Guess what? GM's restructuring worked

No....It is the reason Ford is 1 billion dollars more profitable than GM now....picking up the business lost by "worried" would be GM customers.....

{probably all the car co. have seen more sales in the past few months...(now that is just a guess....)}

And I didn't say 'other' or 'only' AMERICAN car companies did I....?
Just read what is posted not what you imagine I post.....

Oh...so you were endorsing the idea that it would be good for the economy if GM customers went to FOREIGN car makers if GM had gone belly up?

I see.

Thanks for clarifying.
 
I get it. You wanted the world's largest manufacturing entity to go belly up.

You wanted to invade and bomb a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us, on the basis of the flimsiest, feeblest, and most circumstantial of evidence. But you are comfortable proclaiming that you saw no evidence risk to seeing america's largest manufacturer crater?

I supported Bush's bail out of the banks, and the Obama GM bailout. But, I'm the partisan?

That's hilarious Annie. I suggest no accusing othe people of partisanship.

At this time and place, I've no allegiance to any party. However, I firmly believe the government should not be involved with finances of any business
This bailout of the auto industry and the banks were a mistake of major magnitude. I too wondered in late 2008 about what the government could or should do, but not by December when Bush pushed through the additional spending.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/12/did-imf-say-usa-is-doa

Did IMF Say USA Is DOA?

Tim Cavanaugh * August 12, 2010

Recent International Monetary Fund statements on U.S. fiscal solvency have been alarming. But do they point to a future debt of $202 trillion?

Boston University econ prof. Laurence J. Kotlikoff has put together some pleasingly apocalyptic documentation:

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.​

...
 
Oh...so you were endorsing the idea that it would be good for the economy if GM customers went to FOREIGN car makers if GM had gone belly up?

I see.

Thanks for clarifying.
There are 10's of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans working for OTHER auto manufactures....and personally, I'd rejoice if the UAW was taken down a notch or two along with their contributions to Democrats....its the reason I just bought a 2010 Honda and shit canned my Equinox...my new motto....GM, never again.
 
There are 10's of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans working for OTHER auto manufactures....and personally, I'd rejoice if the UAW was taken down a notch or two along with their contributions to Democrats....it the reason I just bought a 2010 Honda and shit canned my Equinox...my new motto....GM, never again.

LOL

Whatever; I'm embarassed for you.
 
There are 10's of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Americans working for OTHER auto manufactures....and personally, I'd rejoice if the UAW was taken down a notch or two along with their contributions to Democrats....its the reason I just bought a 2010 Honda and shit canned my Equinox...my new motto....GM, never again.


there you have it folks.

NeoCons wanted America's largest manufacturing entity to crater, because it would "hurt" the Dems and the unions. Peppered with guesses that GM workers would somehow easily just find other jobs, and somehow somebody somewhere would magically take care of GM's retiree's pensions, and the GM creditors.
 
I overstated the number of GM jobs in the US. It's actually only about 54900. The best case scenario cost of the GM bailout is expected to be about 31 billion. That's a little under 620k per US employee or enough to pay their salaries for about 6 years. A large number of their workforce just accepted 20k in cash and a 25K coupon for a buyout.

And more than likely, GM will be back.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...urly-workers-decide-to-leave-the-company.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-27/business/20870864_1_gm-loans-general-motors-chairman
 
I overstated the number of GM jobs in the US. It's actually only about 54900. The best case scenario cost of the GM bailout is expected to be about 31 billion. That's a little under 620k per US employee or enough to pay their salaries for about 6 years. A large number of their workforce just accepted 20k in cash and a 25K coupon for a buyout.

And more than likely, GM will be back.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bu...urly-workers-decide-to-leave-the-company.html

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-27/business/20870864_1_gm-loans-general-motors-chairman

RString, seriously - do you think GM exists in a bubble?
 
I contend that the risk to the US taxpayer, and the ripple effects on the economy were clear and present, and they had to be mitigated. I personally think that's the more prudent risk-management option.

All you're doing is guessing, hypothesizing, and pulling crap out of thin air.
 
All you're doing is guessing, hypothesizing, and pulling crap out of thin air.


I think I've probably been the only honest one on the thread.

I said I favored the GM bailout from a risk management perspective. Not because I knew with certainty what would happen. I just think there was more downside to having america's largest manufacturer crater, than to give them a loan which costs the taxpayer nothing. Didn't GM already pay it back with interest?

In contrast, Having scanned this thread, I see a lot of dudes making proclamations (aka, guesses) couched in absolute certainty and rock solid conviction about what would have happened.
 
there you have it folks.

NeoCons wanted America's largest manufacturing entity to crater, because it would "hurt" the Dems and the unions. Peppered with guesses that GM workers would somehow easily just find other jobs, and somehow somebody somewhere would magically take care of GM's retiree's pensions, and the GM creditors.

We don't owe GM anything.
 
RString, seriously - do you think GM exists in a bubble?

No, and neither do it's competitors. As I have explained, the demand GM supplies would not vanish with GM. It would be picked up by its competitors and increase demand on their suppliers and those companies patronized by their employees.

Also, you are pretending that restructuring would not have been available to GM without the bailout. As Good Luck pointed out it was the result of bankruptcy which was the disaster that had to be averted and wasn't.
 
I think I've probably been the only honest one on the thread.

I said I favored the GM bailout from a risk management perspective. Not because I knew with certainty what would happen. I just think there was more downside to having america's largest manufacturer crater, than to give them a loan which costs the taxpayer nothing. Didn't GM already pay it back with interest?

No. The taxpayers are still on the hook for about 50 billion and are only expected to recover about 20 billion of that.

In contrast, Having scanned this thread, I see a lot of dudes making proclamations (aka, guesses) couched in absolute certainty and rock solid conviction about what would have happened.

We were warned that dire consequences would occur without strong government action. Free market advocates warned, with historical reference, that it would create uncertainty in the market and further the drop in investment.

Unemployment hit the numbers you guys said they would without government action. General Motors went bankrupt as you guys warned it would without government action. The lack of investment is still stifling the economy and many industries (including growing ones) have noted that they have been hesitant to expand due to uncertainty.
 
No. The taxpayers are still on the hook for about 50 billion and are only expected to recover about 20 billion of that.



We were warned that dire consequences would occur without strong government action. Free market advocates warned, with historical reference, that it would create uncertainty in the market and further the drop in investment.

Unemployment hit the numbers you guys said they would without government action. General Motors went bankrupt as you guys warned it would without government action. The lack of investment is still stifling the economy and many industries (including growing ones) have noted that they have been hesitant to expand due to uncertainty.


String. There is no uncertainty caused by government action. None. It's a fucking joke that you jeep bringing it up.

Business aren't investing because there is slack demand. End of story. No one wants to buy their shit. Why would they invest when there is no demand for increased prodctcion?
 
What specific uncertainty is Obama creating? Uncertainty about what? How is he doing that? Mucking around with what exactly?

do you need someone to wipe your ass, too?

He's creating uncertainty because the dumb motherfucker keeps fucking with every industry he can stick his nose into.

Banking
Auto
Oil drilling

what's next?

He's a failure as the great hope he was sold as.

LOL idiots like you make me laugh
 
do you need someone to wipe your ass, too?

He's creating uncertainty because the dumb motherfucker keeps fucking with every industry he can stick his nose into.

Banking
Auto
Oil drilling

what's next?

He's a failure as the great hope he was sold as.

LOL idiots like you make me laugh


Fucking hilarious. The regulated entities int he financial industry apparently aren't too worried about the new law. They're doing just fine. And what is uncertain in the auto industry? The GM bailout is done. Over. While the market conditions for new automobile purchases is uncertain, that's got nothing to do with the GM bailout.

And there's nothing uncertain about a offshore drilling moratorium. They just can't do it. Maybe it gets overruled in court, but as it stands now there is zero uncertainty on that front. You crack me up.
 
onceler is not thinking clearly....

first off....it is WAY to early to claim anything worked....when you get an infusion of billions one year and then claim the next year it all worked, you're delusional....in the auto industry, if the same holds true a couple years or so down the road fine

and...onceler forgets bush initially gave gm their bailout money....so he pulls a tricky "only" obama's socialist thingy worked....
 
onceler is not thinking clearly....

first off....it is WAY to early to claim anything worked....when you get an infusion of billions one year and then claim the next year it all worked, you're delusional....in the auto industry, if the same holds true a couple years or so down the road fine

and...onceler forgets bush initially gave gm their bailout money....so he pulls a tricky "only" obama's socialist thingy worked....

Weirdest spin of the day. It didn't work, but it did, if Bush gets credit.

Obama's bailout was tied to restructuring. Oops - nice try, though. Even for a hopeless Bush apologist.
 
String. There is no uncertainty caused by government action. None. It's a fucking joke that you jeep bringing it up.

Business aren't investing because there is slack demand. End of story. No one wants to buy their shit. Why would they invest when there is no demand for increased prodctcion?

I and the reason article I linked mentioned the uncertainty in growth industries. They are not expanding due to uncertainty and some of them are considering leaving the country.
 
No, and neither do it's competitors. As I have explained, the demand GM supplies would not vanish with GM. It would be picked up by its competitors and increase demand on their suppliers and those companies patronized by their employees.

Also, you are pretending that restructuring would not have been available to GM without the bailout. As Good Luck pointed out it was the result of bankruptcy which was the disaster that had to be averted and wasn't.
Absolutely right....but Onceler climbed all over me for saying essentially the same thing....is he afraid of you String?:cof1:
 
Absolutely right....but Onceler climbed all over me for saying essentially the same thing....is he afraid of you String?:cof1:

LOL

Guess you haven't really been reading the thread.

I've addressed that point time & again. You're both in economic fantasyland. According to you & RString, it doesn't matter if any huge segment of American industry tanks & 10's of thousands lose their jobs; they'll just get hired right back up again by other American companies.

How dreamy...
 
Back
Top