Treasury sells lasts shares. closes book on successful profitable auto bailout

Conservative · Sep 28, 2017

Vern said:
er uh Conservative, where are the "verifiable sites that provide what you claim "

I'm beginning to suspect you know your "nuh uh's " aren't true because I don't know how you missed Bush's low ball estimate of the carnage if GM and C were liquidated. This was in the 3rd post of the thread

I have it figured out now, you believe projections are facts and loans are similar to a takeover which just goes to show how poorly informed you are

Today, President Bush announced that the Treasury Department will make loans available from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to assist the domestic auto industry in becoming financially viable

Obama spent 52 dollars a share to TAKE OVER GM and got 39 dollars a share in return. You buy the rhetoric that it saved jobs when the reality is you have no facts as to how many jobs were saved or what would have happened had it gone bankrupt and out of business which is because you have no understanding of the private sector economy. Everything the Democrats do is good and Republicans bad in your world. That is partisan bs which we have become accustomed to with you. You never take responsibility for the mistakes Democrats make

Vern · Sep 28, 2017

Conservative said:
I have it figured out now, you believe projections are facts and loans are similar to a takeover which just goes to show how poorly informed you are

Con, see if you can focus on the facts instead of your obedient whining about me. I posted those projections from "verifiable sites that provide the information". What "verifiable sites that provide the information" have you provided for this magic narrative?

Conservative said:
there will always be someone to buy out GM and take over their aftermarket.

I can only assume your " loans are similar to a takeover" narrative is simply a deflection from the fact that you cant post "verifiable sites that provides the information" to back up your magic narrative about GM. And you should thank President Obama for the auto bailout. We would have lost 17 billion of the 20 billion Bush loaned them. Bush should thank him too.

Conservative · Sep 28, 2017

Vern said:
Con, see if you can focus on the facts instead of your obedient whining about me. I posted those projections from "verifiable sites that provide the information". What "verifiable sites that provide the information" have you provided for this magic narrative?

I can only assume your " loans are similar to a takeover" narrative is simply a deflection from the fact that you cant post "verifiable sites that provides the information" to back up your magic narrative about GM. And you should thank President Obama for the auto bailout. We would have lost 17 billion of the 20 billion Bush loaned them. Bush should thank him too.

The only thing you posted was a verifiable site but the information there is a PREDICTION, hardly factual. try to focus Vern, there is a difference between a loan and a takeover. You seem to not understand that reality. Obama bought actual shares of GM/Chrysler for $52 a share, sold off Chrysler to the Italians, and paid back the taxpayers at $39 a share so in the liberal world buy high and sell low. Shows why liberals and Democrats keep losing elections. You are a poster child for that ideology

Vern · Sep 28, 2017

Conservative said:
The only thing you posted was a verifiable site but the information there is a PREDICTION, hardly factual.

Okay very good conservative. yes its a PREDICTION and (read this slowly) it’s a PREDICTION from a credible source. Where’s the credible source for this PREDICTION?

Conservative said:
there will always be someone to buy out GM and take over their aftermarket.

Yea, we both know you made that up that to obediently flail at my factual posts. Anyhoo

try to focus Vern, there is a difference between a loan and a takeover.

No need to focus, I’m simply ignoring your pointless deflection.

jaeger19 · Sep 28, 2017

Vern said:
that's how I interpreted this

Because of your emotional desire to flail at the facts sometimes your point is not clear as you rush to flail. And sometimes you post wishful thinking as fact.

.

Yeah vern.. I don't think you realize the irony of your post here. You are the one that rushes to flail at facts and you rush to flail. I have been and continue to be very clear on my position.. you sir have no real rebuttal so must make up a position for me to argue a position I don;t have nor have ever held.

Of course there was a magic more efficient and effective way to fix everything because Dr Jaeger/Mr Hyde thinks there had to be

You mean as opposed to your assumption that the ONLY way to deal with the GM bankruptcy was to do exactly what Obama did? Basicall our premise is.." well since Obama did it.. it must have been the only thing to do and was the only correct thing to do"

I am just not a partisan hack like you like to be.

i recognize that propping up a failing company thats failing because of years of mismanagement might not just be the best thing to do. If its going to cause problems for other businesses? It makes more sense fiscally to help them out directly, rather than potentially throw good money after bad.

You are free to disagree.. but the facts support me.. not you.

Because of what I've posted throughout this thread that cant even be called wishful thinking. Its just total delusion

thats right vern.. what you've posted throughout this thread can;t even be called wishful thinking.. its total delusion. Based solely on your partisan ship that whatever a democrat does is WONDERFUL.

Facts simply don;t matter to your ideology vern.

Vern · Sep 28, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Yeah vern.. I don't think you realize the irony of your post here. You are the one that rushes to flail at facts and you rush to flail. I have been and continue to be very clear on my position.. you sir have no real rebuttal so must make up a position for me to argue a position I don;t have nor have ever held.

oh Dr jaeger/Mr Hyde you do make me laugh. I'm make clear straightforward points and backing them up. You are simply posting "nuh uh" and "so what" as a rebuttal. as far as your flamingly hypocritical claim I'm "making up a position you don't have" I simply pointed out what you posted and how I interpreted it. See how you whine about how I interpreted your post instead of clearing it up. Your "nuh uh" should have been followed by you explaining what you were trying to say. And what makes it hypocritical, you continued to claim I posted something I didn't even after I explained it to you and proved it. See post 141 to see me proving that point. You simply don't let the facts get in the way of your magic narratives.

So here's an idea Dr jaeger/Mr Hyde, make a clear point and back it up. That way I don't have to try to guess what you're saying when you posting something like this

jaeger19 said:
Hmm.. but they weren;t.

they weren't what? And be sure to post the solid factual links that show GM would have magically resumed production or that suppliers could have been helped more efficiently and effectively directly or liquidating GM wouldn't have made the recession worse. You made these statements. Please back them up. And by "back them up" I don't mean word fort of your magic narratives.

jaeger19 · Sep 28, 2017

Vern said:
oh Dr jaeger/Mr Hyde you do make me laugh. I'm make clear straightforward points and backing them up. .

No.. you are not backing them up.. not at all. I mean you CLAIM you are.. but nothing you posted has come close to making the argument that the ONLY way to help the auto industry was to bailout GM and in the manner it was done.

and then you go on a diatribe about "what you postes" blah blah blah. Vern its not my fault you have poor reading comprehension.

And be sure to post the solid factual links that show GM would have magically resumed production or that suppliers could have been helped more efficiently and effectively directly or liquidating GM wouldn't have made the recession worse. You made these statements. Please back them up. And by "back them up" I don't mean word fort of your magic narratives.

nice try vern. i understand what evidence is.. you apparently don't.

You think your evidence supports your claim.. it doesn't. Its simply opinion on what was best.. and in this case.. it ignore all the relevant facts.

1. GM had marketshare that other companies that were healthier could fill that demand. particularly if helped by the federal government. Which means there DID NOT have to be "where GM magically resumed production".. not necessary. not necesary at all. GM could not have produced one dang more car.. and there would still be unfilled demand that other companies could have expanded to produce.

2. A direct subsidy and support to a parts supplier is CERTAINLY more efficient and effective than doing it indirectly by helping GM. thats pretty much the difference between a direct subsidy and an indirect subsidy.

3. And if production was ramped up in other US manufacturers to fill the demand that GM left unfilled.. then liquidiating GM wouldn't have made teh recession worse. Its pretty straightforward logic there vern.

Conservative · Sep 28, 2017

Vern said:
Okay very good conservative. yes its a PREDICTION and (read this slowly) it’s a PREDICTION from a credible source. Where’s the credible source for this PREDICTION?

Yea, we both know you made that up that to obediently flail at my factual posts. Anyhoo

No need to focus, I’m simply ignoring your pointless deflection.

You are so right, like the credible source that said the Obama stimulus wouldn't allow unemployment to exceed 8% or that the GDP Growth would exceed 3% neither of which were accurate. You see, results matter, not predictions and the predictions of strong economic growth and quality job creation under Obama never happened but the left with such low standards believed predictions were accurate.

Fact, Obama bought controlling interest for $52 a share and sold the final holdings for $39 per share and to the left that is a success.

It really is hard dealing with people like you who always let your feelings dictate your actions while ignoring actual results.

Kushinator · Oct 2, 2017

jaeger19 said:
So all that market share would just disappear if the worlds automaker went under? OR would other automakers expanded operations to fill the demand? Perhaps new companies developing to fill that demand?

Its hardly likely that all that demand would just "poof" disappear and there would not be expansion and/or new operations to fill that demand.

Demand literally did just "poof" disappear.

The question we were faced with was: should the market be left to it's own?

Economically, there really isn't much of an argument for the auto bailout. If there was worry about the secondary producers (like parts suppliers etc).. then help could be structured for them until the market "caught up".

What typically happens when an industry giant goes into bankruptcy is consolidation, i.e. GM's competitors would purchase parts of the company. These actors have an incentive along with the bargaining power to scoop up assets at a fraction of their actual worth. If you represent the group that stands to profit from market failure and distortion... this sounds like a great idea! But if you are an employee, retiree, bondholder, ancillary partner, etc..., you might carry a different perspective. FWIW, the vehicle sales market didn't reach pre-recessionary levels until 2014.

If anything, economically the bank bailout was a bad deal since it basically sends the message that "we privatize profits and socialize the risks".

It was a stopgap. The FDIC, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury, was on the hook for trillions upon trillions of dollars worth of depositor accounts. Remember Wachovia and WaMu?

Now politically? Obama had no choice. there was no way that any politician can bail out the banks.. who created the problem... and then fail to help out GM. and let those politically important regions suffer. political suicide.

I agree.

Vern · Oct 6, 2017

jaeger19 said:
.. but nothing you posted has come close to making the argument that the ONLY way to help the auto industry was to bailout GM and in the manner it was done.

and there it is, the inevitable "misparaphasing" conservative resort to when they cant argue the facts. I guess its a good sign that you are no longer flailing about President Obama'ssuccessful and profitable bailout of the auto industry. Its a shame you took the dishonest route of attacking something I haven't posted. And of course you simply repeat your silly opinions. I was clear Jaeger, I asked you to back up your "points" not simply repeat them. Here read it again

Vern said:
And be sure to post the solid factual links that show GM would have magically resumed production or that suppliers could have been helped more efficiently and effectively directly or liquidating GM wouldn't have made the recession worse. You made these statements. Please back them up. And by "back them up" I don't mean {a} word fort of your magic narratives. .

jaeger19 · Oct 9, 2017

Kushinator said:
Demand literally did just "poof" disappear.

.

No.. it did not disappear. Decrease? Yes.. just like for other automakers. But the auto industry was making millions of units. and GM represented a huge chunk of marketshare that was not "going away".

The question we were faced with was: should the market be left to it's own?

Yep.. and once that was answered that "no.. it should not be left to its own"..

the NEXT question is "what should be done".

The real question is whether the best thing for the taxpayer and the market was to prop up a failing company that had in large part gotten itself into trouble. OR was it better to provide support to the other entities like the parts suppliers, and allow the marketshare that GM and Chrysler represented be absorbed by other stronger entities or new entities.

What typically happens when an industry giant goes into bankruptcy is consolidation, i.e. GM's competitors would purchase parts of the company. These actors have an incentive along with the bargaining power to scoop up assets at a fraction of their actual worth. If you represent the group that stands to profit from market failure and distortion... this sounds like a great idea! But if you are an employee, retiree, bondholder, ancillary partner, etc..., you might carry a different perspective

Of course.. but the question has to be asked.. does government intervention in preventing the failure of such an industry giant... propagate the "too big to fail".. attitude and further greater risk taking and end up causing an incentive for larger and larger boom and bust cycles in the market?

I would suggest that the long term health of your economy is better by a more stable approach and allowing companies that make bad choices to fail and mitigate any fallout to other companies while the market corrects itself.

.

jaeger19 · Oct 9, 2017

Vern said:
and there it is, the inevitable "misparaphasing" conservative resort to when they cant argue the facts. I guess its a good sign that you are no longer flailing about President Obama'ssuccessful and profitable bailout of the auto industry. Its a shame you took the dishonest route of attacking something I haven't posted. And of course you simply repeat your silly opinions. I was clear Jaeger, I asked you to back up your "points" not simply repeat them. Here read it again

[/B]

nope vern.. what you have is your typical partisan hackery. I was never "flailing". about the bailout of the auto industry. That was you flailing about.

I pointed out correctly that there were many other approaches that could have been taken.. many of which would have preserved the jobs in the parts suppliers etc.. BUT would have also allowed a failing company to fail and thus create a stronger and ultimately healthier auto industry.

You spent your time flailing about trying to convince everyone that the only thing that could be done is what Obama did. Every time I pointed out that something could have say been done to help the parts suppliers directly... you flailed and yelled "uh huh".. called names and continued your partisan crap.

Vern · Oct 9, 2017

jaeger19 said:
I pointed out correctly that there were many other approaches that could have been taken.. many of which would have preserved the jobs in the parts suppliers etc.. BUT would have also allowed a failing company to fail and thus create a stronger and ultimately healthier auto industry.

oh jaeger, that's just pathetic. You simply whined over and over that they maybe sorta they coulda done something different. And that was only after you tired of whining President Obama's bailout wasn't successful and profitable. Read this slowly jaeger, you posting your silly magic narratives over and over is literally the opposite of "pointed out correctly". Lets look how you repeat your silly magic narratives and dishonest "misparaphrasing" of my posts.

You spent your time flailing about trying to convince everyone that the only thing that could be done is what Obama did. Every time I pointed out that something could have say been done to help the parts suppliers directly... you flailed and yelled "uh huh".. called names and continued your partisan crap.

I never once said that "it was the only thing that could be done". I simply mocked your incessant "nuh uh's" and unsubstantiated silly magic narratives. here's me asking you again to back up your silly magic narratives. read it slowly this time. focus on the part where I explain what "back up" doesn't mean.

Vern said:
And be sure to post the solid factual links that show GM would have magically resumed production or that suppliers could have been helped more efficiently and effectively directly or liquidating GM wouldn't have made the recession worse. You made these statements. Please back them up. And by "back them up" I don't mean word fort of your magic narratives.

jaeger19 · Oct 10, 2017

Vern said:
oh jaeger, that's just pathetic. You simply whined over and over that they maybe sorta they coulda done something different. And that was only after you tired of whining President Obama's bailout wasn't successful and profitable. Read this slowly jaeger, you posting your silly magic narratives over and over is literally the opposite of "pointed out correctly". Lets look how you repeat your silly magic narratives and dishonest "misparaphrasing" of my posts.

I never once said that "it was the only thing that could be done". I simply mocked your incessant "nuh uh's" and unsubstantiated silly magic narratives. here's me asking you again to back up your silly magic narratives. read it slowly this time. focus on the part where I explain what "back up" doesn't mean.

Whats pathetic Vern is that you don't have an legitimate response except personal attacks. there was no whining on my part. the only one is whining is you.. because now you are having to walk back your position with "I never said that it was the only thing that could be done".

The facts are what they are Vern., suppliers could have been helped directly.

GM and Chrysler represented a good portion of marketshare that was not going to "go away" and existing automakers could have increased production to account for that marketshare... and or other companies could have developed to take advantage of getting that marketshare.

That's the facts.. and you have nothing to refute them.

Vern · Oct 10, 2017

jaeger19 said:
. because now you are having to walk back your position with "I never said that it was the only thing that could be done".....

The facts are what they are Vern., suppliers could have been helped directly.

or other companies could have developed to take advantage of getting that marketshare.

That's the facts.. and you have nothing to refute them.

jaeger, you again arrive at the same point you do in every discussion, posting magic narratives and attacking things I didn't say. I can honestly say you need help. Now read this slowly. I don't have to "walk back" something I didn't say. Second, you simply repeating your silly magic narratives over and over doesn't make them a fact. and third, you are correct, I am not refuting your silly magic narratives. I am asking you to back them up. You've not posted one credible link to back up anything you've posted. In your desperate need to flail at my posts, your brain has tricked you into thinking your every wish is a fact. and fourth, you're ignoring that I've backed up every point I've made.

jaeger, you can tell when a conservative has reached rock bottom: they don't think they have to back up anything they say and think I have to disprove their silly magic narratives. No jaeger, this isnt a pre teen conservative chat room. This is a debate forum. You make a point, you back it up. Its funny that I've asked you several times to do so but you hilariously think its my job to refute your silly magic narratives. do yourself a favor and show your posts to a trusted friend or relative. And when he tells you to stop making a fool of yourself, you should listen.

Lord Tammerlain · Oct 10, 2017

jaeger19 said:
Whats pathetic Vern is that you don't have an legitimate response except personal attacks. there was no whining on my part. the only one is whining is you.. because now you are having to walk back your position with "I never said that it was the only thing that could be done".

The facts are what they are Vern., suppliers could have been helped directly.

GM and Chrysler represented a good portion of marketshare that was not going to "go away" and existing automakers could have increased production to account for that marketshare... and or other companies could have developed to take advantage of getting that marketshare.

That's the facts.. and you have nothing to refute them.

At the time of the collapse, had GM and Chrysler collapse (went out of business) other automakers production capacity could have made up the difference provided the auto parts makers did not go out of business at the along with Chrysler and GM. For domestic parts manufacturers a real possibility. I recall you stated the auto parts makers should have been bailed out instead, but that would be the same "moral hazard" that bailing out GM and Chrysler creates. It was the auto part makers decision to do business with GM and Chrysler, to not demand payment on delivery of the parts.

Had GM or Chrysler went bankrupt in say 2006, I would have stated to let them the economic impact at that time could have been absorbable by the US economy. Still at great cost to unemployement, the PBGT and welfare payments. But to have the two companies collapse at the same time of the largest financial crisis in the US since the great depression would have made the crisis much worse. A vastly larger increase in unemployment, pensions would have been cut by more than half for a huge number of retiree's dramatically increasing medicare cases and costs. The "moral hazard" from bailing out GM and Chrysler were drastically reduced by the huge loss's investors in both stocks and bonds suffered as a result of the bailout. That will prevent investors from thinking the government will bailout the investors if the company goes bankrupt. I am sure bondholders will be very cautious of pushing for a government bailout again after the huge losses they took.

From an accounting standpoint the government did not make money from the bailout, based on the return. But if you look at the other costs the governments would have faced, in all probability the bailout was a much cheaper option, as the spending on social programs was certainly less then they would have been without the bailout

Treasury sells lasts shares. closes book on successful profitable auto bailout

Conservative

Vern

back from Vegas

Conservative

Vern

back from Vegas

jaeger19

Vern

back from Vegas

jaeger19

Conservative

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Vern

back from Vegas

jaeger19

jaeger19

Vern

back from Vegas

jaeger19

Vern

back from Vegas

Lord Tammerlain