Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 137

Thread: Gm moves to China

  1. #91
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Yours is a general position. Mine is directly made about GM.
    Mine was specifically about GM, too.

    Apparently it's only generic when it shows that you don't wish to acknowledge it.



    You said the unions encouraged the higher waged employee's to retire. I replied as to why that was in their best interest. I also expanded as to why they were a part of the problem to start with and noting why I believe they are on the same path as before. If you feel it is only you allowed to bring up points, I might as well quit now.

    You: According to the article, the union was the group that urged higher paid employees to retire early so that cheaper employees could be hired.

    Me: It's also in the unions best interest to get rid of the higher wage earners. There is nothing the union could get away with doing for them.

    You: The unions certainly deserves to be criticizd, but at the same time those aren't the very actions that got us here. They are quite different from those actions, actually.

    Me: I had already addressed that I believe that their near immediate demands for higher wages (and getting them) are the same things that caused a part of the problem and will likely to lead to other stupid demands like I noted that've made before.

    If you start your response by claiming I've said something inaccurate, I will request evidence to verify the veracity of your denial. Your opinions about what the Union's options were limited to are utterly irrelevant to the point I made.

    The point that was made, that you claimed was false, was that this wasn't simply the same old same old from the union. Everything else you posted besides the portion I quoted was irrelevant to the point.

    Now, I was allowing for the possibility that I was wrong, which is why I requested more information. Your little dance of avoidance shows me that I wasn't wrong, though, o9r at least that you were ill equipped to claim I was wrong.

    Since it's gone, someone has to pay it back.
    It's not gone, it's invested. It can be recouped if the stocks reach a certain value.

    One can not pay it back if the jobs move to China.
    False. It can be recouped via stock sales.

    And regardless of what happens to these jobs, there will still exist other jobs which will pay taxes in order to pay back the loans that the US has.

    We did not have this money. It was borrowed.
    So? Are you under the impression that the jobs that might be going to China are the only one's in the country which generate tax revenue?

    I absolutely 100% believe that the company and the country would have been better off if GM had been forced through a more conventional bankruptcy.
    Bully for you.

    Of course, that doesn't do squat to fix the situation that exists now and those jobs would still be gone, but I'm very happy for you that you are so strong in your belief, no matter how utterly pointless I believe it is to dwell on the hypothetical utopia that could have been.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    As I recall the whole argument for the treasury funding NGMCO was to avoid GM's bankruptcy becoming a chapter 7.

    Pretty much as I remember it as well

    A GM bankrupcty would have been a liquidation not a reorg
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    7

    Your position is to have the government prevent any loses to a private investor who might have funded GM during its reorganization period. The taxpayer would have been on the hook for any loss's. A taxpayer funded bailout
    Like with Solyndra, the tax payers interests should have been put first. GM is claiming billions in profits. That should be going to the taxpayers until all money was repaid.

    Of course that still ignores the fact that tens of billions of dollars at the time of the GM bailout would have been very hard to find. Lets recall that most US financial institutions were receiving government money at the same time. Which means the US government would have had to put the money upfront as well
    I already addressed that.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:18 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Like with Solyndra, the tax payers interests should have been put first. GM is claiming billions in profits. That should be going to the taxpayers until all money was repaid.



    I already addressed that.

    Given that the US goverrnment owns 33% of GM, the profits it earns are in part owned by the US government
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  5. #95
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Like with Solyndra, the tax payers interests should have been put first. GM is claiming billions in profits. That should be going to the taxpayers until all money was repaid.
    Solyndra was a government garanteed loan. The company went bankrupt and was liquidated. Thus, the taxpayers lost because the company did not have enough money to make its obligations on the loan. Tax payers on the other hand are profiting from GM because we have an Equity stake in the company. We own it.

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Mine was specifically about GM, too.

    Apparently it's only generic when it shows that you don't wish to acknowledge it.
    No, yours is a general statement that does not take into account GM's position. I believe customers will revolt when GM announces the new CHinese built compact being sold here. You say that is wrong, and maybe so but that is what is going to happen. IMO. The general arguement of expanding into other countries do not take things like that into consideration.

    If you start your response by claiming I've said something inaccurate, I will request evidence to verify the veracity of your denial. Your opinions about what the Union's options were limited to are utterly irrelevant to the point I made.

    The point that was made, that you claimed was false, was that this wasn't simply the same old same old from the union. Everything else you posted besides the portion I quoted was irrelevant to the point.
    I posted why I believed it was the same old. There is nothing they can promise these high wage earners, all things considered to remain in power.

    It's not gone, it's invested. It can be recouped if the stocks reach a certain value.
    We've covered that. Most agree that will not happen. That doesn't mean it wont but it's far less likely with the things I note.

    False. It can be recouped via stock sales.

    And regardless of what happens to these jobs, there will still exist other jobs which will pay taxes in order to pay back the loans that the US has.
    I'm patient. We'll see.

    So? Are you under the impression that the jobs that might be going to China are the only one's in the country which generate tax revenue?
    No, but we need every single one we can get.

    Of course, that doesn't do squat to fix the situation that exists now and those jobs would still be gone, but I'm very happy for you that you are so strong in your belief, no matter how utterly pointless I believe it is to dwell on the hypothetical utopia that could have been.
    A standard bankruptcy would have addressed many of the problems GM is still saddled with. (massive legacy costs for one)

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Solyndra was a government garanteed loan. The company went bankrupt and was liquidated. Thus, the taxpayers lost because the company did not have enough money to make its obligations on the loan. Tax payers on the other hand are profiting from GM because we have an Equity stake in the company. We own it.
    We lost money on the "equity" we sold.

  8. #98
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    We lost money on the "equity" we sold.
    The US needs to raise $49.5 billion to break even, this includes the $9.5 billion loan and our 61% equity stake. GM repayed its $9.5 billion loan.The GM IPO last year dropped the US holding in GM to 33% and we made $23 billion.So if we make $17 billion selling more stock than last time we will make money.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    The US needs to raise $49.5 billion to break even, this includes the $9.5 billion loan and our 61% equity stake. GM repayed its $9.5 billion loan.The GM IPO last year dropped the US holding in GM to 33% and we made $23 billion.So if we make $17 billion selling more stock than last time we will make money.
    Read post # 63 and follow the link then get back to us.

  10. #100
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    No, yours is a general statement that does not take into account GM's position. I believe customers will revolt when GM announces the new CHinese built compact being sold here. You say that is wrong, and maybe so but that is what is going to happen. IMO. The general arguement of expanding into other countries do not take things like that into consideration.
    Aside from the fact that the part in bold is pure speculation on your part, even if these cars are sold here, why would customers revolt now when they haven't revolted over Canadian-built vehicles being sold here, nor Mexican-built, nor Korean built, nor any of the other places that GM builds vehicles and parts, including the Chinese-built parts in some "American made" vehicles, such as the Equinox's engine (been made in China since before the bailout). Many GM vehicles are already built outside of the US.

    My argument is very specific to GM expanding into an emerging market. It is based on reality, instead of unfounded speculation. There is no evidence to suggest that your speculations have merit. There is a plethora of evidence that suggests the opposite, actually. As of right now,



    I posted why I believed it was the same old. There is nothing they can promise these high wage earners, all things considered to remain in power.

    False, you said it was the same old, but then provided only your opinion as a way to support that. I disagree with your opinion about how it is the same old same old because it is very different form the same old same old.

    You might be accurate to say that the end results will be the same (on that, only time will tell), but when you claim they are the same practices as those that existed before, you are claiming something that is false.


    We've covered that. Most agree that will not happen. That doesn't mean it wont but it's far less likely with the things I note.
    I agree that a full recoup will not happen, but a partial recuperation is extremely likely.

    My point is that forgoing the short-sighted ideological nonsense that has thus far exacerbated the situation and instead taking a practical approach that deals with reality will mitigate the losses.

    The only way we can mitigate the losses is by the stocks increasing in value. The only way. wishing for GM to fail is wishing for the entire investment to be lost, and it is exactly the kind of ideological drivel that causes such problems to begin with.


    I'm patient. We'll see.
    The only way that any of that money will be recouped with be through the sale of the stocks. the only thing you "will see" in all of your "patience" is how much of that money will be recouped.

    Of course, every single thing about your position cries out that you have no patience, and that you are engaging in and promoting exactly the kind of short-sighted ideological nonsense that will maximize our losses.

    A patient approach would be to look at the business decisions described in teh OP and saying "Hey, that's a pretty smart business decision. I hope it pans out ebcause if GM is successful, we have a chance to minimize our losses over that bailout."

    I take the exact same approach to this that I did with the Iraq war. I was opposed to either of those things happening, but I'm a practical man and I don't waste my time wishing and wanting for "the Utopia that never was". I supported the surge for the exact same reason that I support GM expanding into an emerging market.

    If stupid political decisions are made, such as the GM bailout or the Iraq war, you only exacerbate the stupidity of those decisions by focusing on their stupidity and trying to "undo" them. Instead, you have to try to offset the stupid decision by making smart subsequent decisions. It is a stupid decision to hold back GM's from profitable markets base don Ideology, just as it would have been a stupid decision to pull out of Iraq instead of performing the surge.


    No, but we need every single one we can get.
    Then we should focus on creating more jobs in domestic markets which are supported by our evolving economy instead of trying to cling to jobs which are no longer sustainable in our economy.

    The mentality of clinging to jobs which are made obsolete in our current economic reality is the same short-sighted mentality that leads to these kinds of bailouts in the first place. I'd have preferred it if the same amount of money was invested in the American people retraining them to deal with the new economic reality instead of pandering to their resistance to these economic changes which are quickly passing them by.

    But I tend to think that when we are faced with such things, the practical approach is the best one.

    A standard bankruptcy would have addressed many of the problems GM is still saddled with. (massive legacy costs for one)
    Ah, the utopia that never was. We can't go back in time, so why dwell on that utopia that never was?

Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •