Well, the gov. did the same thing with AIG and made a $15B profit, while still owning about 16% of AIG.CitadelGrad wrote:even though GM's management has requested the government sell its stake.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/genera ... 2012-09-17
No, AIG never screwed anyone, ever. Just a hard working bunch of folks that push paper and make billions in profit by being the middle man.CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model, didn't have a chunk of their equity handed over to unions and Obama political allies and didn't screw their creditors. So no, it wasn't the same as Gubmint Motors.
Just how do you propose that the taxpayers get their money back from GM? Do you have any idea how much the stock price has dropped since the Gubmint Motors IPO?
CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model
Every fucking decent economist on the planet applauds the auto bailout.CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model, didn't have a chunk of their equity handed over to unions and Obama political allies and didn't screw their creditors. So no, it wasn't the same as Gubmint Motors.
Just how do you propose that the taxpayers get their money back from GM? Do you have any idea how much the stock price has dropped since the Gubmint Motors IPO?
FIFYD1B wrote:Every fucking knuckle dragging pseudo-economist on the planet applauds the auto bailout.CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model, didn't have a chunk of their equity handed over to unions and Obama political allies and didn't screw their creditors. So no, it wasn't the same as Gubmint Motors.
Just how do you propose that the taxpayers get their money back from GM? Do you have any idea how much the stock price has dropped since the Gubmint Motors IPO?
You know that wasn't AIG, don't you?kalm wrote:CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model
I know, I know...it was what's his name in the London unit and greed, not the model that sunk them. Still...
You don't know what AIG does, do you?Tod wrote:No, AIG never screwed anyone, ever. Just a hard working bunch of folks that push paper and make billions in profit by being the middle man.CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model, didn't have a chunk of their equity handed over to unions and Obama political allies and didn't screw their creditors. So no, it wasn't the same as Gubmint Motors.
Just how do you propose that the taxpayers get their money back from GM? Do you have any idea how much the stock price has dropped since the Gubmint Motors IPO?
Yeah, gotta love the Banks over those pesky producers.
I don't like the government buying stock any more than you do. But if the decision is made to do it, might as well try to make a buck just like anybody else.
Most people don't.CitadelGrad wrote:You don't know what AIG does, do you?Tod wrote: No, AIG never screwed anyone, ever. Just a hard working bunch of folks that push paper and make billions in profit by being the middle man.
Yeah, gotta love the Banks over those pesky producers.
I don't like the government buying stock any more than you do. But if the decision is made to do it, might as well try to make a buck just like anybody else.
Yes it was. His name was Joseph Cassano. Their original business model was to spread the risk. Turns out, they were really, really good at it.CitadelGrad wrote:You know that wasn't AIG, don't you?kalm wrote:
I know, I know...it was what's his name in the London unit and greed, not the model that sunk them. Still...
I don't know if the bailout was a good thing or not, but GM makes plastic crap, somewhere just below Lifan and Ssangyong in quality. Now they manufacture government subsidized plastic crap.D1B wrote:Every **** decent economist on the planet applauds the auto bailout.CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model, didn't have a chunk of their equity handed over to unions and Obama political allies and didn't screw their creditors. So no, it wasn't the same as Gubmint Motors.
Just how do you propose that the taxpayers get their money back from GM? Do you have any idea how much the stock price has dropped since the Gubmint Motors IPO?
I'm not sure what your definition of "decent economist" is, but I suspect you are talking about Krugman and De Long. I think most economists will tell you that subsidizing a failed and failing business model and attempting to give it a competitive advantage over competitors with more successful business models (Ford) is a waste of capital, lowers quality standards and distorts markets. Both are very bad things in the long and short term.D1B wrote:Every fucking decent economist on the planet applauds the auto bailout.CitadelGrad wrote:AIG didn't have a fundamentally flawed business model, didn't have a chunk of their equity handed over to unions and Obama political allies and didn't screw their creditors. So no, it wasn't the same as Gubmint Motors.
Just how do you propose that the taxpayers get their money back from GM? Do you have any idea how much the stock price has dropped since the Gubmint Motors IPO?
Actually, no, I don't. I don't think it really matters as far as what I said, though, unless I'm so far off on the "bank" thing that it makes a huge difference.CitadelGrad wrote:You don't know what AIG does, do you?Tod wrote: No, AIG never screwed anyone, ever. Just a hard working bunch of folks that push paper and make billions in profit by being the middle man.
Yeah, gotta love the Banks over those pesky producers.
I don't like the government buying stock any more than you do. But if the decision is made to do it, might as well try to make a buck just like anybody else.
In a perfectly free and thereby equal opportunity system...yes. Of course that does not nor ever has existed. At least in the short term a whole shit load of not only directly related jobs but ancillary jobs were saved and probably prevented a deepening of the recession.CitadelGrad wrote:I'm not sure what your definition of "decent economist" is, but I suspect you are talking about Krugman and De Long. I think most economists will tell you that subsidizing a failed and failing business model and attempting to give it a competitive advantage over competitors with more successful business models (Ford) is a waste of capital, lowers quality standards and distorts markets. Both are very bad things in the long and short term.D1B wrote:
Every fucking decent economist on the planet applauds the auto bailout.
I get the anti bailout sentiments, but let me give you an example of the impacts of GM shutting down.BDKJMU wrote: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.
kalm wrote:I get the anti bailout sentiments, but let me give you an example of the impacts of GM shutting down.BDKJMU wrote: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 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.
Minority (Racist) opinion. Most credible economists applaud Obama on this point.BDKJMU wrote: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.
It's refreshing to see you admit that you don't have a fvcking clue what you are talking about.Tod wrote:Actually, no, I don't. I don't think it really matters as far as what I said, though, unless I'm so far off on the "bank" thing that it makes a huge difference.CitadelGrad wrote:
You don't know what AIG does, do you?
Do they build cars or planes or mine or drill for oil? Nah. They shuffle other People's money around, I'm guessing.
Yeah but that was a great guess...CitadelGrad wrote:It's refreshing to see you admit that you don't have a fvcking clue what you are talking about.Tod wrote: Actually, no, I don't. I don't think it really matters as far as what I said, though, unless I'm so far off on the "bank" thing that it makes a huge difference.
Do they build cars or planes or mine or drill for oil? Nah. They shuffle other People's money around, I'm guessing.
Not really.Chizzang wrote:Yeah but that was a great guess...CitadelGrad wrote:
It's refreshing to see you admit that you don't have a fvcking clue what you are talking about.
He kinda nailed it actually
No, but General Motors is alive (allegedly) and Bin Laden is dead.danefan wrote:It will sell them back if GM pays the break-even price.CitadelGrad wrote:That all sounds rather vague and Gubmint ain't selling its shares back.
And of course its vague. I don't know enough about GM's business.
Have they restructured everything that caused their issues in the first place?
Jesus. You're even more clueless than I originally thought.Tod wrote:Actually, no, I don't. I don't think it really matters as far as what I said, though, unless I'm so far off on the "bank" thing that it makes a huge difference.CitadelGrad wrote:
You don't know what AIG does, do you?
Do they build cars or planes or mine or drill for oil? Nah. They shuffle other People's money around, I'm guessing.
Fill me in. What do they do?AZGrizFan wrote:Jesus. You're even more clueless than I originally thought.Tod wrote: Actually, no, I don't. I don't think it really matters as far as what I said, though, unless I'm so far off on the "bank" thing that it makes a huge difference.
Do they build cars or planes or mine or drill for oil? Nah. They shuffle other People's money around, I'm guessing.
No, you're right. Financial institutions just shuffle other people's money around and act as a middle man, taking their "cut", as you say.Tod wrote:Fill me in. What do they do?AZGrizFan wrote:
Jesus. You're even more clueless than I originally thought.
