are talking multiple banking institutions that collectively support the economy vs two auto producers that could be partially salvaged via other means then I see the situations as distinct.

Put another way, if banks were full of union workers and GM full of wall street types then I would feel the same way. It is not about bailing out the institution and it's workers. It is about preventing massive economic distress to others beyond those institutions.
Click to expand...

AIG by itself was a bit different too... At the time, they were, by far, the single most important player in the world economy.
 
#74
#74
milohimself said:
More or less what I was saying. Mitt basically holds the position that GM should have gone through a restructuring, entirely private market solution and that the government shouldn't have played any role in it (presumably beyond advisory) -- Those were mutually exclusive paths of action at the time. The only reason GM even exists right now is because of guvahment cheddah.

I'm not taking either position that the government should have soaked the bondholders and hooked up the UAW OR said 'peace out' to GM and let that come with all it brings. Just pointing out that this particular situation was black and white, and Mitt is trying to plant a foot in both circles.
Click to expand...

But then Mitt and Obama are both wrong. Mitt is saying it could be done without the government and Obama is saying they did it the only way that it could be done and without that specific plan the American auto industry would be gone.

Both are taking absolutist positions but only Mitt seems to be getting called out for it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top