Obama refuses to divest from General Motors ...

[AZGrizFan]

I know in your utopia no actual "risk" exists, as it's all eliminated by an omnipotent government, but believe it or not, financial institutions DO serve a purpose.

Where do you think working capital comes from? Where do you think the money comes from for businesses to buy buildings and fixed assets and pay contractors and for entrepeneurs to start up businesses and allow people to buy cars and boats and houses and just about EVERYTHING ELSE they buy? Who do you think provides unsecured credit so Americans can go on vacation, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.? Who's going to provide that service? The government? And what's a financial institution to do to account for the inherent risk involved in providing that service? Should they not take a "cut" and just provide those funds at a 0% interest rate, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of people default on those loans either by choice or by necessity? My little $250 million credit union has written off over $35 MILLION in bad loans in the past 18 months. Some of it was fraud, but much of it was people just deciding they could just fuck over the financial institution because they COULD.

In you donks' minds, fuck the banks and the horse they rode in on...go ahead and fuck over all the financial institutions because Obama has convinced the idiots in this country that somehow the BANKS are the evil bad guys.

But, go ahead and think that banks just "shuffle other people's money around". Your ignorance continues to astound.

[Baldy]

I get the anti bailout sentiments, but let me give you an example of the impacts of GM shutting down.

I have a buddy who bought a coffee shop in 2007. A BIG chunk of his daily haul came from a large GM dealership across the street - both employees and customers. Had that dealership gone under, so would have my entrepreneurial friend. Which in turn would have cost his landlord one more lease payment...and you can see where I'm going with this. Point being, the economy is much bigger and much more interconnected than the average conk can comprehend.

Funny you mention that since the failed bailout of the UAW...uh...General Motors ended up closing about 2000 dealerships and left about 100,000 people unemployed.
Then again those weren't union jobs so I guess they don't matter.

[kalm]

I know in your utopia no actual "risk" exists, as it's all eliminated by an omnipotent government, but believe it or not, financial institutions DO serve a purpose.

Where do you think working capital comes from? Where do you think the money comes from for businesses to buy buildings and fixed assets and pay contractors and for entrepeneurs to start up businesses and allow people to buy cars and boats and houses and just about EVERYTHING ELSE they buy? Who do you think provides unsecured credit so Americans can go on vacation, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.? Who's going to provide that service? The government? And what's a financial institution to do to account for the inherent risk involved in providing that service? Should they not take a "cut" and just provide those funds at a 0% interest rate, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of people default on those loans either by choice or by necessity? My little $250 million credit union has written off over $35 MILLION in bad loans in the past 18 months. Some of it was fraud, but much of it was people just deciding they could just fuck over the financial institution because they COULD.

In you donks' minds, fuck the banks and the horse they rode in on...go ahead and fuck over all the financial institutions because Obama has convinced the idiots in this country that somehow the BANKS are the evil bad guys.

But, go ahead and think that banks just "shuffle other people's money around". Your ignorance continues to astound.

Hey Z. Remember when bankers used to be conservative? I mean with money? I mean with making money? I mean with risk?

[danefan]

I know in your utopia no actual "risk" exists, as it's all eliminated by an omnipotent government, but believe it or not, financial institutions DO serve a purpose.

Where do you think working capital comes from? Where do you think the money comes from for businesses to buy buildings and fixed assets and pay contractors and for entrepeneurs to start up businesses and allow people to buy cars and boats and houses and just about EVERYTHING ELSE they buy? Who do you think provides unsecured credit so Americans can go on vacation, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.? Who's going to provide that service? The government? And what's a financial institution to do to account for the inherent risk involved in providing that service? Should they not take a "cut" and just provide those funds at a 0% interest rate, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of people default on those loans either by choice or by necessity? My little $250 million credit union has written off over $35 MILLION in bad loans in the past 18 months. Some of it was fraud, but much of it was people just deciding they could just fuck over the financial institution because they COULD.

In you donks' minds, fuck the banks and the horse they rode in on...go ahead and fuck over all the financial institutions because Obama has convinced the idiots in this country that somehow the BANKS are the evil bad guys.

But, go ahead and think that banks just "shuffle other people's money around". Your ignorance continues to astound.

I agree with everything you said except that somehow Obama is at fault for the country's opinion of financial institutions.

In large part, investment bankers and hedge fund managers themselves have caused the perception based on their reality. They make a ton of money doing something that few people understand. And some of them make billions doing what a lot of people consider "nothing but moving other people's money around". And you and I both know, some of them do exactly that. People resent them for it and any chance they get to blame anything on them, they do.

