Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 141

Thread: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

  1. #131
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    GM and Chrysler were not going to emerge from bankruptcy. They would have been liquidated, because no one in the private sector had any interest in saving those companies. As noted, they were trying for years to arrange a rescue, and the private sector offered no help whatsoever.
    That's how it works in a free market. If a troubled company is worth salvaging, then it will be salvaged, one way or another. If it is not worth salvaging, then it goes out of business.

    What we have here is government wastefully misusing taxpayer funds to try to salvage companies that were not worth salvaging.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  2. #132
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Several people on this thread are claiming that the Big Three could have been saved by a normal private bankruptcy. It's a fantasy. If GM and Chrysler failed, all three would have ended up liquidating, tons of jobs would have been lost.
    Ford would have picked up the slack. We'd have more people, in better jobs, making better cars, without having wasted so much taxpayer money.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  3. #133
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Ford would have picked up the slack. We'd have more people, in better jobs, making better cars, without having wasted so much taxpayer money.
    Who knows, Fiat bought one, perhaps Toyoto and Honda would have bought the others. Though private equity may have stepped in and flipped them for billions in profit by now.

  4. #134
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Several people on this thread are claiming that the Big Three could have been saved by a normal private bankruptcy. It's a fantasy. If GM and Chrysler failed, all three would have ended up liquidating, tons of jobs would have been lost.
    Foreign money had already owned Chrysler at one time or another and there is nu reason to believe that Ford would have gone under.

    I guess you don't have any interest in commercial airlines, then. They frequently get bailed out. The only way they could survive would be to reduce flights, slash everything to the bone and significantly increase prices. And even that might not be enough.
    Right. I don't have any interest in commercial airlines as that is not the topic.

    S&L's also had to get bailed out, when those *cough* private sector banks mismanaged their funds and went belly up.
    And?

    No, I'm pointing out that Japan and China do not let companies rise and fall on their own merits. They not only survive with massive government support, they actually thrive off of it.
    Then they will eventually fail.

    Because the entire US economy would suffer if the Big Three went under and their employees were unemployed.
    Other auto manufacturers would have to hire more people to take up the slack. It happens all the time in business. Companies start and fail regularly and there is no bailout, except for those with political connections.

    Seems screamingly obvious to me. A lot of Republicans are biased against Obama, and were before he even took office.
    Well of course. It might have been his history or lack of experience, but that happens all the time in politics. No one expects to get 100% of the vote.

    See what I mean?
    More to the point, do you see what I mean? BHO had no business experience whatsoever and yet feels qualified for the US Government to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on failed companies and then equip other start-ups with venture capital? This unequipped greenhorn has cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars and why he still gets anyone's support remains a mystery.
    Last edited by Grant; 06-10-13 at 02:47 AM.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:58 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    That's how it works in a free market.
    At the risk of offending your delicate sensibilities:

    • We do not live in a free market economy. Never have, never will.
    • Completely unfettered free markets are not a good thing anyway.
    • Numerous competitors in the same industry receive massive support from their governments, especially Japanese auto manufacturers.


    Ford would have picked up the slack.
    Again: No, Ford would not have picked up the slack. Nor would the US auto industry spring back instantly, as though nothing happened. That's a fantasy.

    • Ford didn't need a bailout, but were not in a strong position. They were just better prepared for the downturn and credit crunch.
    • All the companies use the same suppliers. If GM dies, it's going to take out a huge wave of suppliers as well. That would have harmed Ford as well. And Toyota, and Honda, and....
    • GM and Chrysler would have dumped their cars, which would further damage the market.
    • There should be no question that Americans would collectively freak out if a Chinese company started buying up the charred remains of GM and Chrysler.

    E.g. Why Asian automakers want a federal bailout of U.S. industry - Dec. 15, 2008

  6. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    At the risk of offending your delicate sensibilities:

    • We do not live in a free market economy. Never have, never will.
    Everyone knows what you just typed.

    He obviously wasn't being literal.

    Sheesh.

    Again: No, Ford would not have picked up the slack. Nor would the US auto industry spring back instantly, as though nothing happened. That's a fantasy.

    • Ford didn't need a bailout, but were not in a strong position. They were just better prepared for the downturn and credit crunch.
    • All the companies use the same suppliers. If GM dies, it's going to take out a huge wave of suppliers as well. That would have harmed Ford as well. And Toyota, and Honda, and....
    • GM and Chrysler would have dumped their cars, which would further damage the market.
    • There should be no question that Americans would collectively freak out if a Chinese company started buying up the charred remains of GM and Chrysler.

    E.g. Why Asian automakers want a federal bailout of U.S. industry - Dec. 15, 2008
    And he did not say the US auto market would 'spring back instantly'. Of course it would take some time.


    Both Saturn and Pontiac had American buyers lined up to take over those divisions - but Government Motors turned them down...probably because they did not want the competition.

    http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...065_956038.htm

    http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/inde...gm_says_d.html

    Please provide links to unbiased facts/data that proves that all of GM's other divisions would not have also had American buyers lined up for them if GM had died?
    Last edited by DA60; 06-11-13 at 05:34 PM.

  7. #137
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:58 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Foreign money had already owned Chrysler at one time or another and there is nu reason to believe that Ford would have gone under.
    There is every reason they would be seriously harmed, as many of their suppliers would have gone out of business; GM and Chrysler would have flooded the market with cheap cars during its death throes; confidence would be seriously shaken, etc etc.


    Right. I don't have any interest in commercial airlines as that is not the topic.
    Nice try. The point is that the private sector is not capable of saving critical industries every single time, and that sometimes government intervention is necessary -- and works.


    Then they will eventually fail.
    Toyota has been in business since 1937; Honda in 1948. Both would have outlasted GM and Chrysler without the bailout.

    And what company will not "eventually fail?" How many more decades will Toyota remain one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world, before they fail and you can blame the failure on government support?

    The platitudes that "government interference doesn't work" is factually and historically inaccurate.


    Other auto manufacturers would have to hire more people to take up the slack. It happens all the time in business.
    The collapse of 2 of the largest companies certainly does not "happen all the time." And in this case, it would affect lots of other businesses that affect the entire industry.


    BHO had no business experience whatsoever....
    Plenty of people with "business experience" and an understanding of economics supported the bailout. McCain also did not have any "business experience."

    Romney does have experience, and also ignorance. In his "Romney to Detroit: Drop Dead" editorial, he failed to recognize that the UAW had already made concessions before the bailout; he did not acknowledge that foreign competitors get huge financial backing from their governments; he simultaneously says that "management and the unions need to stop fighting," while insisting that the employees slash their wages, benefits and retirement. Nice.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    There is every reason they would be seriously harmed, as many of their suppliers would have gone out of business; GM and Chrysler would have flooded the market with cheap cars during its death throes; confidence would be seriously shaken, etc etc.
    Why would they have gone out of business? All they had to do was adapt their business to changing times, and businesses do that regularly. In fact if they don't do it they will soon be out of business anyway.

    Nice try. The point is that the private sector is not capable of saving critical industries every single time, and that sometimes government intervention is necessary -- and works.
    Of course not because not all businesses are worth saving. If it was profitable then of course investors would get involved. If it is losing money then the taxpayers (aka unwilling investors) have their money being used by the whims of politicians. Do you understand the precedence this creates?
    Toyota has been in business since 1937; Honda in 1948. Both would have outlasted GM and Chrysler without the bailout.
    If that's the case then all automobile manufacturers should be run by governments and thus be assured of success. But are you quite certain Honda and Toyota are owned and run by the Japanese government? Perhaps you are thinking of the old Skoda and Trabant. They were government owned.

    And what company will not "eventually fail?" How many more decades will Toyota remain one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world, before they fail and you can blame the failure on government support?
    Check to see who owns Toyota. In fact you can buy shares in the company. Same with Honda.

    The platitudes that "government interference doesn't work" is factually and historically inaccurate.
    Not by your examples.

    The collapse of 2 of the largest companies certainly does not "happen all the time." And in this case, it would affect lots of other businesses that affect the entire industry.
    I did not say that the collapse of the two largest companies happens all the timer. That's why you must use quotes.

    Plenty of people with "business experience" and an understanding of economics supported the bailout. McCain also did not have any "business experience."
    They may have supported it from an ideological point of view but if it was a viable business it wouldn't need a 'bailout'.

    Romney does have experience, and also ignorance. In his "Romney to Detroit: Drop Dead" editorial, he failed to recognize that the UAW had already made concessions before the bailout; he did not acknowledge that foreign competitors get huge financial backing from their governments; he simultaneously says that "management and the unions need to stop fighting," while insisting that the employees slash their wages, benefits and retirement. Nice.
    The United States could use more "ignorant" men like Mitt Romney.,

  9. #139
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 06:58 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    9,973

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Why would they have gone out of business? All they had to do was adapt their business to changing times, and businesses do that regularly. In fact if they don't do it they will soon be out of business anyway.
    Are you suggesting that all GM and Chrysler had to do was offer a few models, and they would be fine? Do you not understand that they did not have sufficient cash to reorganize in that fashion, and that credit was not available?


    Of course not because not all businesses are worth saving. If it was profitable then of course investors would get involved. If it is losing money then the taxpayers (aka unwilling investors) have their money being used by the whims of politicians. Do you understand the precedence this creates?
    It doesn't "create a precedent."

    Again, the US has bailed out major industries before, notably airlines and rail. The government has not subsequently bailed out other businesses that were going south, such as Borders, Kodak, Polaroid or Hostess.


    If that's the case then all automobile manufacturers should be run by governments and thus be assured of success. But are you quite certain Honda and Toyota are owned and run by the Japanese government? Perhaps you are thinking of the old Skoda and Trabant. They were government owned.
    I think you are completely misunderstanding both what I'm saying, and the reality of the situations.

    I am NOT saying that governments should own major companies on a regular basis. I am NOT saying that Honda and Toyota are "owned" by the Japanese government. The term was "massive support," not "nationalization."

    I'm pointing out that the auto manufacturers around the world receive a variety of government assistance and support. Doing so has not meant their immediate doom; it's been a benefit.

    To put it another way: Toyota and Honda have huge competitive advantages over US auto makers, because they have major backing from their governments. At best, this bailout levels the playing field a tiny bit.


    I did not say that the collapse of the two largest companies happens all the timer. That's why you must use quotes.
    Uh. You're saying that if GM and Chrysler had failed, other companies would have picked up the slack, and that this happens "all the time."

    This would not be the case here, because the survivors would also be harmed. Suppliers to all auto companies would go broke, and GM and Chrysler would swamp the market for a few years with cheap cars that they hadn't sold. In addition, foreign car manufacturers would pick up a nice slice.


    They may have supported it from an ideological point of view but if it was a viable business it wouldn't need a 'bailout'.
    You're just as ideologically driven as anyone else. You do understand that, right?

  10. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: GM's return to top continues as it rejoins S&P 500

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Are you suggesting that all GM and Chrysler had to do was offer a few models, and they would be fine? Do you not understand that they did not have sufficient cash to reorganize in that fashion, and that credit was not available?



    It doesn't "create a precedent."

    Again, the US has bailed out major industries before, notably airlines and rail. The government has not subsequently bailed out other businesses that were going south, such as Borders, Kodak, Polaroid or Hostess.



    I think you are completely misunderstanding both what I'm saying, and the reality of the situations.

    I am NOT saying that governments should own major companies on a regular basis. I am NOT saying that Honda and Toyota are "owned" by the Japanese government. The term was "massive support," not "nationalization."

    I'm pointing out that the auto manufacturers around the world receive a variety of government assistance and support. Doing so has not meant their immediate doom; it's been a benefit.

    To put it another way: Toyota and Honda have huge competitive advantages over US auto makers, because they have major backing from their governments. At best, this bailout levels the playing field a tiny bit.



    Uh. You're saying that if GM and Chrysler had failed, other companies would have picked up the slack, and that this happens "all the time."

    This would not be the case here, because the survivors would also be harmed. Suppliers to all auto companies would go broke, and GM and Chrysler would swamp the market for a few years with cheap cars that they hadn't sold. In addition, foreign car manufacturers would pick up a nice slice.



    You're just as ideologically driven as anyone else. You do understand that, right?
    Sorry, but i've lost interest.

Page 14 of 15 FirstFirst ... 412131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •