Unhinged yet again

[Shea]

Wheeeeeeeee corporate bailouts FTMFL!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/General-Motors-files-for-apf-15397846.html

How much money did Bush/Obama spend to keep these fools from bankruptcy? Can we please stop electing morons? Please?

[salsashark]

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

[dirkterrell]

The plan is for the federal government to take a 60 percent ownership stake in the new GM. The Canadian government would take 12.5 percent, with the United Auto Workers getting a 17.5 percent share and unsecured bondholders receiving 10 percent. Existing GM shareholders are expected to be wiped out.

So, GM will be almost 3/4 owned by governments. Scary.

Dirk

[TFOGGuys]

"Existing shareholders are expected to be wiped out." :wtf:

Yeah, that'll inspire confidence in the stock market:

Yeah, you did own $300K of GM stock, allegedly "blue chip", but now you have nothing...guess you could burn the certificates for heat.....:banghead::scream1:

as for gov't owned car manufacturers, ask FIAT how that works.....

[~Barn~]

I agree... let's just let it fail. It's like water... everything will even itself out. I mean come on... General Motors?.... It's not like it's the largest automaker in the world. What do they have...? like 10... 12 employees?

What could possibly go wrong, if they close their doors? The economy seeks balance, right?

[/sarcasm]

[Big-J]

I say we elect Shea to office, he seems to have the answer to everything! :)

[dirkterrell]

Yeah, you did own $300K of GM stock, allegedly "blue chip", but now you have nothing...guess you could burn the certificates for heat.....:banghead::scream1:


Be sure to pay your carbon tax on that.

Dirk

[Pandora-11]

Auto companies are now a ward of the state....Healthcare becoming a ward of the state....waiting for myself and my family to become a ward of the state.
Does this appeal to ANYONE? geez

[TFOGGuys]

I agree... let's just let it fail. It's like water... everything will even itself out. I mean come on... General Motors?.... It's not like it's the largest automaker in the world. What do they have...? like 10... 12 employees?

What could possibly go wrong, if they close their doors? The economy seeks balance, right?

[/sarcasm]

Soooo....we let the .gov pour huge money and all their management expertise into GM, and the hearts and rainbows will burst from the bottom line? Can you name anything the government runs that actually makes a consistent profit?

GM would not fail (at least not much worse than they have been for the last 30 years). They go into bankruptcy, assets are sold to pay debts, and either their operations are absorbed into another company, or they emerge from bankruptcy as a leaner, more efficient company. Looking at the tentative bankruptcy plan as it stands, the only thing that changes from that scenario is that the government ends up in the driver's seat, burning our money for fuel. Thousands will still lose their jobs as multiple plants and about 2600 dealerships are closed, and the stockholders get completely hosed, including the union retirees that are heavily invested in GM. I guess there is some justice after all.

[Devaclis]

If there is not a need for them, other than to employ thousands, then why do they exists? Your hearts can really only bleed so much, really. A company who cannot produce a product that allows them to stay in business should not be in business at all. competition, capitalism, and the free market, not the government, should decide who and who does not survive. To reiterate what Dirk has said before: The government has NO business being in business. The spending of my money to buy itself into failing business does not make me feel comfy and all "yeah Obama" inside. Come on, do any of you feel good about giving your friends money so they can "buy some ENRON stock"? Stop being naive.

[~Barn~]

Soooo....we let the .gov pour huge money and all their management expertise into GM, and the hearts and rainbows will burst from the bottom line? Can you name anything the government runs that actually makes a consistent profit?

GM would not fail (at least not much worse than they have been for the last 30 years). They go into bankruptcy, assets are sold to pay debts, and either their operations are absorbed into another company, or they emerge from bankruptcy as a leaner, more efficient company. Looking at the tentative bankruptcy plan as it stands, the only thing that changes from that scenario is that the government ends up in the driver's seat, burning our money for fuel. Thousands will still lose their jobs as multiple plants and about 2600 dealerships are closed, and the stockholders get completely hosed, including the union retirees that are heavily invested in GM. I guess there is some justice after all.

Well that's an interesting perspective Jim, and coming from a local business owner, I honestly take it with a certain degree higher value than most. But the current CEO of GM actually thinks a bit differently, in their case. I think the ramifications are a bit more far reaching than your above post, brings into consideration.

"The only other alternative is the liquidation of the debtors' assets that would substantially diminish the value of GM's business and assets, (and) throw hundreds of thousands of persons out of work and cause the termination of health benefits and jeopardize retirement benefits for current and former employees and their families."

[Pandora-11]

Well that's an interesting perspective Jim, and coming from a local business owner, I honestly take it was a certain degree higher of value than most. But the current CEO of GM actually thinks a bit differently, in their case. I think the ramifications are a bit more far reaching than your above post, brings into consideration.




...and who do you think the new CEO will take his marching orders from?

[Devaclis]

I forget what you are called when you have more than 50% of a companies stock......anyone care to refresh my memory?

[~Barn~]

Come on, do any of you feel good about giving your friends money so they can "buy some ENRON stock"? Stop being naive.

Come on now, Dana.... If you want us to stop being naive, you're going to have to stop being Simple Jack.

The survival of Our Friend's financial wellbeing, does not have a huge chunk of the United States' (moreover the World's) economy, riding on it's back!

Yes.... Financing a bad investment for our buddy that just lost his job for stealing boxes, is a dumb move. But comparing that scenario, to what GM means to world-wide business, is just... well... it's laugable. I don't know what else to say.

[~Barn~]

...and who do you think the new CEO will take his marching orders from?

No, I get that. And you know what else? Some people might consider that person a pretty successful individual in his own right. Pretty savy, pretty sound, pretty knowledgeable. But then again, this is work-life, not personal life, so let's see...

Some of the people that he takes financial advisement from (in terms of how he does his job), turn out to actually be some of the most wealthy, and successful, and financially sound and knowledgeable people on the planet. Berkshire Hathaway something-or-other....?

EDIT: Oh yeah... this is aside from the fact that they also are some of the world's most charitable, most philanthropic, and most morally and ethically ADMIRED people, ever to get a blurb in the news. I'd say that's a combination of somebody, who doesn't sound like a bad person to maybe listen to. :dunno:

But yeah... I know who's piloting the ship. I asked for him by name, for a reason.



I forget what you are called when you have more than 50% of a companies stock......anyone care to refresh my memory?

Majority Ownership.

[Pandora-11]

But yeah... I know who's piloting the ship. I asked for him by name, for a reason.


:slap: jk

[dirkterrell]

Yes.... Financing an bad investment for our buddy that just lost his job for stealing boxes, is a dumb move. But comparing that scenario, to what GM means to world-wide business, is just... well... it's laugable. I don't know what else to say.

Even in the unlikely scenario that GM disappeared altogether... There is some demand for cars that GM filled, something like 3 million vehicles. I'm sure other manufacturers would be quick to pounce on that market. They would have to increase production, meaning they'd have to hire more people, probably many of those who used to work for GM. They'd almost certainly have very different benefits packages and wages though. Companies are learning that they shouldn't be in the business of providing health care or employee retirements. They should be in the business of doing their business. Employees are learning that they shouldn't have all of their livelihood tied up in one company. But these lessons won't be learned if we prop up companies that are mismanaged and staffed by people who demand various forms of compensation that can't ultimately be supported by the company. Eventually the cookie jar is emptied.

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Well I can't disagree with a lot of that Dirk, except for maybe some of it's optimisim. And I'm a generally optimistic guy, too!

But sometimes (and in this case I think), you kinda just have to bite the bullet for the other guy's bad decisions, and suspect operations. I don't think anybody ever pegged this kind of downfall and unraveling of Corporate America, at least not anybody who got terribly noticed. And I think between some of the monolith banks that have already made headlines, and a company as important as GM, it's a necessary step to save the greater good, and stave off further disaster. Of course there's more to it, than just the financial aspects. There obviously has to be some serious internal work that has to happen regarding operations, and I'm hopeful it will.

In addition to what all you said above though, I think it's equally important to never let companies get that big again, and that powerful, at least without proper oversight, to where if they eventually start making shifty moves, that become in danger of jeopardizing an entire nation. It is what it is now, and we can't go back in time, so if big-bro has to come in and straighten it out, cool. I don't want a government state as much as the next guy, but if the puppet masters can right-the-course, and they have people in charge that I have "faith" in, for lack of a more encompassing word, I want them to do their thing.

[brennahm]

The single biggest problem with GM was the union. GM did not become the largest automaker in the world with terrible product. Was it the best product on the market? I would say no, but it was sufficient. The problem with GM's bottom line (and the other two American manufacturer's) was legacy health costs, retirement benefits, etc.

How could GM compete with the Japanese? I'm not referring to their "superior" products, I'm referring to the fact that they didn't have to deal with the unions. Why not? Because the workers didn't need the unions. Why didn't they need the unions? Because the Japanese manuf. gave the workers the health care and benefits that are appropriate in this day and age AND THEN SOME. How were Toyota and Honda able to afford this? Oh right, they live in a terrible society where everyone has health care. The Japanese government subsidizes benefits for workers that work for Japanese companies EVEN if those employees are in the USA.

That's how Honda and Toyota don't have the same issues as GM.

Also, don't feel bad for anybody who has owned GM stock in the last few years. It's been junk-bond status since god knows when. Someone else google that...

Argue about universal healthcare all you want. I honestly don't think it's a god given right. On the other hand, most other industrialized nations provide something that we resist because we're nervous about "Big government." I don't want them watching every thing I do either, but I'm also sick of getting raped by the Insurance companies. What's worse?

One example of government department that works? Try the USPS.

[Devaclis]

Come on now, Dana.... If you want us to stop being naive, you're going to have to stop being Simple Jack.

The survival of Our Friend's financial wellbeing, does not have a huge chunk of the United States' (moreover the World's) economy, riding on it's back!

Yes.... Financing a bad investment for our buddy that just lost his job for stealing boxes, is a dumb move. But comparing that scenario, to what GM means to world-wide business, is just... well... it's laugable. I don't know what else to say.

They are not in the business of keeping other companies in business. If they were, they would be doing a poor job of THAT as well. Where did the initial infusion of money to GM go, Brandon? Where will the next infusion go? This company, like ALL publicly traded companies is in business to make money for its share holders. They are now high and dry. After the filing they will also be bankrupt. You are right tho, they should just be saved so that Kim long in the asian plastics plants can keep his job.

[salsashark]

One step closer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

(For Dana) (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/11/lemon.html)

[Devaclis]

Hold on, the new owner of GM has something to tell you:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=116869&catid=339

[THE3BS]

Nationlization of one of the countries largest employers is spitting in the face of capitalism. The days of free enterprise will soon be over.

It will now only be a matter of time before imports are taxed to the point of not being affordable to the average American and we will be forced into buying the garbage produced by GM and Chrysler.

I want to know why so many Americans think the government going into the Auto business is a good idea. The same people that want the government managing health care. Have you people not been to the DMV or the Social Security office? The government can't even manage those places how in the hell do you expect them to manage an auto manufacturer or health care?

The number 1 rule in business is a pretty simple one. If your investment is failing you don't keep throwing money at it.

Until GM can renegotiate the current union contracts and benefit plans to a level that allows them to be competitive they will continue to fail. As of right now a janitor for GM costs them almost 100 dollars an hour.

Pensions in the past seemed like a great idea but long term they end up being detrmimental to the profit performance of any business. I work in an industry that is seeing massive amounts of revenue eaten up by legacy costs. The cost to the company is so great they no loner offer pensions to new employees. Only a 401k match.

This whole GM thing is BS. Let them get through this alone or let them fail. I don't want my tax dollars going to produce a car I wouldn't buy in the first place.

If the future of GM is so important to the world then why aren't the governments or private investors from other countries investing in GM? If it was such a "good" idea don't you think everyone would be jumping at the oppurtunity?

[Pandora-11]

When the government makes decisions for a business they do it with the idea of which group will benefit the most (political motivation-"who can I please so I can stay in power?")....not what is best for the company. They also do it with taxpayer money....the results will be clear. It's a terrible road to go down.

Besides the USPS, how about USD of Ed, FEMA, SS, and a host of others.

[Pandora-11]

Hold on, the new owner of GM has something to tell you:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=116869&catid=339


Yay Ford!!!

[Devaclis]

I hate to say this, but I can. Micheal Moore actually a couple of good points here. Not all of them, but a few:

Monday, June 1st, 2009
Goodbye, GM ...by Michael Moore

I write this on the morning of the end of the once-mighty General Motors. By high noon, the President of the United States will have made it official: General Motors, as we know it, has been totaled.

As I sit here in GM's birthplace, Flint, Michigan, I am surrounded by friends and family who are filled with anxiety about what will happen to them and to the town. Forty percent of the homes and businesses in the city have been abandoned. Imagine what it would be like if you lived in a city where almost every other house is empty. What would be your state of mind?

It is with sad irony that the company which invented "planned obsolescence" -- the decision to build cars that would fall apart after a few years so that the customer would then have to buy a new one -- has now made itself obsolete. It refused to build automobiles that the public wanted, cars that got great gas mileage, were as safe as they could be, and were exceedingly comfortable to drive. Oh -- and that wouldn't start falling apart after two years. GM stubbornly fought environmental and safety regulations. Its executives arrogantly ignored the "inferior" Japanese and German cars, cars which would become the gold standard for automobile buyers. And it was hell-bent on punishing its unionized workforce, lopping off thousands of workers for no good reason other than to "improve" the short-term bottom line of the corporation. Beginning in the 1980s, when GM was posting record profits, it moved countless jobs to Mexico and elsewhere, thus destroying the lives of tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. The glaring stupidity of this policy was that, when they eliminated the income of so many middle class families, who did they think was going to be able to afford to buy their cars? History will record this blunder in the same way it now writes about the French building the Maginot Line or how the Romans cluelessly poisoned their own water system with lethal lead in its pipes.

So here we are at the deathbed of General Motors. The company's body not yet cold, and I find myself filled with -- dare I say it -- joy. It is not the joy of revenge against a corporation that ruined my hometown and brought misery, divorce, alcoholism, homelessness, physical and mental debilitation, and drug addiction to the people I grew up with. Nor do I, obviously, claim any joy in knowing that 21,000 more GM workers will be told that they, too, are without a job.

But you and I and the rest of America now own a car company! I know, I know -- who on earth wants to run a car company? Who among us wants $50 billion of our tax dollars thrown down the rat hole of still trying to save GM? Let's be clear about this: The only way to save GM is to kill GM. Saving our precious industrial infrastructure, though, is another matter and must be a top priority. If we allow the shutting down and tearing down of our auto plants, we will sorely wish we still had them when we realize that those factories could have built the alternative energy systems we now desperately need. And when we realize that the best way to transport ourselves is on light rail and bullet trains and cleaner buses, how will we do this if we've allowed our industrial capacity and its skilled workforce to disappear?

Thus, as GM is "reorganized" by the federal government and the bankruptcy court, here is the plan I am asking President Obama to implement for the good of the workers, the GM communities, and the nation as a whole. Twenty years ago when I made "Roger & Me," I tried to warn people about what was ahead for General Motors. Had the power structure and the punditocracy listened, maybe much of this could have been avoided. Based on my track record, I request an honest and sincere consideration of the following suggestions:

1. Just as President Roosevelt did after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the President must tell the nation that we are at war and we must immediately convert our auto factories to factories that build mass transit vehicles and alternative energy devices. Within months in Flint in 1942, GM halted all car production and immediately used the assembly lines to build planes, tanks and machine guns. The conversion took no time at all. Everyone pitched in. The fascists were defeated.

We are now in a different kind of war -- a war that we have conducted against the ecosystem and has been conducted by our very own corporate leaders. This current war has two fronts. One is headquartered in Detroit. The products built in the factories of GM, Ford and Chrysler are some of the greatest weapons of mass destruction responsible for global warming and the melting of our polar icecaps. The things we call "cars" may have been fun to drive, but they are like a million daggers into the heart of Mother Nature. To continue to build them would only lead to the ruin of our species and much of the planet.

The other front in this war is being waged by the oil companies against you and me. They are committed to fleecing us whenever they can, and they have been reckless stewards of the finite amount of oil that is located under the surface of the earth. They know they are sucking it bone dry. And like the lumber tycoons of the early 20th century who didn't give a damn about future generations as they tore down every forest they could get their hands on, these oil barons are not telling the public what they know to be true -- that there are only a few more decades of useable oil on this planet. And as the end days of oil approach us, get ready for some very desperate people willing to kill and be killed just to get their hands on a gallon can of gasoline.

President Obama, now that he has taken control of GM, needs to convert the factories to new and needed uses immediately.

2. Don't put another $30 billion into the coffers of GM to build cars. Instead, use that money to keep the current workforce -- and most of those who have been laid off -- employed so that they can build the new modes of 21st century transportation. Let them start the conversion work now.

3. Announce that we will have bullet trains criss-crossing this country in the next five years. Japan is celebrating the 45th anniversary of its first bullet train this year. Now they have dozens of them. Average speed: 165 mph. Average time a train is late: under 30 seconds. They have had these high speed trains for nearly five decades -- and we don't even have one! The fact that the technology already exists for us to go from New York to L.A. in 17 hours by train, and that we haven't used it, is criminal. Let's hire the unemployed to build the new high speed lines all over the country. Chicago to Detroit in less than two hours. Miami to DC in under 7 hours. Denver to Dallas in five and a half. This can be done and done now.

4. Initiate a program to put light rail mass transit lines in all our large and medium-sized cities. Build those trains in the GM factories. And hire local people everywhere to install and run this system.

5. For people in rural areas not served by the train lines, have the GM plants produce energy efficient clean buses.

6. For the time being, have some factories build hybrid or all-electric cars (and batteries). It will take a few years for people to get used to the new ways to transport ourselves, so if we're going to have automobiles, let's have kinder, gentler ones. We can be building these next month (do not believe anyone who tells you it will take years to retool the factories -- that simply isn't true).

7. Transform some of the empty GM factories to facilities that build windmills, solar panels and other means of alternate forms of energy. We need tens of millions of solar panels right now. And there is an eager and skilled workforce who can build them.

8. Provide tax incentives for those who travel by hybrid car or bus or train. Also, credits for those who convert their home to alternative energy.

9. To help pay for this, impose a two-dollar tax on every gallon of gasoline. This will get people to switch to more energy saving cars or to use the new rail lines and rail cars the former autoworkers have built for them.

Well, that's a start. Please, please, please don't save GM so that a smaller version of it will simply do nothing more than build Chevys or Cadillacs. This is not a long-term solution. Don't throw bad money into a company whose tailpipe is malfunctioning, causing a strange odor to fill the car.

100 years ago this year, the founders of General Motors convinced the world to give up their horses and saddles and buggy whips to try a new form of transportation. Now it is time for us to say goodbye to the internal combustion engine. It seemed to serve us well for so long. We enjoyed the car hops at the A&W. We made out in the front -- and the back -- seat. We watched movies on large outdoor screens, went to the races at NASCAR tracks across the country, and saw the Pacific Ocean for the first time through the window down Hwy. 1. And now it's over. It's a new day and a new century. The President -- and the UAW -- must seize this moment and create a big batch of lemonade from this very sour and sad lemon.

Yesterday, the last surviving person from the Titanic disaster passed away. She escaped certain death that night and went on to live another 97 years.

So can we survive our own Titanic in all the Flint Michigans of this country. 60% of GM is ours. I think we can do a better job.

Yours,
Michael Moore


Care to turn a big negative into an awesome opportunity to advance our country?

[brennahm]

Someone asked for one example. Also, going along the whole path of union costs being the problem...that's what bankruptcy and takeovers bring with them...the ability to renegotiate (read: cut-out) existing labor contracts.

Obama is a lot of things, one this he is not is stupid. No matter how you feel about him I doubt that any of you truly feel he is. He doesn't want GM hanging under his coat for long. While the conspiracy theorists will disagree, I have no doubt that as soon as all the paperwork is filed and things are moved around, the government will be quite hot to get rid of GM. How can they possibly get reelected with a US owned business that large? They can't...they know that.

[~Barn~]

<snip...> One example of government department that works? Try the USPS.

I liked how you mentioned this at the end of your post. Ironic mostly, just because my own Dad took early retirement some 11 years ago from the USPS after somewhere in the ballpark of ~25 years of service.

He (if anyone) helped form the path, that I developed my worldly views from. Obviously quite a lot of other things too, in addition to my Mom.

He never built the USPS up to be anything great, but on the same hand, I never heard him once badmouth it, like people are often fond to do of their jobs. Post-retirment, he's actually spoken quite highly of their pension program. Anyway....

In the decades that I remember him talking about his job here-and-there, I always remember him being very Pro-Union, and touting the importance of workers to be able to effectively "protect" themselves from certain things. He was actually appointed for a period time, as a union spokesperson of sorts, and he handled various grievance issues.

Anyway... my point being is that he always spoke highly of the importance of unions, and I remember him turning down "Management" job, because of the fact that he would have to leave it. That's always stuck with me for some reason, though my own personal views of unions are underqualified, since I've never worked in an industry, where I was a member of one. So yeah.... that part of your post caught my eye. =)

[JustSomeDude]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Karl_Marx_001.jpg

[InlineSIX24]

..One example of government department that works? Try the USPS.

Hasn't USPS consistently needed money injections? AmTrak? Social Security?



Analysts said the government's hope of creating an efficient mass transit service through a partial nationalization of the rail system was stymied by its inability to get tough on unions and rein in labor costs. The same could hold true, they say, as the Obama administration deals with the UAW.
Amtrak has fielded criticism over the years for being guided by officials with little or no transit experience. Today, Obama's Auto Task Force has a combined experience of zero years in the auto industry.
With Amtrak, the government got too involved in decision-making, leading to inefficiencies in the system that would never be corrected, say analysts. Since its creation in 1970, Amtrak has sucked up $30 billion in taxpayer money, and the money is still flowing. The original aid package from Congress in 1970 was $340 million with an expectation the railroad would make a profit in five years.
The potential parallels are worth being concerned about, critics say.
"I think the $50 billion might as well be kissed goodbye. I would expect that this is just the beginning," Cox, principal at the Wendell Cox Consultancy, said of the GM deal.

[JustSomeDude]

Hasn't USPS consistently needed money injections?

Yes. Some project the real cost of sending a letter is around $4-$5, but no one really knows. However, we don't see that cost since the USPS survives as a result of tax subsidies. Make the USPS a private entity and they wouldn't last a week with real competition.

[DavidofColorado]

Don't forget that the smart Obama doesn't want to run GM but I'm sure he has notes about emissions. And don't forget that he now wants a internet police. Bush wasn't hated for 4 years. Obama did it in 4 months. If you don't hate him yet you will. There is nothing that the Government touches that doesn't turn to shit.

Reagan said if something moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving substitise it. I think that is applicable here.

[brennahm]

Not really sure what you just said, but you were right that Bush wasn't hated for 4 years.








He was hated for 8.


And his brother for another 8 as he did his best to ruin FL.

[dirkterrell]

Make the USPS a private entity and they wouldn't last a week with real competition.

That reminds me of a couple of years ago when the USPS decided to do something about customer complaints of long wait times: they removed the clocks from any place visible to customers. :)

Dirk

[~Barn~]

If ya'll think we have it bad, you should look at postage rates in other parts of the world! We have it way good!

Even up in Canada, which probably best emulates us for these purposes, it costs like $0.60 to mail a firstclass letter, within the country. And that is regardless of whether or not it's a letter or a postcard! What do we pay these days? $0.44 and $0.28 respectively?

The US has it better than most people even understand. The same can be said for fuel prices, too. If I'm not mistaken, a gallon.. er... litre of petrol can cost upwards of $6.00, in some countries in Europe.

[JustSomeDude]

And his brother for another 8 as he did his best to ruin FL.

Which is why Florida voters voted in a Republican successor, Charlie Crist, who adopted most of Jeb's policies. Crist recently declared his intention to run for the US Senate in 2010, where recent polls (granted it is early on) show him winning that Senate seat.

Sell your bias elsewhere, we're all stocked up here. ;)

[JustSomeDude]

If ya'll think we have it bad, you should look at postage rates in other parts of the world! We have it way good!

I don't think anyone is saying we have it "bad", many people just want to know the real cost of sending a letter. If a stamp to pay your gas bill every month cost $7.50, you'd likely find another method of paying that bill, or demand competition be permitted into the mail delivery system. Some of us just don't enjoy knowing that part of our taxes go to paying for everyone else's mail... which we have to purchase stamps for in the first place.

Stamps don't cover the costs of the U.S. Mail, subsidies do, which is why the U.S. gov't will never open it up to competition. They will never allow competition to one of their sources of tax revenue; they need to monopolize it. Because god only knows how those tax dollars really get spent.

And don't get me wrong: a Gov't run postal service was great in the early days of this nation, when towns and cities were separated by hundreds of miles and dangerous terrain/territories, yet it has grown obsolete. Now, the U.S. gov't has only shown to be a hindrance in delivering mail - as it could be performed far more efficiently, and cost effectively, by a private entity.

[DavidofColorado]

The US has it better than most people even understand. The same can be said for fuel prices, too. If I'm not mistaken, a gallon.. er... litre of petrol can cost upwards of $6.00, in some countries in Europe.

It takes 4 liters to make a gallon (roughly) and the reason it costs $6.00 a litre isn't because we have it better, they pay the same for oil that we do (its a global market set at a global price) we don't have as many taxes on a gallon of gas to drive it up to $24 a gallon.

But then again if you want to force a nation to stop useing private vehicles and force them to use public transportation taxing the hell out of fuel is one way. In fact it seems like the only way to do it since it doesn't sound like a good idea when they try and talk people into doing it. With all the talk about being green and global warming.

[InlineSIX24]

USPS is in the same trouble as newspapers magazines. They will have to find new ways to do things and adapt or go away. GM has different issues where they need to get the unions cleaned up.

[~Barn~]

I don't think anyone is saying we have it "bad", many people just want to know the real cost of sending a letter. If a stamp to pay your gas bill every month cost $7.50, you'd likely find another method of paying that bill, or demand competition be permitted into the mail delivery system. Some of us just don't enjoy knowing that part of our taxes go to paying for everyone else's mail... which we have to purchase stamps for in the first place.

Stamps don't cover the costs of the U.S. Mail, subsidies do, which is why the U.S. gov't will never open it up to competition. They will never allow competition to one of their sources of tax revenue; they need to monopolize it. Because god only knows how those tax dollars really get spent.

And don't get me wrong: a Gov't run postal service was great in the early days of this nation, when towns and cities were separated by hundreds of miles and dangerous terrain/territories, yet it has grown obsolete. Now, the U.S. gov't has only shown to be a hindrance in delivering mail - as it could be performed far more efficiently, and cost effectively, by a private entity.

But are email and internet-based commerce not a form of competition?

You talk about the government [not] "opening up" a means of competition, but I would say it's well underway. :dunno:

[DavidofColorado]

Not really sure what you just said, but you were right that Bush wasn't hated for 4 years.








He was hated for 8.


And his brother for another 8 as he did his best to ruin FL.

In his last four years the left really jacked up the brainwashing and made everything seem worse than it was. But Obama is messing with my money and that is like messing with my emotions.

[~Barn~]

<snip...> But Obama is messing with my money and that is like messing with my emotions.
:lol:

And that, is god damn comedy, right there! Nice reset, Big Perm.. er... Big Worm... er David.

[Shea]

I agree... let's just let it fail. It's like water... everything will even itself out. I mean come on... General Motors?.... It's not like it's the largest automaker in the world. What do they have...? like 10... 12 employees?

What could possibly go wrong, if they close their doors? The economy seeks balance, right?

[/sarcasm]

As someone who, by his own admission, doesn't have a clear understanding of economics, perhaps you should stop making a fool out of yourself...

[Shea]

I say we elect Shea to office, he seems to have the answer to everything! :)

Seems Barn's crew is only able to muster sarcasm in the guise of wit today.

[Pandora-11]

Oops...watch out....Barn's crew may get you audited.

[JustSomeDude]

But are email and internet-based commerce not a form of competition?

You talk about the government [not] "opening up" a means of competition, but I would say it's well underway. :dunno:

It's a kind of competition, but not direct competition. You won't get your eBay delivery through your Wi-Fi, unless you know something I don't. ;) There are also many businesses that rely on the U.S. Mail, such as NetFlix, Blockbuster, junk mail advertisers, etc. So long as these needs exist, the U.S. Mail will never go away. And even as it's usage has declined (which I am gathering is what you are implying by your post pointing out competition), postage rates and tax subsidies continue to increase. So where are the cost savings?

:dunno:

[~Barn~]

Oops...watch out....Barn's crew may get you audited.

Ha. I didn't even know I had a crew! I'm gonna have to start leveraging that!



As someone who, by his own admission, doesn't have a clear understanding of economics, perhaps you should stop making a fool out of yourself...

Thanks for the tip, Adam Smith. I'll have to make sure and attend the next seminar in your self-help series. :lol:

[~Barn~]

It's a kind of competition, but not direct competition. You won't get your eBay delivery through your Wi-Fi, unless you know something I don't. ;) There are also many businesses that rely on the U.S. Mail, such as NetFlix, Blockbuster, junk mail advertisers, etc. So long as these needs exist, the U.S. Mail will never go away. And even as it's usage has declined (which I am gathering is what you are implying by your post pointing out competition), postage rates and tax subsidies continue to increase. So where are the cost savings?

:dunno:

FedEx. DHL. UPS.

Granted, they are more niche competitors, but they've definitely grasped their share of the market. And since they're not really "general correspondence" type companies, they've probably been less impacted by the net-boom regarding communication.


As far as cost savings, I can't speak to that too much, as it's never been a personal issue to me. I honestly take my taxes as they come, and I consider postage rates to be fair, for the amount of mailings that I do. And I understand that the USPS is still very much a business, as much as it is, a service. I've never concerned myself with their cost savings efforts, but I do hear they are trying to really push alterna-fuel vehicles. :dunno:

[Shea]

Thanks for the tip, Adam Smith. I'll have to make sure and attend the next seminar in your self-help series. :lol:

Predictable.

[Big-J]

Seems Barn's crew is only able to muster sarcasm in the guise of wit today.


Im on here to to chat and break up the monatany of work, not on here to prove how smart and deep of a person I am. You talk like you have the answers to everything, like you know better then the people running our government. If you think you do, do something about it, rather than flexing your brain muscles on a SPORTBIKE forum. :)

[~Barn~]

You're gonna want to watch your mouth Big-J. Shea is head lifeguard here at the Look How Deep I Am pool, and he'll sit you out during the next Adult Swim.

I seen 'em!!

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4685018/c1_Full.jpg

[Big-J]

I didn't know we were a crew? Why is it Barns crew though? It should me crew....you wanna paper,scissors,rock to see who's crew it is Barn? :lol:

[~Barn~]

Here's an interesting article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/) (that will likely be updated throughout the trading day), that talks about yesterday's big market gains, as well as todays outlook and [so far positive] movement.

I was also happy to read the blurbs about JPMorgan Chase, AMEX, and Goldman Sachs all making efforts to raise the capital, to start repaying their bailout loans. Also GM appears to be making a move to save some 3000 jobs, after yesterday's announcement.

Maybe I can help stem the tide of a certain doom&gloom contributor, with some positive news.

[dirkterrell]

Im on here to to chat and break up the monatany of work, not on here to prove how smart and deep of a person I am. You talk like you have the answers to everything, like you know better then the people running our government. If you think you do, do something about it, rather than flexing your brain muscles on a SPORTBIKE forum. :)

Maybe he understands the idea that we have a representative government elected by people like those who visit sportbike forums. Maybe he wants to share his take on how things ought to work with others so that when they consider how to vote, they will at least have been exposed to a situation where they had to defend their position against his. You know, make them think about their positions on various issues and defend them logically rather than participate in the mindless personal attacks that pass for political discussion in this country. Perhaps he has studied history and understands the dangers of assuming that those in power are smarter than the people they govern and doesn't want to see our country suffer the sometimes horrific consequences of that assumption.


Dirk

[Pandora-11]

http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif I was thinking the same thing. You put it so much better than I could.
When one has no case, one attacks personally.

[puckstr]

Can we please stop electing morons? Please?


We need to stop choosing from the lesser of two evils.
With such shitty choices for President what do you expect.

They are ALL Crooks.

[~Barn~]

Exactly Dirk. Because most of the people I know with such altruistic aspirations, often start their prose with "Wheeeeeeeee!".
:lol:

Personally, I think misery covets company.

[puckstr]

Exactly Dirk. Because most of the people I know with such altruistic aspirations, often start their prose with "Wheeeeeeeee!".
:lol:

Personally, I think misery covets company.

Thanks Barn.. now I have to watch

Gonads and Strife!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!

[~Barn~]

Dear lord Steve. I wish I could quit you.

[dirkterrell]

Exactly Dirk. Because most of the people I know with such altruistic aspirations

Actually, I see it as pretty selfish rather than altruistic...

Dirk

[puckstr]

Dear lord Steve. I wish I could quit you.

mmmmmmmmmmm camping?

[~Barn~]

I honestly don't know what it is Dirk. All I know is that it comes across as damn depressing and fatalistic.

Yes.... I think we all get it, that the United States is not The Bigrock Candy Mountain, and that life is a perishable commodity. The next generations are likely to have its ups-n-downs, just like our parent's did and their parent's did, before them.

Wars, recession, prosperity.... it's all likely to be eternally cyclical, until our species kills itself off somehow. But for god's sake can I please stop trying to be convinced for 5 minutes, that I need to share such a bummed-out opinion as him?

Jesus christ, I didn't like G.W. for a lot of reasons, but I wasn't on this forum every other day writing threads:
"Soldiers Dead"
"Veterans Untreated at VA Hospital"
"WMD Search Proves Fruitless"
"14 Die In Attack"
"Wounded return home to unwelcoming communities"

I mean fine if he doesn't like Obama, or the Administration, or the policies or the tactics, or whatever. But can't he just sit back and shut the hell up for a minute, and watch it all unravel like he presumes it will.

I'd really rather just wait it out, and hear him say "I fuckin' told you so!" once, than "Look at this!" "Look at this!" every other breath.

[Shea]

Exactly Dirk. Because most of the people I know with such altruistic aspirations, often start their prose with "Wheeeeeeeee!".
:lol:

Personally, I think misery covets company.

And yet all you can do is belittle me without actually defending the position. Stand up and defend something Barn instead of just proving how shallow and superficial your views are.

We are paying 41.2 billion dollars for a company that has market capital of 500 million. We were told that we had to shovel money into this pit because they were too big to fail and to save them from bankruptcy. Now they are bankrupt. So we spent (borrowed actually) money for nothing. You say it is our responsibility. How is it my responsibility? My children's? How is a mismanaged company, run into the ground by the union and management somehow worth billions in taxpayer money?

[Shea]

I mean fine if he doesn't like Obama, or the Administration, or the policies or the tactics, or whatever. But can't he just sit back and shut the hell up for a minute, and watch it all unravel like he presumes it will.

I'd really rather just wait it out, and hear him say "I fuckin' told you so!" once, than "Look at this!" "Look at this!" every other breath.

So watching my country, that I love, burn, popping up and saying "I told you so" is better then trying to expose the stupidity for what it is?

You don't like my posts Barn, fine. Put me on ignore and go back to your narcissistic existence.

[~Barn~]

Yes, but if I ignore you Shea, then how will I be able to provide the various forms of antivenin to the things you coughcough contribute?

I can see how you would desire that approach though. Nice try.

[Shea]

Yes, but if I ignore you Shea, then how will I be able to provide the various forms of antivenin to the things you coughcough contribute?

I can see how you would desire that approach though. Nice try.

What anti-venom? You don't defend shit, all you do is come on here and say "oh c'mon" " be optimistic like me" "you're wrong". Man the fuck up and tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me why spending all this money is good. Show a little intellect and rationality. Just a little.

You want to be taken seriously, you want to positions to have ANY weight, you have to put them out there and defend them with passion. You have not done so, nor do I think you can. But please try.

[dirkterrell]

I mean fine if he doesn't like Obama, or the Administration, or the policies or the tactics, or whatever. But can't he just sit back and shut the hell up for a minute, and watch it all unravel like he presumes it will.

I'd really rather just wait it out, and hear him say "I fuckin' told you so!" once, than "Look at this!" "Look at this!" every other breath.

Well, I suppose you could just avoid reading what he has to say about such topics. :) He very obviously has a passion about this country and sincerely wants it to continue to be a shining example of what freedom can bring to people. I know that from talking to him on many occasions and not just what he writes on this forum. I firmly believe that you do too. We need more people like you and Shea. We need more honest discussions about what our government is doing. This debate is healthy, as long as it doesn't degenerate into personal attacks and ultimately hatred. We need to have people questioning the politicians, not blindly assuming that they are somehow more knowledgeable that we are. Yes, we need to the doomsayers and we need to listen to them. We need to think very carefully about what powers we give the government because once we realize we need to take them back, history has shown that to be a painful and bloody process. Being able to say "I told you so." can be a very expensive "victory."

It is only human to react emotionally when we discuss very dear things like freedom with people who disagree with us. I am certainly not immune to that kind of response. But having engaged in science which, contrary to popular belief, is often fraught with very emotional arguments, I have learned to ask myself if I am attacking ideas or the proponents of ideas. I try very hard to avoid the latter because that always degenerates into something that destroys what should be good friendships. Let's argue like hell about the facts, history, whatever. But let's not take it personally. Let's have a beer afterwards and laugh or go riding. We can disagree without hating each other. The politicians would love for us to believe otherwise and I'd say they have done a pretty good job of it.

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Don't confuse the various sources of anger in your life, with "passion" Shea.

Just because you hold a lot of surface tension, doesn't mean that you can keep anything of any weight, afloat. If you're respected in certain circles, I encourage you to cherish those.

EDIT:
I can dig that, Dirk. I try not to get wound too tight about much of anything.

[Shea]

Don't confuse the various sources of anger in your life, with "passion" Shea.

Just because you hold a lot of surface tension, doesn't mean that you can keep anything of any weight, afloat. If you're respected in certain circles, I encourage you to cherish those.

EDIT:

I can dig that, Dirk. I try not to get wound too tight about much of anything.

lol, ok Barn. It's clear to me now that you cannot defend anything you believe in. All you have is the ability to cast dispersions on others. I've asked you repeatedly to defend your views and you can't, so be it. I am open to debate on anything, you are not and I think that speaks volumes as to our belief systems.

You see passion and a firm, unwavering belief in liberty, freedom, the rule of law as "anger" because it allows you to sidestep any sort of challenge to your world view.

[The Black Knight]

Well, I suppose you could just avoid reading what he has to say about such topics. :) He very obviously has a passion about this country and sincerely wants it to continue to be a shining example of what freedom can bring to people. I know that from talking to him on many occasions and not just what he writes on this forum. I firmly believe that you do too. We need more people like you and Shea. We need more honest discussions about what our government is doing. This debate is healthy, as long as it doesn't degenerate into personal attacks and ultimately hatred. We need to have people questioning the politicians, not blindly assuming that they are somehow more knowledgeable that we are. Yes, we need to the doomsayers and we need to listen to them. We need to think very carefully about what powers we give the government because once we realize we need to take them back, history has shown that to be a painful and bloody process. Being able to say "I told you so." can be a very expensive "victory."

It is only human to react emotionally when we discuss very dear things like freedom with people who disagree with us. I am certainly not immune to that kind of response. But having engaged in science which, contrary to popular belief, is often fraught with very emotional arguments, I have learned to ask myself if I am attacking ideas or the proponents of ideas. I try very hard to avoid the latter because that always degenerates into something that destroys what should be good friendships. Let's argue like hell about the facts, history, whatever. But let's not take it personally. Let's have a beer afterwards and laugh or go riding. We can disagree without hating each other. The politicians would love for us to believe otherwise and I'd say they have done a pretty good job of it.

Dirk
You sir, are a wise man. I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes down to the whole debate/discussion thing. It's something that I think everyone needs to work on(myself being ONE of them). After all we are all motorcyclist chatting back and forth on a motorcycle forum. I think more importantly we are all Americans and this kind of divisive in-fighting(the Nation as a whole) is detrimental to what America stands for. Debate and discussion is good but fighting to the point of hatred is not.

Granted we can vehemently disagree from everything on politics, religion to the color Black. And like you pointed out, it should be confined to the facts and points of view, rather then degenerate into malicious attacks.

Now, everyone knows I love smack and smack talk is fun(for the most part). I think it lightens the mood at times, however I know there are times when it probably gets out of hand. People get hot under the collar and let their emotions take over. And while I'm not one to say going with your emotion is a bad thing, it's the process with which you control your emotions.

I know for instance when we've chatted about Religion. I'll always hold you in high regard because when we've discuss it. You've always been very professional and courteous. You've presented your side with facts that you believe to be truth. And I've always tried to return the favor and present my side with facts that I believe to be truth. I can't think of any discussion we've ever had where it's been anything but professional and cordial. I honestly wish I could say the same for others on this board. I'm partially to blame as well. Every coin has two sides and I'm guilty.

I know that I've let my own emotions get out of control in all sorts of discussions(Guns, Religion, Politics). And I should be better than that. I shouldn't let myself become so calloused towards others and their views. It's hard to do when some can only lob insults towards your beliefs but that doesn't let ME off the hook for allowing msyelf to sling bad smack back.

I completely agree with you that debate is healthy. Debate should always be encouraged as it's what has made our country like no other in Earth's history. And I've worked myself to focus more on the the ideas than the proponents of the ideas. Which is why I haven't posted up some political stuff. As for religion it's best not to bring up around these parts. Now when it comes to Guns, oh yeah I'll post it up all day long. But I've reigned back my political threads. I realized myself that I need to quit taking myself so seriously at times. I mean for crying out loud, I laugh at the dumbest stuff and have a great time whether at work or home. I know the political stuff is there and needs to be addressed but I've given myself a "time-out" from it.

To be honest, I've found alot of humor in the recent threads we've been having about: Are big trucks compenstating for little junk, men v. women relationships, my "What Do You Chaw" thread, etc. etc. you know random crap that just makes the day easier and more fun to get through.

As for the two gentlemen that are having this heated debate. I can see where both are coming from. Myself I have to align with Shea. I firmly back him in the fact that he's questioning the whole "what's the deal with our ignorant government" thing. I to agree that what's the point in pouring billions of our tax dollars into companies that are just going to file Bankruptcy anyways? I'm a firm believer in Capitalism and one of the by-products of capitalism is "One day you're king of the hill" the next "You're closing up shop and starting over". It's what capitalism is built on and it's how the system flushes itself. Bankruptcy isn't the end of the world for GM. I personally think they should have done it a long time ago and would have already been on the path to recovery now.

Everyone freaks out about things being to big to fail. My opinion no one is too big to fail. No company, car maker, or tycoon. The only thing that I think is too big to fail is America. But we've got 300 million reasons to keep it going. We've got 300 millions minds all working to keep it alive. And we've got 300 million people that ain't been beat yet. That's what I rather focus on, is our country. Capitalism will flush the system(if left alone) and we'd be back at it, just as we've done in the past.

As for Barn, I can see why he's upset. Because now that his President is in, he feels that all the other side is doing is piling on. Well that is to be expected and one can see why he feels that way. The harsh fact is, it's everyone's right to pile on. This country isn't easy and if you want to run it, then be prepared to face the harshest and coldest of criticism. It's a never ending cycle, Bush got piled on for 8 years and now Obama will get piled on for the next 4. To me, fair is fair. To rip on one President and then hold his successor away from the flame is hypocritical. But that's what makes our nation so wonderful and chaotic at the same time. Every four years someone's ass is in the sling regardless of what they do. And that's what makes America, America....


p.s.
tried to keep it short but just couldn't :)

[dirkterrell]

I know for instance when we've chatted about Religion. I'll always hold you in high regard because when we've discuss it. You've always been very professional and courteous. You've presented your side with facts that you believe to be truth. And I've always tried to return the favor and present my side with facts that I believe to be truth. I can't think of any discussion we've ever had where it's been anything but professional and cordial.

Yep, you and I have had some lively discussions but it's always been cordial.

Dirk

[THE3BS]

So to the gentleman making the remark earlier that stated, "you didn't see me on here everyday saying things about vet's going untreated, civilians die... You didn't have too. The media did it for you.

The same people who were in favor of the attack on Iraq and voted in favor of it decided to use the Iraq conflict as a smear campaign against the Bush administration. Now those same people who are alive, safe, and secure because of the tactics used are wanting to prosecute the people who used the tactics defending their security... Ok... that makes sense?

Were going to dump billions of dollars into a bankrupt and broke business (which mind you has been broke for many many years) because its going to save how many jobs? How many jobs are going to be lost in the long run in an effort to save a few thousand jobs in the present? How many POS GM vehicles did the government just commit my kid to buy? At this pace hell be lucky to afford one new vehicle in his life time with hyper inflation and the taxes he will have to pay as a result of this wreckless spending.

As far as being a doom and gloom person. Someone has to do it. A nation who sits idle and allows their government to do as they choose in the name of being optimistic is a lost and hopeless nation. As you sit and retain your optimism your government is looking for newer and more efficient ways to strip your of your freedoms and take the fruit of your labor.

History has told us time and time again that big government is only interested in becoming a bigger government and will do whatever it takes to preserve itself at any and all cost. Even the poorest of countries have government officials living lavishly at the expense of their citizens. While you are willing to sacrifice the quality of your life in the name of optimism your government will not. Your government and your president would gladly sell your freedoms to obtain a nice plane ride and dinner out on the town.

[~Barn~]

Well I'll make this last post, and then leave it alone, but basically GM *had* to be saved. If it would have eventually been allowed to fold and liquidate and essentially "stop making cars", the trickle down that would have taken place, would have been disastrous.

It goes far beyond the immediate jobs within the company itself, but 3rd party companies that have served to support GM, and service GM, and make ancillary products for GM, would have eventually been hit hard. And hit hard to the tune of not having that "parent" company to continue the basis for their businesses. And it's nearsided to just say something so simple as "Well then they'll just need to adapt!" Even if *some* of them could.

It's not unlike the humungo-banks that had to get saved. If they would have been allowed to liquidate, the smaller bank that effectively had "stock" in them, would have in turn collapsed, and all the customers of those banks (read: all of us), would have... well.... if I have to explain.

Here's another "for instance" for ya! I know a lot of people on this board don't care for Microsoft. They think their product is crap, they can't stand how big they are, whatever. They maybe even give their business to other companies. But that being said, most people who live anywhere other than maybe in a rainforrest, know how large MS is. How many businesses rely on them. How many home-users have their products. Can you imagine what would happen if a company like Microsoft went out of business?

So think of General Motors in those terms. If it's not the largest car maker in the world, it's the 2nd largest. And think of the reach that a company like that has, not only in the people they directly employee, but also in the companies that operate and perform services, and make parts, and repair parts, etc, etc, because GM even exists at all. I'm not defending the business practices themselves, or anything like that, that landed us all here; but what is happening is real, it-is what-it-is.

If GM would have been left to its own devices and eventually (probably) liquidated, the effects over the upcoming years would have been... again... disastrous. I'll leave it at that.

[dirkterrell]

Well I'll make this last post, and then leave it alone, but basically GM *had* to be saved. If it would have eventually been allowed to fold and liquidate and essentially "stop making cars", the trickle down that would have taken place, would have been disastrous.


But, as I pointed out in a previous post, you're assuming that GM and its production capabilities would just disappear. That's not the case at all. There is still a significant demand that GM fills in the marketplace and that demand will need to be met, by a slimmed down GM and by groups that would buy other GM assets. Parts would get sold off (e.g. the Hummer announcement) and people who believe they can run the business better would be given a chance to prove it. Yes, there would be some pain and job losses but positing the complete disappearance of GM is a flawed premise.

The demand for 3 million cars and the 3rd party parts to make them won't just disappear. They'll just be filled by companies who run the business more efficiently than the old GM. Those companies will be the new GM, existing manufacturers, and maybe even new ones that buy up assets of the old GM. I would much rather see new capitalists running things than the government.

Dirk

[~Barn~]

Yes, but all of that is happening Dirk, because the helped stepped in.

Hummer (as well as virtually everything that was deemed expendable) has been for sale for some time now, but there were no buyers. The lack of faith in sustainability was making various sales impossible.

As for the now "slimmed down" GM that you speak of, this was also a consequence of this bailout. The Fed had been putting pressure on GM to do all the various things that they are now in essence forced to be, including trimming the fat, and getting rid of particular areas within their corporate infrastructure. You point these out as being good things, which is true, but you also seem to fail to realize that they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't do it within the timeframe given to them, just like they couldn't ink the sale of the Hummer division until now. And in my personal opinion, if they would have been left alone, they still would not have been able to. If anything, things would have continued to deteriorate.

GM was definitely given an opportunity to "save themselves", but alas they could not, until a particular faith was restored in the company. That faith came at the expense of what eventually has become "Government Backing".

That's the only flaw in this conversation, is saying that GM was going to do all of this on their own, and do it with any level of success. The fact of the matter is, that they were given the time to start doing all of this, and it didn't happen.

[DavidofColorado]

Do you know how long it would take to make a car that didn't start falling apart in 3 years? Even if they never said that. That is what a lot of people heard from them and lost faith in GM.

I personally don't know why they couldn't pull something off with all the money that was given to them?

But a slimmed down GM that was sold off to people willing to make it work would/has worked better for a company than letting th GOV run it. Nobody is going to buy what they end up selling unless they are forced to or given great deals like free.

But this is just my opinion and its worth what you paid for it.

[Shea]

Well I'll make this last post, and then leave it alone, but basically GM *had* to be saved. If it would have eventually been allowed to fold and liquidate and essentially "stop making cars", the trickle down that would have taken place, would have been disastrous.

You know Barn if this had been your initial post I might have thought differently of you.

No company *has* to be saved, in fact it is imperative that bad actors in a market be allowed to fail. The government stepping in and deciding that GM is "too big to fail" is, in economic vernacular, a moral hazard. Bad behavior, poor choices, mismanagement are positively reinforced and therefore will continue because Uncle Sam is there to bail you out. In other words companies now have unlimited upside potential (dealing as fast and loose as they want) and no downside.



It goes far beyond the immediate jobs within the company itself, but 3rd party companies that have served to support GM, and service GM, and make ancillary products for GM, would have eventually been hit hard. And hit hard to the tune of not having that "parent" company to continue the basis for their businesses. And it's nearsided to just say something so simple as "Well then they'll just need to adapt!" Even if *some* of them could.

You have a misunderstanding of what bankruptcy is and how it operates. GM, under Chapter 11 protection, will not cease to exist. They will not close their doors and immediately upteen million people are out of work. This fallacy (and many others) have been used to shove these bailouts down our throats.

Under reorganization GM will have to slim down to where a bankruptcy judge believes they will be profitable again. The people that they owe (a shit load) money to, will have to take pennies on the dollar. Poor performing assets will be sold for whatever the market will give them for them and labor contracts will be renegotiated. On the other end of the process, GM becomes a MUCH stronger company. Yes, people will be laid off. Yes, they would not be such a huge company but they would still be there.

How many times has United gone bankrupt? Used to be they were declaring bankruptcy every other week. You can still fly them correct? Their suppliers didn't go under either.



It's not unlike the humungo-banks that had to get saved. If they would have been allowed to liquidate, the smaller bank that effectively had "stock" in them, would have in turn collapsed, and all the customers of those banks (read: all of us), would have... well.... if I have to explain.

In bailing out their buddies (yes, Paulson, Geithner, Bernake all used to work for the people they bailed out...conflict of interest?? NAH) the Fed ensured that the "toxic assets" stayed in the system. If these people, that made HORRIBLE decisions were allowed to fail, and don't get me wrong it would have been painful, those assets would have been flushed from the system. It's like removing a bandage, fast and you have pain for a few seconds, or slow and the pain goes on and on.

What we are doing now is making those people that invested in credit default swaps, sub-prime mortgage backed securities and every other extremely risky financial intrument, whole with taxpayer money. Once again rewarding bad behavior.



Here's another "for instance" for ya! I know a lot of people on this board don't care for Microsoft. They think their product is crap, they can't stand how big they are, whatever. They maybe even give their business to other companies. But that being said, most people who live anywhere other than maybe in a rainforrest, know how large MS is. How many businesses rely on them. How many home-users have their products. Can you imagine what would happen if a company like Microsoft went out of business?

Linux would start looking really good. Barn, you operate in this world of zero sum...without this there is nothing else. What Dirk and I say until we are blue in the face, and that a capital market excels at, if there is a need it will be filled. If Microsoft goes away tomorrow, within a short period of time a better, more adaptable company will show up and fill that market need. Once again this fallacy that we are all completely and irrevicably tied to one company and must, with all our power protect them from their own stupid choices.



If GM would have been left to its own devices and eventually (probably) liquidated, the effects over the upcoming years would have been... again... disastrous. I'll leave it at that.

No the effects would have been healthy and beneficial. The government has decided that it gets to choose winners and losers...and they're picking the losers to win. Because it is an unknown and politicians need to be seen "doing something" we are now risking financial ruin. As much as you hate my "debbie downer" view, it is an objective assesment (shared by many with better education than I) of where we are headed. We are assuming TRILLIONS in debt to do these things, ruining our currency and relagating our children to a third world country. When the adult thing to do would have been to tell GM, you got yourself here, get yourself out....and AIG, Sterns, Citi, BA, et al.

[dirkterrell]

Yes, but all of that is happening Dirk, because the helped stepped in.

Hummer (as well as virtually everything that was deemed expendable) has been for sale for some time now, but there were no buyers. The lack of faith in sustainability was making various sales impossible.


Define "some time". Hummer was first listed as being under review in June of last year. (Source (http://www.motorauthority.com/gm-reveals-north-american-restructuring-plan.html)) and very soon thereafter (days in one case: source (http://www.motorauthority.com/hummer-could-go-to-indias-tata-or-mahindra.html)), interest was expressed by several buyers. (Source (http://www.motorauthority.com/report-gm-in-talks-with-indian-chinese-and-russian-firms-over-hummer-sale.html)). The sale was just announced but huge deals like this aren't drawn up overnight. It is a far stretch to say that a deal which started well before the current bailout process was a success because of that bailout. In any case, we can say that your claim that there were "no buyers" for "quite some time" is inaccurate.



As for the now "slimmed down" GM that you speak of, this was also a consequence of this bailout. The Fed had been putting pressure on GM to do all the various things that they are now in essence forced to be, including trimming the fat, and getting rid of particular areas within their corporate infrastructure.

Having no money and no credit (and no hope of being "saved" by the taxpayers) would have forced them to take measures to become profitable. They didn't need to be forced by the government via a takeover. There was interest (as documented above) in GM's assets by other manufacturers.



That's the only flaw in this conversation, is saying that GM was going to do all of this on their own, and do it with any level of success. The fact of the matter is, that they were given the time to start doing all of this, and it didn't happen.

You still assume that GM itself had to survive to keep this catastrophic economic hit from happening and that is an unproven and unlikely assumption. There is a sizeable demand that GM filled and that demand isn't going to disappear. It probably would be somewhat reduced given the overall economic situation but the majority of it would remain (sales are down by ~1/3 so 2/3 of the demand remains. Source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aIduOHVa8iGk)). In a free market, demand will be met by suppliers. Whether that was a slimmed down GM or by new/other companies who bought up GM's assets makes no difference. It would be met, so a decent fraction of people who now work for GM would still be working (albeit at reduced compensation in all likelihood because of market forces).

Dirk

[Shea]

Yes, but all of that is happening Dirk, because the helped stepped in.

Hummer (as well as virtually everything that was deemed expendable) has been for sale for some time now, but there were no buyers. The lack of faith in sustainability was making various sales impossible.

Hummer is a niche brand and was a very tough sell, but they found a buyer.



As for the now "slimmed down" GM that you speak of, this was also a consequence of this bailout. The Fed had been putting pressure on GM to do all the various things that they are now in essence forced to be, including trimming the fat, and getting rid of particular areas within their corporate infrastructure. You point these out as being good things, which is true, but you also seem to fail to realize that they couldn't/wouldn't/didn't do it within the timeframe given to them, just like they couldn't ink the sale of the Hummer division until now. And in my personal opinion, if they would have been left alone, they still would not have been able to. If anything, things would have continued to deteriorate.

No, I believe your are mistaken. GM had to reorganize and didn't want to. It's why they went to the government in the first place. They asked for "operating capital" in order to keep doing business as usual. GM is a huge, bloated company and had a lot of "fat" that they could have trimmed before this, but failed to do so.

Once again you fail to realize how bankruptcy works Barn. They could have declared bankruptcy in three days. At that second, their creditors are told to back off and GM gets to A. continue operating and B. start working on their reorganization plan. They don't need months to prepare for bankruptcy, nor do they need government intervention/coercion/pressure to do it. Government money did nothing to expedite the process, quite the contrary.




GM was definitely given an opportunity to "save themselves", but alas they could not, until a particular faith was restored in the company. That faith came at the expense of what eventually has become "Government Backing".

That's the only flaw in this conversation, is saying that GM was going to do all of this on their own, and do it with any level of success. The fact of the matter is, that they were given the time to start doing all of this, and it didn't happen.

No, GM didn't want to save themselves because it involved too much pain. It was far easier to go to Washington with their hands out and not change. So they did and got a crap load of taxpayer money to avoid making tough decisions. If they went there and DC told them tough crap, what would have happened? They would have had to declare bankruptcy and do exactly what they are doing now...without you and me being on the hook for several billion dollars.

[Shea]

Damnit Dirk quit repeating me :)


..or am I repeating you...?

[dirkterrell]

Hummer is a niche brand and was a very tough sell, but they found a buyer.


And Hummer might arguably be GM's toughest asset to sell given the cost of fuel these days as well as its niche status. The fact that interest was expressed within days of GM's floating its possible sale (well before the bailout process began) undermines Brandon's argument that no one would have been interested in GM's assets without government backing.

Dirk

[THE3BS]

Hummer is a niche brand and was a very tough sell, but they found a buyer.



No, I believe your are mistaken. GM had to reorganize and didn't want to. It's why they went to the government in the first place. They asked for "operating capital" in order to keep doing business as usual. GM is a huge, bloated company and had a lot of "fat" that they could have trimmed before this, but failed to do so.

Once again you fail to realize how bankruptcy works Barn. They could have declared bankruptcy in three days. At that second, their creditors are told to back off and GM gets to A. continue operating and B. start working on their reorganization plan. They don't need months to prepare for bankruptcy, nor do they need government intervention/coercion/pressure to do it. Government money did nothing to expedite the process, quite the contrary.




No, GM didn't want to save themselves because it involved too much pain. It was far easier to go to Washington with their hands out and not change. So they did and got a crap load of taxpayer money to avoid making tough decisions. If they went there and DC told them tough crap, what would have happened? They would have had to declare bankruptcy and do exactly what they are doing now...without you and me being on the hook for several billion dollars.


GM simply did what the government's been doing for many years. Rather then cutting fat and reducing it's spending it has decided to dip it's hand in the tax payer cookie jar.

We need to fix this problem and the first way we fix it is to stop electing crooks.

I personally will not buy a GM vehicle. If I buy American it's Ford and Ford only from here on out.

[Shea]

Correct. Every asset will sell for what the market is willing to pay for it. Doesn't necessarily mean that GM will get what they want for it but it will sell.

[~Barn~]

Well... Just got back from a meeting, and caught up on this.

Lots of interesting points, but I guess when you get down to brass tax, the people and parties involved thought otherwise. It's not like I approved the deal from my iPhone.

We'll see what happens.

[dirkterrell]

Lots of interesting points, but I guess when you get down to brass tax, the people and parties involved thought otherwise.

All except the people paying for it, i.e the taxpayers:


Only 21% of voters nationwide support a plan for the government to bail out General Motors as part of a structured bankruptcy plan to keep the troubled auto giant in business.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% are opposed to a plan that would provide GM with $50 billion in funding and give the government a 70% ownership interest in the company.

Even when presented with the stark choice between providing government funding or letting GM go out of business, only 32% of voters support the bailout. Most voters (56%) say it would be better to let GM go out of business.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/just_21_favor_gm_bailout_plan_67_oppose

I'm sure the people getting all that money approved of it. Those paying it weren't so keen on it.

Dirk