[DSUrocks07]

*walking into the crossfire* (lol...Crossfire)

In my "uneducated voter" opinion, (for I am not an economist, nor an auto industry nor a union expert), it appears that the Obama administration looked at the landscape that GM was always the "big dog" in the American auto industry and they attempted to keep that paradigm in place no matter what, that they'll go into bankruptcy as the #1 automaker then come out of bankruptcy as the #1 automaker, or that was what they were counting on. But its blatantly obvious that economics don't work that way.

The ironic thing is that a McCain administration would have probably done the same thing, the precident was already put into place by Bush with the TARP program. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least that when GM is on the brink again within the next couple years that a Romney administration is at the forefront of another GM bailout, under the guise of the GOP's 'America First, America Always, Buy American' platform:

"GM is the icon of American industry, it CANNOT fail!!"

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[kalm]

I know in your utopia no actual "risk" exists, as it's all eliminated by an omnipotent government, but believe it or not, financial institutions DO serve a purpose.

Where do you think working capital comes from? Where do you think the money comes from for businesses to buy buildings and fixed assets and pay contractors and for entrepeneurs to start up businesses and allow people to buy cars and boats and houses and just about EVERYTHING ELSE they buy? Who do you think provides unsecured credit so Americans can go on vacation, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.? Who's going to provide that service? The government? And what's a financial institution to do to account for the inherent risk involved in providing that service? Should they not take a "cut" and just provide those funds at a 0% interest rate, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of people default on those loans either by choice or by necessity? My little $250 million credit union has written off over $35 MILLION in bad loans in the past 18 months. Some of it was fraud, but much of it was people just deciding they could just fuck over the financial institution because they COULD.

In you donks' minds, fuck the banks and the horse they rode in on...go ahead and fuck over all the financial institutions because Obama has convinced the idiots in this country that somehow the BANKS are the evil bad guys.

But, go ahead and think that banks just "shuffle other people's money around". Your ignorance continues to astound.

I agree with everything you said except that somehow Obama is at fault for the country's opinion of financial institutions.

In large part, investment bankers and hedge fund managers themselves have caused the perception based on their reality. They make a ton of money doing something that few people understand. And some of them make billions doing what a lot of people consider "nothing but moving other people's money around". And you and I both know, some of them do exactly that. People resent them for it and any chance they get to blame anything on them, they do.

This. And that industry is the one who spent billions lobbying for deregulation. FTR, I blame none of this on credit unions so sorry you continuously getting painted with the broad brush Z.

[GannonFan]

*walking into the crossfire* (lol...Crossfire)

In my "uneducated voter" opinion, (for I am not an economist, nor an auto industry nor a union expert), it appears that the Obama administration looked at the landscape that GM was always the "big dog" in the American auto industry and they attempted to keep that paradigm in place no matter what, that they'll go into bankruptcy as the #1 automaker then come out of bankruptcy as the #1 automaker, or that was what they were counting on. But its blatantly obvious that economics don't work that way.

The ironic thing is that a McCain administration would have probably done the same thing, the precident was already put into place by Bush with the TARP program. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least that when GM is on the brink again within the next couple years that a Romney administration is at the forefront of another GM bailout, under the guise of the GOP's 'America First, America Always, Buy American' platform:

"GM is the icon of American industry, it CANNOT fail!!"

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

Well, technically speaking, part of the uproar over the GM thing was that TARP money was used for that when it was never part of the consideration when TARP was passed that it could be used to bail out a car company.

But that point aside, my biggest issue with the GM thing has always been that it was just kicking the can down the road (and as you point out another President in the future, and I don't see how Romney will ever be that one) will be faced with the same predicament - GM is going to fail again, it's almost inevitable. At some point, it will either have to go through legitimate bankruptcy or it will get another favored goverment bailout to let things continue without substantial change. I was fine with the bailout when it happened because, as I said, we had to stop the daily dosages of bad news - the bailout helped to do that. However, it never solved the problem and eventually GM will fail again. Hopefully this time we let it go bankrupt and let it reorganize as it should have without the government heavy handedness that screwed up the reorganization the last time. Bankruptcy does not mean everyone will go unemployed - heck, the airlines have gone through a whole host of bankruptcies and most are still around - it just means that GM will be forced to change their business model to compete with the better business models that exist in this country to build cars, ala what Ford, Toyota, Honda and every other car manufacturer who is not GM does today. We will end up eating billions of dollars - now the only question is what fiscal year will that large loss be accounted in.

[UNI88]

It's refreshing to see you admit that you don't have a fvcking clue what you are talking about.

Yeah but that was a great guess...
He kinda nailed it actually

It was a great guess and he did kinda nail it but to me it's a little frightening that he has a problem with a financial institution taking people's money to provide a service and making a profit from it. Based on his prior posts it seems he would prefer that the government take the money of wealthier people and provide that service to everyone. The profits plus more would be spent on having twice as many low-level bureaucrats performing the work much less efficiently.

FYI - AIG is a multinational insurance company.

[kalm]

Yeah but that was a great guess...
He kinda nailed it actually

It was a great guess and he did kinda nail it but to me it's a little frightening that he has a problem with a financial institution taking people's money to provide a service and making a profit from it. Based on his prior posts it seems he would prefer that the government take the money of wealthier people and provide that service to everyone. The profits plus more would be spent on having twice as many low-level bureaucrats performing the work much less efficiently.

FYI - AIG is a multinational insurance company.

The problem with AIG is they became too big to fail, and they lost control of their gambling...oops I mean financial services unit. A part of their company got greedy and couldn't meet their obligations which would have not only sunk the AIG but also hurt their creditors further jeapordizing world wide economy.

[UNI88]

I know in your utopia no actual "risk" exists, as it's all eliminated by an omnipotent government, but believe it or not, financial institutions DO serve a purpose.

Where do you think working capital comes from? Where do you think the money comes from for businesses to buy buildings and fixed assets and pay contractors and for entrepeneurs to start up businesses and allow people to buy cars and boats and houses and just about EVERYTHING ELSE they buy? Who do you think provides unsecured credit so Americans can go on vacation, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.? Who's going to provide that service? The government? And what's a financial institution to do to account for the inherent risk involved in providing that service? Should they not take a "cut" and just provide those funds at a 0% interest rate, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of people default on those loans either by choice or by necessity? My little $250 million credit union has written off over $35 MILLION in bad loans in the past 18 months. Some of it was fraud, but much of it was people just deciding they could just **** over the financial institution because they COULD.

In you donks' minds, **** the banks and the horse they rode in on...go ahead and **** over all the financial institutions because Obama has convinced the idiots in this country that somehow the BANKS are the evil bad guys.

But, go ahead and think that banks just "shuffle other people's money around". Your ignorance continues to astound.

AZ, is there truth to this Chicago Tribune article?
Mortgage cops taking tough stance, Office of Inspector General on the prowl for strategic defaulters
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classifie ... 4066.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Investigators are searching not only for lenders who have sold materially deficient loans to Fannie and Freddie, but also individuals, including those who reneged on their promises to repay their mortgages. So if you are a "strategic defaulter" who decided it was better to walk away from your obligation than to keep paying for a house that was worth substantially less than you owed, it's time to start looking over your shoulder.

[GannonFan]

It was a great guess and he did kinda nail it but to me it's a little frightening that he has a problem with a financial institution taking people's money to provide a service and making a profit from it. Based on his prior posts it seems he would prefer that the government take the money of wealthier people and provide that service to everyone. The profits plus more would be spent on having twice as many low-level bureaucrats performing the work much less efficiently.

FYI - AIG is a multinational insurance company.

The problem with AIG is they became too big to fail, and they lost control of their gambling...oops I mean financial services unit. A part of their company got greedy and couldn't meet their obligations which would have not only sunk the AIG but also hurt their creditors further jeapordizing world wide economy.

At some point, things need to be allowed to fail. When we prop things up that would fail otherwise, it just encourages the idea that the next time someone does something similar that they'll be stopped from failing too. Bad behavior that is saved from its consequences only implies that bad behavior will be tolerated next time too. The world wide economy continues to suck right now, so maybe we should've let some things fail back then. Like the sins at GM, we've simply pushed the reckoning off to some point in the future rather than take our medicine in the short term.

[AZGrizFan]

I know in your utopia no actual "risk" exists, as it's all eliminated by an omnipotent government, but believe it or not, financial institutions DO serve a purpose.

Where do you think working capital comes from? Where do you think the money comes from for businesses to buy buildings and fixed assets and pay contractors and for entrepeneurs to start up businesses and allow people to buy cars and boats and houses and just about EVERYTHING ELSE they buy? Who do you think provides unsecured credit so Americans can go on vacation, buy clothes, etc., etc., etc.? Who's going to provide that service? The government? And what's a financial institution to do to account for the inherent risk involved in providing that service? Should they not take a "cut" and just provide those funds at a 0% interest rate, despite the fact that thousands and thousands of people default on those loans either by choice or by necessity? My little $250 million credit union has written off over $35 MILLION in bad loans in the past 18 months. Some of it was fraud, but much of it was people just deciding they could just fuck over the financial institution because they COULD.

In you donks' minds, fuck the banks and the horse they rode in on...go ahead and fuck over all the financial institutions because Obama has convinced the idiots in this country that somehow the BANKS are the evil bad guys.

But, go ahead and think that banks just "shuffle other people's money around". Your ignorance continues to astound.

I agree with everything you said except that somehow Obama is at fault for the country's opinion of financial institutions.

In large part, investment bankers and hedge fund managers themselves have caused the perception based on their reality. They make a ton of money doing something that few people understand. And some of them make billions doing what a lot of people consider "nothing but moving other people's money around". And you and I both know, some of them do exactly that. People resent them for it and any chance they get to blame anything on them, they do.

Well, if Tod is talking about hedge fund managers he should say so. Those people are not BANKERS.

[AZGrizFan]

I agree with everything you said except that somehow Obama is at fault for the country's opinion of financial institutions.

In large part, investment bankers and hedge fund managers themselves have caused the perception based on their reality. They make a ton of money doing something that few people understand. And some of them make billions doing what a lot of people consider "nothing but moving other people's money around". And you and I both know, some of them do exactly that. People resent them for it and any chance they get to blame anything on them, they do.

This. And that industry is the one who spent billions lobbying for deregulation. FTR, I blame none of this on credit unions so sorry you continuously getting painted with the broad brush Z.

THe problem is that when the inevitable backlash/crackdown happens, it not only affects the non-banker banks in Wall Street but every mom and pop shop across America as well. And that adds yet ANOTHER layer of cost to the service we provide of "shuffling other people's money around".

And regarding Danefan's refusal to blame the country's current opinion of "banks" on Obama....you're not paying attention if you REALLY believe that's the case. NO ONE has made a more concerted effort to paint Wall Street and banks in general as the "evil" empire.

[BDKJMU]

Its not like if GM and Crysler were allowed to go under Americans would have been buying less cars. Ford and the foreign manufacturers with plants in the US: BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, VW, would have increased output. All those manufacturers with the exception of Ford, have plants in mostly in right to work states where they don't have the albatross of the UAW hanging around their neck. Much of that GM & Chrysler factory equipment would have been moved to those other states. Those other manufacturers would have increased hiring. In the long run the net effect on auto industry employment in the US wouldn't have been that negative.

-Now we have the taxpayers still about 38 billion in the hole.
-The secured creditors and investors were screwed and the UAW wasn't.
-GM still churns out crap.
-GM is still in trouble and we are soon going to be right back to where we were 4 years ago.

Shouldn't have bailed them out then and sure as hell shouldn't bail them out again in a few years when they need it again. Thankfully in a few years the govt won't be able to get away with pissing taxpayer dollars down the rathole that is GM for a 2nd time because I don't think the public will stand for it a 2nd time.

I get the anti bailout sentiments, but let me give you an example of the impacts of GM shutting down.

I have a buddy who bought a coffee shop in 2007. A BIG chunk of his daily haul came from a large GM dealership across the street - both employees and customers. Had that dealership gone under, do would have my entrepreneurial friend. Which in turn would have cost his landlord one more lease payment...and you can see where I'm going with this. Point being, the economy is much bigger and much more interconnected than the average conk can comprehend.

Wrong. I comprehend it quite well the everythi8ng is super interconnected.

And maybe Ford, or Toyota, or Honda or Nissan, or VW, etc would have bought the dealership across from your buddy.. Or maybe no one buys the dealership, but opens up one somewhere else in the city, bringing business to that part of the city where somebody else could then open a coffee shop...

You see where I'm going with this. Again, GM & Chrysler going under wouldn't have effected the # of cars Americans bought. Sure, maybe there would be a smaller # of dealerships selling a higher volume, but at the time there were too many dealerships anyway.

In the long run, within 10 years or so of them going under, I think close to as many cars would be produced in the US. More by Ford and all the other foreign manufacturers in the south. Who knows, maybe a new American car company or a "new GM" would have risen from the ashes. Sure it would have been a rough transition period and would have sucked for the upper midwest, would have been a boon for the south which would have taken up the slack.

Now all the govt did was prop up a dying corpse....

[BDKJMU]

Its not like if GM and Crysler were allowed to go under Americans would have been buying less cars. Ford and the foreign manufacturers with plants in the US: BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, VW, would have increased output. All those manufacturers with the exception of Ford, have plants in mostly in right to work states where they don't have the albatross of the UAW hanging around their neck. Much of that GM & Chrysler factory equipment would have been moved to those other states. Those other manufacturers would have increased hiring. In the long run the net effect on auto industry employment in the US wouldn't have been that negative.

-Now we have the taxpayers still about 38 billion in the hole.
-The secured creditors and investors were screwed and the UAW wasn't.
-GM still churns out crap.
-GM is still in trouble and we are soon going to be right back to where we were 4 years ago.

Shouldn't have bailed them out then and sure as hell shouldn't bail them out again in a few years when they need it again. Thankfully in a few years the govt won't be able to get away with pissing taxpayer dollars down the rathole that is GM for a 2nd time because I don't think the public will stand for it a 2nd time.

Minority (Racist) opinion. Most donk economists applaud Obama on this point.

FIFY