Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 137

Thread: Gm moves to China

  1. #101
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Don't blame capitalism or China, lay the blame where it belongs.

    For one thing Unions are killing not only businesses but State Budgets.

    For another as our middle class is being wiped out China's is growing and you go where the market takes you, and now China is the emerging market place.

    Besides all of GM is not moving all it's plants to China.

    I'm not saying I am in favor of this, it's just the way it is.

  2. #102
    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 sawyerloggingon View Post
    Read post # 63 and follow the link then get back to us.
    You got it. You see, when the government bought $40 billion of GM, that means that GM was funded with $40 biilion dollars. That naturally does not go into a black hole. The whole point of companies selling equity is so they can use that money. GM essentially used the money raised by selling common and preffered stock to the US government to pay off its interest bearing debt owed to the US government. Essentially it was a debt to equity swap. Basically since the companies cash flows were good enough they could pay off the loan portion way ahead of time and not have to pay interest on that. So my point still stands, if we make back $17+ billion on the next GM IPO's we will make money.

  3. #103
    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

    rolleyes Re: Gm moves to China

    [QUOTE=drz-400;1059826880]You got it. You see, when the government bought $40 billion of GM, that means that GM was funded with $40 biilion dollars. That naturally does not go into a black hole. The whole point of companies selling equity is so they can use that money. GM essentially used the money raised by selling common and preffered stock to the US government to pay off its interest bearing debt owed to the US government. Essentially it was a debt to equity swap. Basically since the companies cash flows were good enough they could pay off the loan portion way ahead of time and not have to pay interest on that. So my point still stands, if we make back $17+ billion on the next GM IPO's we will make money.[/

    What you said was GM paid us back. They did anything but!

  4. #104
    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 sawyerloggingon View Post

    What you said was GM paid us back. They did anything but!
    ??? Did we not recieve the principal and interest due on the loan in full? Equity does not create a liability. Hope this helps.

  5. #105
    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
    ??? Did we not recieve the principal and interest due on the loan in full? Equity does not create a liability. Hope this helps.
    We recieved payment for one gov loan with another gov loan, smoke and mirrors that nobody is falling for, except you maybe.

  6. #106
    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 sawyerloggingon View Post
    We recieved payment for one gov loan with another gov loan, smoke and mirrors that nobody is falling for, except you maybe.
    Correction: We received payment for a government loan with money that came from a government investment.

    It was actually smart of GM to do this because they don't pay interest on the government investment money (they'll actually earn interest on it), but they do pay interest on the loan. One harms the profit margin, the other doesn't.

  7. #107
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Correction: We received payment for a government loan with money that came from a government investment.

    It was actually smart of GM to do this because they don't pay interest on the government investment money (they'll actually earn interest on it), but they do pay interest on the loan. One harms the profit margin, the other doesn't.
    Thank you. Since the US was the primary stockholder at the time, we should have been praising the move as it added stock holder value, instead someone will always try and make it into a conspiracy theory.

  8. #108
    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
    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.
    The Pontiac Lemans kicked some butt in sales. GM has lost a ton in terms of market share. One can argue that's because of other manufacturer's now selling cars. One can not argue that none of it has to do with GM exporting jobs.

    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 stated right off that I do not have a problem with them expanding. I then noted where I will have a problem if it happens.



    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.
    No, we simply have a different opinion.

    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.
    Again, go back and read my first post.

    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.
    Sorry, once again I disagree. I am commenting on the long term. You are commenting on the short term. There is entirely too much short term thinking around IMO.

    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."
    Read my first post.

    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.
    But as it turns out, those who were concerned that it would turn into a never ending mess were right. I'm assuming you used the same arguement then as you are now?

    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.
    Maybe you can explain how your wishful thinking made things better in the Iraq situation.


    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.
    They are sustainable.

    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.
    Cop out. I fully believe we can manufacturer $700 televisions here in the U.S. and pay at least as well as "service industry" jobs.

    Ah, the utopia that never was. We can't go back in time, so why dwell on that utopia that never was?
    Bankruptcy is a long held practice. Not some utopian thought. The idea that GM can be saved long term without addressing many of their problems (legacy costs) is the Utopian thought.

  9. #109
    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
    The Pontiac Lemans kicked some butt in sales. GM has lost a ton in terms of market share. One can argue that's because of other manufacturer's now selling cars. One can not argue that none of it has to do with GM exporting jobs.
    If exporting jobs played a role, it was a minuscule one. Nothing even remotely close to what you appear to be suggesting.


    I stated right off that I do not have a problem with them expanding. I then noted where I will have a problem if it happens.
    Why would you suddenly have a problem with something that predates the bailout? Is it only because it is China?




    No, we simply have a different opinion.
    False. I am not sharing an opinion, I am sharing an observation about the practices (which are, despite your denials, different from what existed in the past). The only way that you can present a denbial is by ignoring the differences and speculating about why you consider it to be the same.

    But things that are different cannot be the same.


    Again, go back and read my first post.
    Why do you think your first post was relevant to my point there?



    Sorry, once again I disagree. I am commenting on the long term. You are commenting on the short term. There is entirely too much short term thinking around IMO.
    Nonsense. Absolutely nothing you have said regarding the way that we can recoup the losses from the bailout employed long-term thinking.



    Read my first post.
    Looked at it. Nothing patient about it. You made it a point to call something purely speculative a current problem.

    But as it turns out, those who were concerned that it would turn into a never ending mess were right. I'm assuming you used the same argument then as you are now?
    That would be a bad assumption on your part. I opposed the bailout. I also wish it never happened. But once something I don't like becomes reality, I tend to take the stance of "wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up faster."

    In other words, wishing for things that aren't going to happen ain't even worth as much as ****.



    Maybe you can explain how your wishful thinking made things better in the Iraq situation.
    Most of my stances regarding what to do after stupid decisions aren't about making things better, but instead focus on not making things worse over teh long term. Leaving Iraq in the pre-surge turmoil would have lead to more long term instability. That doesn't change the fact that they should never have gone in in the first place, but trying to hit "undo" on reality is almost always the stupidest approach to take after a **** up.


    They are sustainable.
    That's wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that many had in the past when our economy changed. While some jobs will continue to exist in production, the proportion of those jobs to the total number of jobs is unsustainable. That's part of the reason why they are decreasing.

    Another reason they are decreasing is that these workers are being increasingly replaced with technology. It's not just wishful thinking to say these jobs are sustainable in our economy, it's delusional thinking.

    Cop out. I fully believe we can manufacturer $700 televisions here in the U.S. and pay at least as well as "service industry" jobs.
    I'll bite. How do you think that we can do this?

    Bankruptcy is a long held practice. Not some utopian thought. The idea that GM can be saved long term without addressing many of their problems (legacy costs) is the Utopian thought.
    It becomes a utopian thought when someone believes that something that never occurred could have made everything so much better.

    Even if it would have been the perfect solution, why dwell on that which did not occur instead of focusing on how to deal with the reality that is?

    Because bankruptcy in the current situation will only exacerbate an already bad situation. It's pointless. Instead we should work towards mitigating the long term losses over the **** ups of the past.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 09-27-11 at 12:12 PM.

  10. #110
    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
    If exporting jobs played a role, it was a minuscule one. Nothing even remotely close to what you appear to be suggesting.
    How big of a hit would you say GM could take?

    Why would you suddenly have a problem with something that predates the bailout? Is it only because it is China?
    It's because of the bail-out mostly.

    False. I am not sharing an opinion, I am sharing an observation about the practices (which are, despite your denials, different from what existed in the past). The only way that you can present a denbial is by ignoring the differences and speculating about why you consider it to be the same.

    But things that are different cannot be the same.
    They agreed to cuts to get the money. It didn't take them long to start demanding raises. I say it's the same.

    Why do you think your first post was relevant to my point there?
    Because this has been a response to my first post. Did you go back and read it or not?

    Nonsense. Absolutely nothing you have said regarding the way that we can recoup the losses from the bailout employed long-term thinking.
    Just because you think differently.

    Looked at it. Nothing patient about it. You made it a point to call something purely speculative a current problem.
    I said that I did not have a problem with them expanding. You said that I should say it was a good business decision. I did. Just because i wished to discuss possible ramifications is no need for all these accusations.

    That would be a bad assumption on your part. I opposed the bailout. I also wish it never happened. But once something I don't like becomes reality, I tend to take the stance of "wish in one hand, **** in the other and see which one fills up faster."

    In other words, wishing for things that aren't going to happen ain't even worth as much as ****.
    So you just remained quiet about your concerns?

    Most of my stances regarding what to do after stupid decisions aren't about making things better, but instead focus on not making things worse over teh long term. Leaving Iraq in the pre-surge turmoil would have lead to more long term instability. That doesn't change the fact that they should never have gone in in the first place, but trying to hit "undo" on reality is almost always the stupidest approach to take after a **** up.
    But those with concerns and that expressed them were right, correct?

    That's wishful thinking. The same wishful thinking that many had in the past when our economy changed. While some jobs will continue to exist in production, the proportion of those jobs to the total number of jobs is unsustainable. That's part of the reason why they are decreasing.

    Another reason they are decreasing is that these workers are being increasingly replaced with technology. It's not just wishful thinking to say these jobs are sustainable in our economy, it's delusional thinking.
    Technology is another subject.

    I'll bite. How do you think that we can do this?
    By just doing it. 25 years ago we were told that we could not compete with the quality of the Japanese. Even if the U.S. produced television is a little higher there are many who will purchase it for the reason of it employing their neighbor.

    It becomes a utopian thought when someone believes that something that never occurred could have made everything so much better.

    Even if it would have been the perfect solution, why dwell on that which did not occur instead of focusing on how to deal with the reality that is?

    Because bankruptcy in the current situation will only exacerbate an already bad situation. It's pointless. Instead we should work towards mitigating the long term losses over the **** ups of the past.
    Bankruptcy is never the perfect solution. Listening to those who warned GM years ago would have been. No use worrying about future ramifications though, is there?

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •