Obama '08?

@georgeob1,

The masses will buy up the stock offering and OMGM will move forward.
They will probably end up failing just as bad as Obama because they are mismanaged and produce an inferior product.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

What does "failing as bad as Obama" mean?

That you fail to make yourself clear on most of your posts that suggests negativity, but isn't explained. Please provide some evidence of Obama's failures as it relates to OMGM?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

OH I see. You accuse me of falsehoods, but then confirm the literal truth of what I wrote, adding only the excuse that the government had an interest in protecting the Unions - but not the bondholders apparently. You failed to address the point that the LAW put the bondholder's securitized loans ahead of the union's claims, and the Administration knowingly preempted the law.

It is you, Cyclo, who is using ideology to rationalize falsehoods; not me. Deceit and hypocrisy are a bad combination.

Gosh, I wonder why investors are not flocking to put their money in new businesses.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

You failed to address the point that the LAW put the bondholder's securitized loans ahead of the union'c claims.

And what law is that georgeob?

Quote:

The treatment of labor agreements in bankruptcy is governed by Bankruptcy Code Section 1113, 11 U.S.C. §1113. Enacted in 1984, Section 1113 protects collective bargaining agreements in two ways. First, unlike other contracts of the debtor, collective bargaining agreements may only be rejected if the debtor follows procedures and meets a heightened standard detailed in the statute. Second, unless the debtor has met these pre-requisites, the debtor may not unilaterally change any provision of a collective bargaining agreement.

I am unclear as to why you think that puts bond holders ahead of collective bargaining agreements. I see it as being the opposite.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

OH I see. You accuse me of falsehoods

If you read carefully you will note that I actually asked you a question, not accuse you of a falsehood in your post. It was more to bring light to the fact that you failed - twice - to respond to posts in the other thread regarding your penchant for making false statements.

Quote:

, but then confirm the literal truth of what I wrote, adding only the excuse that the government had an interest in protecting the Unions - but not the bondholders apparently.

Yeah, that's absolutely correct. The government DID have an interest in protecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of worker's retirement. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. If their retirement system had failed, we'd still be on the hook for them.

Quote:

You failed to address the point that the LAW put the bondholder's securitized loans ahead of the union's claims.

Can you provide evidence of this? My understanding of the Chapter 11 process says that what you just wrote is not true. I'm really reaching out here, George, and once again asking you to provide evidence to back up a claim, rather than just assume that you are uninterested in such things, or incapable of doing so.

Quote:

It is you, Cyclo, who is using ideology to rationalize falsehoods; not me. Deceit and hypocrisy are a bad combination.

Can you explain why you failed to respond to the two posts in the other thread, in which I showed that you were clearly incorrect? Or are you just going to continue to ignore the fact that you regularly say things that aren't true. I know it irks you to be required to show evidence for your statements, but you should realize that you have the same requirements as anyone here who wants to be taken seriously: if you are going to make claims you should have the integrity to back them up, and when they are shown to be false, you should admit it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Your understanding of the Chapter 11 process is deficient. The deviations from the legally prescribed chapter 11 process that the administration imposed at the startn of the proceedings have been widely reported. You can prove your own assertions.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Your understanding of the Chapter 11 process is deficient. The deviations from the legally prescribed chapter 11 process that the administration imposed at the startn of the proceedings have been widely reported. You can prove your own assertions.

I am saddened to note that you have, once again, failed to address the core issue: that is to say, you have made false statements and then ran away from the conversation when they are revealed to be so. Your continued refusal to address this significantly detracts from the quality of your postings. I know for a fact that I am not the only one here who finds this disappointing. I also promise you that I will not stop requesting evidence from you when you spout lies, George. Get used to it.

Regarding the above post, It was you who claimed that the Chap. 11 process was abused; the burden of proof falls upon YOU. This is an elementary point of argumentation.

If you don't know how to create a link to evidence, just tell me where your evidence lies, and I'll either put in a link for you or show you how to do it. But to pretend that it's somehow my responsibility to prove YOUR points? Nobody would take such a suggestion seriously.

I hope that you understand that my continual engagement with you on this point is a mark of respect, and not the opposite. If I didn't think you had meaningful points to add to the conversation, I'd simply ignore you, like H2O or other fools of his ilk. I don't think that's the case, but I must say that you present your arguments in an incredibly sloppy fashion. I wonder if you are so used to being 'in charge,' so to speak, and not having your assertions questioned, that you think you aren't required to, or find it galling.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

That's partly true, and I've enjoyed a good deal of success doing it. However, I do seek contrary opinions and follow up on alternate perspectives -- in the real world few "answers" or "solutions" are final: things change and new approaches are often required. However, I don't usually take time to pursue distracting details.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Why should anyone trust what you have to say on these issues? You regularly emit statements which are verifiably false, and then fail to respond when you are called out on it with links to evidence showing you are wrong. These statements are inevitably based far more on your ideology than they are reality.

I can't believe that you are just now coming to this conclusion, Cy. I noticed that Gob did this from the first posts of his I encountered. I can't remember ever seeing a Gob posting with a link to anything, or a quote from anything/anyone backing his position. Not a once!

I also don't know why you treat him such such deference. You certainly don't accord the same deference to Okie. The next thing you will see from him will probably be the "my father was a member of congress so I know how this all works" routine.

But, I must note that you have engaged in this same behavior.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Pretty good observation from where I'm sitting. Some people just bend backwards - or something to that effect.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

I also don't know why you treat him such such deference. You certainly don't accord the same deference to Okie.

Well, while I'm friends with Okie and think he's a nice guy (for the most part), I don't put his political analysis on the same level as George's. Just like my analysis (on the left side of the fence) is probably not viewed as sharp by most readers as, say, Joe from Chicago or maybe Thomas' analysis.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Some final stuff on the GM IPO tomorrow. Forgive the plethora of numbers*.
1st, a correction: I said that the GM rescue/bailout happened during the Bush administration. In fact, $20bn came under Bush followed by another $30bn under Obama for a total of $50bn.
Most of that was backed by common stock with a smaller amount held in the form of preferred shares. All told, "we" own about 60% of GM.
The opening price for the common stock tomorrow will be $33/share. That is about 20% higher then what was originally projected. In addition, the demand has, according to the underwriters, been so great that they are raising the number of shares to be offered by about 30%.
The demand, incidentally, is not coming from small investors. Rather, there is large institutional interest from mutual funds, a Chinese owned company and "sovereign wealth" funds from the mid-East countries.
Hang in. I am almost done.
When the dust settles, "we" will end up owning 30% vs 60% of GM and the company will have a market value of around $60bn. In order for us to break even on our investment, the stock will have to rise to about $49/share vs the issue price of $33.
That would suggest the stock needs to rise by some 45%. I don't see that happening soon. I am sticking behind my argument that the government should extricate itself from this sooner rather than later.

*I started with a BBC article which led me to others. Let me know if you question the numbers.

2 Replies

FORD looks better and better with each passing moment.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

The stock doesn't have to go up by half in order to us to recoup SOME of the money. In fact, if it went up by, say, 10% this year, we would save billions of dollars. It's hard to say that we should just forfeit that money in the name of ideology, when there's no real evidence that the US gov't owning that stock (especially a minority share) is damaging to the company or the brand in any way.

I would also note that GM is doing pretty well these days, and that the Volt was selected as the Car of the Year by Motortrend -

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/car/1101_2011_motor_trend_car_of_the_year_chevrolet_volt/index.html

Selling all the stock before we recoup our investment is hasty and ill-advised. Generally when a stock is moving up due to greatly increased interest in the company, the proper investment move isn't to sell far before it hits its' peak.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

OBAMA AND HIS LEFTIST LIBERAL FOLLOWERS DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

Leftist liberals seek to secure their right to steal wealth others earn.

Rightist liberals seek to secure their right to retain wealth they earn.

Leftist Liberals think legitimizing the stealing of wealth others earn will lead to equalization of wealth and the elimination of hateful behavior. Actually neither will be achieved. Those in the government minority performing the redistribution of wealth will be the ones growing wealthier and more powerful, while their victims, the majority, as well as their beneficiaries will gradually grow poorer and less powerful.

Rightist Liberals think that laws that violate the Constitution must be repealed in order to rescue and renew America. Laws that violate the Constitution serve only to increase the power of government over the power of the people.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

America began its corruption about 100 hundred years ago when its Congress, its presidents, and its courts began to redistribute wealth. It increased its rate of corruption when it deemed the Constitution of the USA a "Living Constitution" (i.e., changeable by opinion instead of by its Article V amendment process). More recently it has accelerated its rate of corruption by deeming the Constiitution an "Obsolete Constitution" (i.e., no longer valid).

SIGNATURE -- All humans are endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But humans forfeit those rights they deny others. Individualists want government to secure their rights. Collectivists want government to equalize wealth.

WORDS OF WISDOM FROM OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men should possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” -- Samuel Adams

“The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” – James Madison

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -- Benjamin Franklin

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” -- Benjamin Franklin

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -- John Adams

“To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” -- George Washington

Remember, the USA is not a democracy in which a majority of the citizens governed by the federal government can dictate to the minority, or a minority of the citizens governed by the federal government can dictate to the majority. The USA is a representative, constitutional republic in which the powers of the federal government to govern us citizens and other residents are strictly limited.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Thanks, Cyclo, for participating in the discussion of what we should do with our investment in GM. I think we each have made our argument as cogently as we could. We are not going to change anybody's minds.
I would prefer to move on to some other topic unless you have some parting comment that you think is relevant.

Specifically, please watch for a new post on the Where Is The Economy Headed thread scheduled for tonight or tomorrow.
Thanks, again.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

rjb, I believe your numbers are pretty reasonable, but the big 64 thousand dollar question is "when and how" in this world economy? As with speculation, it's impossible to predict what will happen to the GM stock price.

Even though car sales were good last month, it's still on top of more reports on foreclosures with not much hope for job growth any time soon.

Call me a skeptic.

With the feds WIP to increase currency liquidity and anticipated lower interest rate, the upside of speculation on GM stock looks promising.

The only time I advised people to buy gold was back in 2008; I'm tempted to advise people to buying GM stock also.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Are you an equal opportunity guy, cyclops? For example, do you also favor bailing out all companies in trouble these days? After all, isn't it unconstitutional for government to treat people or businesses unfairly or with different policies? And wouldn't it be good for America if all bankruptcies were eliminated?
I don't have such a black-and-white view of the world, Okie; and we also have to ask ourselves what 'bailing out' means.

....
The alternative wasn't acceptable, because it would have meant millions of jobs lost during a time when we ALREADY were experiencing very high unemployment. What makes sense about adding more unemployed to that? About allowing businesses just to fold, when the effects would hurt us?

The Financial Sector bailouts should have been handled like the GM one.

I note that you don't have much to say about the SPECIFICS of GM, but instead are forwarding an ideological point. As usual. Nothing matters to you more than proving that you are right, Socialism is bad, etc... you ought to admit that bailing them out was the correct thing to do. Every bit of available evidence shows that it was.
Cycloptichorn

I believe an idealogical point is important. For example, do you think treating one company different than another one is constitutional, yes or no? To try to make it as simple for you to understand as possible, is it logical to bail out one company that is threatened with bankruptcy, but not another one?

2 Replies

@okie,

Hank Paulson saved Bear Stearns but not Lehman Brothers his competitor when he was Chairman of Goldman Sachs.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

Other examples of unethical behavior by government that I have observed, is the granting of tax breaks to companies to attract them to communities, states, whatever, to build a new store or plant in a community, which provides jobs and a higher tax base in the future. However, they often do not do the same for existing businesses already established there.

I happen to think that government should be non-biased, that any groundrules that they set up should apply equally to all businesses. In fact, I wonder if it is constitutional for government to treat different businesses differently. I don't think it should be.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know