Andy Rooney Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 Nice article I found in Automotive news about the run up to the IPO for GM, which BTW is up 6% today. Its a Reuters article. Nice little piece in there about Sarah Palin and Tina Fey, that would have been pretty funny if they had done it. But I see why they didnt run with it. Kinda long....... http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A04RG20101101
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 An interesting read. The bankruptcy courts rubber-stamped a reorganization plan designed by Obama's "Team Auto" officials such as Steven Rattner that disregarded two centuries of bankruptcy precedent to massively favor the United Auto Workers over bondholders. As a result, according to several prominent business academics, the cost of capital will likely experience a significant rise for all U.S. businesses and entrepreneurs who wish to form new firms. In what probably was one of the most shameful moments of his administration, President Obama demagogued GM bondholders and Chrysler secured lenders as "a group of investment firms and hedge funds … who held out while everybody else made sacrifices." First off, even hedge fund managers — such as Obama supporter and progressive benefactor George Soros — have the right to have valid contracts enforced. This is America, after all, and we still have the rule of law here. What's good for GM is... But don't forget that GM executives flew private planes to congressional hearings. Therefore, the hedge fundss holding GM bonds deserved to take it up the ass. [/average American]
drnykterstein Posted November 18, 2010 Posted November 18, 2010 (edited) That's a particularly lazy example in that using THAT story as an example is like saying everyone is parroting the news by running around telling everyone that tomorrow it will be sunny with a high in the low 70s. But given your love of the lazy, I'll grant you that example. However, you still need to provide the third portion of my request, which is to explain why you believe that defunding NPR makes no logical sense. At what point does that logic escape you? I feel like we are actually having a conversation here? So I'll try to respect you with a real answer for once. The anger at NPR is illogical for a combination of reasons. Just stick with me. Few facts that I hope you will accept up front.. - NPR has existed for 40 years with little or no public opposition - Fox News views NPR as a competitor 1. So those two facts alone make it just extremely suspicious that FN would be trying to take down NPR. Any sane person should look at this and say "Is FN pushing this for profits or because they care about America?". Given the nature of the beast that is the modern American Corporation, it's extremely likely this is a profit motivated move by FN. 2. This is a staffing decision made by a company. Companies hire and fire people all the time and no one takes notice. I'm sure NPR has fired many people over it's 40 years. No one cared. FN has never been stronger and more popular than it is now. FN has noted it's influence over congress with the ACORN episode. FN thought it might be able to push this in an attempt to eliminate a competitor. Corporations love to eliminate competition. So these to summarize these two items - FN is well aware of it's strong influence over public opinion, and FN views NPR as a competitor to be gotten rid of. But ok, lets say you are *not* mindless and *not* one of the dolts who just do whatever Fox News says. Lets say you are a *real* libertarian. Most libertarians hate mainstream Republicans as much as I do. But *real* libertarians want to cut spending, and funding for CPB/NPR is a very obvious thing that actual real libertarians would want (without FN telling them what to think). Thats great. I wont even accuse a *real* libertarian of being told what to think (I like Ron Paul). There are 1000's of Federal Grants and appropriations. [see here] Anything from saving the elephants to recycling to equipment catalogs for farmers. Trail preservation, research grants, medical insurance for Vets and children, education grants, digital television grants, a "healthy marriage" grant. There are federal subsidies for agriculture, weapons contractors, this list goes on and on. Why are you singling out NPR? But perhaps you are just taking advantage of the anger FN has generated to cut one item while you have the chance. (I can applaud that) Which would mean you admit freely that this is FN generated anger. Which goes back to, why is Fox News generating all of this anger about NPR, but not the 1000's of other grants? Oh that's right, NPR is a competitor, and "Oral Diseases and Disorders Research" does not threaten Fox News' profit margin. It's not logical that this staffing decision would stand out nationally, except that Fox News used its strong-arm to push it into the public mindset. Edited November 19, 2010 by conner
Chef Jim Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 http://dealbook.nyti...-than-expected/ Consider the pipe dreamed (or very close to it) So when do we see the other 80%?
Chef Jim Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Come on, really man? Just by how far off your percentage is, I an forced to fully assume that this is not a serious question. How much have they paid back?
drnykterstein Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Government currently owns 33.3% of GM, down from 60%.
Chef Jim Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Government currently owns 33.3% of GM, down from 60%. You don't repay % you repay $.
Magox Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 No one seems to understand the risks of the moral hazards that are created through these Bailouts. Someone once said Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. This is why you have bankruptcy courts. Failing companies should fail period. Everyone just is focusing in on the visible dollar earned or dollar lost outcome of the bailouts. You guys are so thick-headed.
Chef Jim Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 No one seems to understand the risks of the moral hazards that are created through these Bailouts. Someone once said Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. This is why you have bankruptcy courts. Failing companies should fail period. Everyone just is focusing in on the visible dollar earned or dollar lost outcome of the bailouts. You guys are so thick-headed. Well that goes without saying. I'm not arguing the validity of the bailout. I'm arguing the amount (or lack thereof) of the payback
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 I don't really disagree, bankruptcy keeps the corporations in check. He said BAILOUT, you moron. Not "bankruptcy". BAILOUT. He most likely agrees with you about bankruptcy. That's not what he's talking about. Jesus, for just once in your life, just TRY to pay attention to something someone else is saying.
Chef Jim Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Ya, I think it said we'll lose $30B on this. I don't really disagree, bankruptcy keeps the corporations in check. However, the "Too big to fail" phrase is old and tired, but still caries some weight worth consideration. I can imagine if GM went under it would have pushed the unemployment rate up another few percentage points. Effects past that are unknown. I feel you are being hard-line ideological on that. That is not always good. Anyways... this is just a my own unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I have no data or anything to back this up. But in my dream world, there would be sharp rise in taxes the larger the a corporation became. This would keep the corporations to a smaller size, and thus no single company would ever be too big to fail How would GMs bankruptcy increase unemployment?
Peace Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 No one seems to understand the risks of the moral hazards that are created through these Bailouts. Someone once said Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. This is why you have bankruptcy courts. Failing companies should fail period. Everyone just is focusing in on the visible dollar earned or dollar lost outcome of the bailouts. You guys are so thick-headed. I was thinking about this the other day. Ford made it through by the hair on their balls, mostly because of the GM bailout, but Ford must sit there and say, "Hey, risk shmisk...the feds will never let us fail. Let's bet some long shots (like the 40K Taurus anyone?)." Seriously, the bailouts were short term band-aids and long term cancers. Why. Do. You. All. Feed. The. Troll?
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Why. Do. You. All. Feed. The. Troll? Your troll. My cat toy.
IDBillzFan Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 But in my dream world, there would be sharp rise in taxes the larger the a corporation became. This would keep the corporations to a smaller size, and thus no single company would ever be too big to fail You really are a special kind of dolt.
Nanker Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 But don't forget that GM executives flew private planes to congressional hearings. Therefore, the hedge fundss holding GM bonds deserved to take it up the ass. [/average American] Yes. That's quite right. Anyone showing up with their hand out in Warshingtun that's not riding one of these, should be fleeced for everything they own. It's the American way.
OCinBuffalo Posted November 24, 2010 Posted November 24, 2010 Ya, I think it said we'll lose $30B on this. I don't really disagree, bankruptcy keeps the corporations in check. However, the "Too big to fail" phrase is old and tired, but still caries some weight worth consideration. I can imagine if GM went under it would have pushed the unemployment rate up another few percentage points. Effects past that are unknown. I feel you are being hard-line ideological on that. That is not always good. Anyways... this is just a my own unsubstantiated opinion on the matter. I have no data or anything to back this up. But in my dream world, there would be sharp rise in taxes the larger the a corporation became. This would keep the corporations to a smaller size, and thus no single company would ever be too big to fail Again, ANTOHER example of liberals not seeing the world as it is. Apparently your dream world doesn't include foreign multinational corporations, who you would be giving a massive leg up to if you wanted to massively tax large American-based corporations. Moreover, you don't understand that many US corps do business overseas, and employ hundreds of thousands. What do you think they would do if your tax plan was implemented? Yes, that's right, move everything overseas, Moron! GM makes more $$ overseas than it does in this country, Moron! The reason so much manufacturing has moved overseas: taxes and unions, Moron! Conner read this next sentence and learn it: Free Trade Stops War, MORON! They have a permanent, inverse relationship. Every dipschit liberal that is against free trade is by definition FOR WAR! If you want me to explain in detail, I will. Now, if you want to talk about corporations using their power to subvert competition, that is another thing entirely. Free Trade includes free competition, or it is by definition not free.
Recommended Posts