34
   

Let GM go Bankrupt

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 07:43 am
@maporsche,
It looked good. That's the only thing that impresses me.

Quote:
The problem started when one of the grease guns Heidimarie Stefanyshyn-Piper had with her to lubricate the station's starboard solar alpha rotary joint (SARJ) leaked special vacuum-stable Braycoat lubricant into her crew lock bag, making a mess that she was directed to clean up with a fabric wipe. As she worked the bag got away from her and drifted aft of the station, taking with it two grease guns, a wipe caddy, a scraper to clean up the metallic debris fouling the SARJ, and a large trash bag.


Hubris gets no better than that.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 08:53 am
@maporsche,
Well that nice and I hope you and your prof like living in 1929 once more.

And this is withour a time machine how nice.

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 08:59 am
@BillRM,
I expected more bill.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:22 am
@maporsche,
Expect what? You are stating that you and your professor think that the best that could happen is that the Big Three go away along with millions of jobs how nice.

It would be one thing if the economic was in fair shape otherwise and we are talking about allowing one of the big three failing.

All three going under is theses conditions would or will trigger a 1929 event in my opinion and all the nice theories about letting failing firms fail is not going to stop the good old bread lines from coming back as a result of not giving bridge loans that amount to pocket money.

The news today contain the fact that another 20 billions is going into city bank but we can not give the heart of what remain of our manufactuing capabitities bridge loans of 25 billions!

Complete crazness.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:33 am
@BillRM,
I never talked about my professor(s) or what they may have thought.

You're buying into the fear BillRM. It's too bad. Don't be afraid.

You should be happy about the Citigroup deal for what it's doing to your 401k today.

Also, you're a fool if you think the Big 3 auto deal will end at 25 billion.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:52 am
And you know what else pisses me off about that Citigroup deal. I work for a company who competes with Citigroup. My company is in relatively good financial shape (still making a profit and beating analysts expectations), because we chose not to lend to risky borrowers when everyone else was. We forfeited millions of dollars in profit because we didn't make these loans during the booming years.

Now, in a normal economic world we'd be laughing our asses off because we chose sound fiscal management and our company is in no risk of bankruptcy. We should be benefiting right now from our fiscal managmement over the last 8 years, but instead we feel cheated. We should be losing competetors because of their horrible decisions, instead they are being rewarded for their error by the government.

The message my company is seeing is that it is not in it's best interest to be prudent with their money and lending. A 300 Billion bailout today will cause Trillions in bailout money in the future.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:19 am
Admittedly I don't know a lot about this subject, but I am curious, if the "big three" go bankrupt and eventually belly up, will there be any domestic automakers left to compete with foreign automakers? If there won't be, won't this put us a disadvantage in the global market?

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:22 am
@revel,
Going bankrupt does not mean that GM, Ford, and Chrysler will cease to exist.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:27 am
@maporsche,
Gotta agree with you there, map. I don't like this Citi deal one bit...

My longtime mortgage group (ABN Amro) sold off to Citi last year and now I'm a Citi customer (much to my dismay). What the hell were they doing buying up other companies a year ago and are looking for taxpayers to pay for it now?
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:51 am
The latest is that GM plans to invest $1B in its Brazilian operations. This is where our bailout money would go?

http://tinyurl.com/6bfzho
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:51 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
We forfeited millions of dollars in profit because we didn't make these loans during the booming years.


What a silly thing to do. Just think of all those who had their fun with the boom profits and are now dead.

Were you doing your double-entry book-keeping with quill pens and righteous hangdog expressions?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:52 am
@cjhsa,
This is just pissing me off to no end.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:53 am
@spendius,
I guess we didn't foresee the corporate welfare program which is now government policy.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:54 am
@maporsche,
Disinterested economics majors are never pissed off map. Once you become interested you cease to be an economic major of dignity and renown.

Has your prof. not even explained that yet?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 10:57 am
@spendius,
Pissed off was the wrong word spendi...."in shock" is more accurate.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 11:14 am
@JPB,
Agreed JPB...something smells rotton.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 12:16 pm
@maporsche,
Point taken map. I'll rephrase my statement to take account of your correction.

Disinterested economics majors are never in shock map. Once you become interested you cease to be an economic major of dignity and renown.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 12:17 pm
@spendius,
I would cut classes if I was you and spend the time studying Veblen and Galbraith.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 06:59 pm
@maporsche,
You hope that they will not cease to exist!

The completely car-building infrastructure and supply chains could go belly up in weeks beyond anyone ability to bring them back to life.

Second it the nuts that do not care if the big three exist or not block government loans to the firms once they declared bankruptcy the game is all over.

You do need those funds in or out of bankruptcy and the government look to be the only ones that would provide it to them at any price.

I laugh at what we will be paying for a car after the wonderful Toyota firm is the only real game in town, assuming anyone of us will remain employ and able to buy anything.

We may end up looking like Cuba keeping every car running decades after we should had junk them.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 11:36 pm
Peter Schiff, economic genius, agrees with my opinion about the bailouts. Ignore him and risk ruining your children's futures.

http://caps.fool.com/blogs/viewpost.aspx?bpid=112357&t=01000420523245711617

Quote:
As the Federal bailout bonanza prepares to spread beyond the mortgage and financial sectors to fill Detroit's depleted coffers, few economic or policy analysts have spared a thought for the destitution of the U.S. government itself. Put simply, our government doesn't have enough spare cash to bailout a lemonade stand let alone a bloated and failing industry that is losing tens of billions of dollars per month. Washington can only offer funds that it has borrowed from abroad or printed. Unfortunately, the nation is in the grips of a delusion that money derived from these sources has the power to heal. But history has clearly shown that borrowed or printed money only has the power to destroy.

The argument that energizes the pro-Detroit camp is that the government should extend the same courtesy to the rank and file auto workers that it lavished upon the fat cats of Wall Street. While two wrongs certainly do not make a right, the fact remains that the Wall Street firms are still floundering despite the bailouts. What's worse, the money spent was either printed or borrowed from abroad. Both options are destructive to America.

When it comes to bailouts, the real discussions are not centered in Washington but rather in Beijing, Tokyo, and Riyadh. With no money of our own, our ability to bailout our own citizens is completely dependent on the world's willingness to foot the bill. While I am sure that Bush and Paulson are doing their best to convince the world that open ended financing of the United States is in the global interest, my guess is that, unlike Congress, our foreign creditors will see through the self-serving nature of our plea.

Like any bailout, our foreign creditors should consider the moral hazard of rewarding bad behavior, and the old investment adage of not throwing good money after bad. By continuing to "lend" us money, the world is merely delaying the necessary rebalancing of our upside down economy. By continuing to subsidize our reckless and outsized consumption, the world merely delays the inevitable re-balancing and exacerbates the underlying problem at the root of the current global financial crisis.

If Washington bails out General Motors, the funds will never be recovered. GM will simply burn through the bailout money and then be back for more. Talk of designing a new fleet of "green" cars that will pave the way to profitability by spurring a new buying spree is simply delusional. Given the staggering "legacy" costs of health care and pensions for millions of current and former workers, Detroit cannot produce cars profitably. Unless these costs are seriously brought down, and there is very little chance that they will be, Detroit will remain a bottomless money pit.

Similarly any money that the world lends to America to finance more consumption will never be repaid. We will simply blow through it, and be back, hat in hand, begging for more. As we painfully learned in the housing bust, lending people money that they cannot pay back makes no sense. This applies equally to foreign central banks lending to America as it does to commercial banks lending to homeowners.

So for the same reasons that Washington should not bail out General Motors, the world should not bailout America. Like GM, our economy is in desperate need of a restructuring. Spending must be replaced with savings, and consumption with production. The service sector must shrink and manufacturing must expand to fill the void. The dollar must fall, wages in America must be brought down to a competitive level, and hopefully government spending and burdensome regulation can be reduced.

This transformation will not be fun, but it is necessary. Our standard of living must decline to reflect years of reckless consumption and the disintegration of our industrial base. Only by swallowing this tough medicine now will our sick economy ever recover. By accepting a lower standard of living today, we will eventually be rewarded with a higher one tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Let GM go Bankrupt
  3. » Page 12
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.89 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 12:56:32