Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 137

Thread: Gm moves to China

  1. #81
    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
    We'll see.
    We'll see? That makes no sense. The conventional wisdom that exists today is what is being discussed. Either current conventional wisdom says that tapping into emerging markets is profitable, or is says that it is not.





    Particular? I posted where the union screwed the company over before and you didn't quote it.
    Which posts did you put it in? I may have missed it, but I don't think anything was directed at me which described a situation like the one I am discussing.



    So those still on the hook for the money the government gave GM will not be able to pay it back because the jobs will be in China.
    Who is on the hook for money the government gave to GM and won't be able to pay it back? How will jobs in China affect this?

  2. #82
    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
    We'll see? That makes no sense. The conventional wisdom that exists today is what is being discussed. Either current conventional wisdom says that tapping into emerging markets is profitable, or is says that it is not.
    That is a generic arguement.

    Which posts did you put it in? I may have missed it, but I don't think anything was directed at me which described a situation like the one I am discussing.
    Like you are discussing? Or in other words, don't post things you don't want to discuss.

    Here is what you quoted from me:

    No, they were part of the actions.
    Here is my statement:

    No, they were part of the actions. GM being forced to pay people to sit around because there was no work for them to do is not something any company could withstand for long. 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.
    I'm not quite sure how one can selectively quote a part of what someone posts and not see the rest.

    Who is on the hook for money the government gave to GM and won't be able to pay it back? How will jobs in China affect this?
    We all are. Even those who either lose or do not get jobs because they are created in China instead.

  3. #83
    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
    That is a generic arguement.
    It's a perfect argument when someone says "They could beat conventional wisdom but I'm not betting on it."

    Obviously you were not so bothered by it's generic nature when you made it to begin with. I wouldn't bother such such nonsense, myself, if someone didn't already put it on teh tabel and hope it didn't get challenged.



    Like you are discussing? Or in other words, don't post things you don't want to discuss.
    No, in other words respond to what was said by me, and stop creating strawmen in lieu of an intelligent argument.


    Here is what you quoted from me:
    Aed here is what that was in response to:

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


    I'm not quite sure how one can selectively quote a part of what someone posts and not see the rest.
    Because I remove irrelevant material that is not actually a response to what I said, and focus on that which is a response to what I said. I asked about a specific, and you said that that specific was a part of what they did. I don't care about the irrelevant nonsense you added, because it is irrelevant to what I said.

    I'm not sure how you think irrelevant nonsense actually response to something I said.



    We all are.
    We aren't on the hook. The money is already gone. The only way we can get it back is if the stocks improve so that they can be sold at a high enough prie to recoup the money.

    Jobs here have exactly **** all to do with that.

    Even those who either lose or do not get jobs because they are created in China instead.
    Jobs have nothing to do with the money we've spent on GM. Those jobs were lost already. The government money is the only reason they stuck around for any amount of time.

    Do you think those jobs would have survived GM going bankrupt? Not a hope in hell. They were gone the moment GM started going under. The TARP money only prolonged their demise.

    I think it's silly as all hell to argue that the company should have been allowed to go bankrupt while simultaneously entertaining the fantasy that they wouldn't have just outsourced the jobs entirely once they were out from under the yolk of the Union.

  4. #84
    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
    It's a perfect argument when someone says "They could beat conventional wisdom but I'm not betting on it."

    Obviously you were not so bothered by it's generic nature when you made it to begin with. I wouldn't bother such such nonsense, myself, if someone didn't already put it on teh tabel and hope it didn't get challenged.
    Yours is a general position. Mine is directly made about GM.

    No, in other words respond to what was said by me, and stop creating strawmen in lieu of an intelligent argument.
    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.


    I'm not sure how you think irrelevant nonsense actually response to something I said.
    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.

    We aren't on the hook. The money is already gone. The only way we can get it back is if the stocks improve so that they can be sold at a high enough prie to recoup the money.

    Jobs here have exactly **** all to do with that.
    Since it's gone, someone has to pay it back. One can not pay it back if the jobs move to China. We did not have this money. It was borrowed.

    Jobs have nothing to do with the money we've spent on GM. Those jobs were lost already. The government money is the only reason they stuck around for any amount of time.

    Do you think those jobs would have survived GM going bankrupt? Not a hope in hell. They were gone the moment GM started going under. The TARP money only prolonged their demise.

    I think it's silly as all hell to argue that the company should have been allowed to go bankrupt while simultaneously entertaining the fantasy that they wouldn't have just outsourced the jobs entirely once they were out from under the yolk of the Union.
    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.

  5. #85
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Gm moves to China

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



    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.



    Since it's gone, someone has to pay it back. One can not pay it back if the jobs move to China. We did not have this money. It was borrowed.



    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.
    And who would have provided the financing for GM to go through a conventional bankruptcy?
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  6. #86
    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
    And who would have provided the financing for GM to go through a conventional bankruptcy?
    If the country had said that they would gaurantee any money and left it at that, I would not have been as against what happened. Yes, GM employee's would not be in as good of shape today but the country would be in a better position but that's the trade you make to survive.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    If the country had said that they would gaurantee any money and left it at that, I would not have been as against what happened. Yes, GM employee's would not be in as good of shape today but the country would be in a better position but that's the trade you make to survive.

    In other words a government funded bailout
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  8. #88
    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
    In other words a government funded bailout
    If you wish to ignore the entirety of my position, have at it.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Lord Tammerlain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,432

    Re: Gm moves to China

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    If you wish to ignore the entirety of my position, have at it.
    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

    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
    Happy Hanukkah Cheerfull Kwanzaa
    Happy Christmas Merry New Year Festivus for the rest of us

  10. #90
    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 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

    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
    As I recall the whole argument for the treasury funding NGMCO was to avoid GM's bankruptcy becoming a chapter 7.

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •