U.S. government loses $9.7 billion in GM bailout

Quote from Ricter:

I said "maybe", and I abstracted slightly to shine light on the point.
You're right in the second sentence, and it's better than nothing, but owned and operated by Americans is preferable in my view.
More...

I prefer owned and operated by Americans as well. But not at the cost of bailing the companies with failed business models, to burden the tax payer with losses, all because union buddies are being coddled for votes.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Yes, but maybe not American made cars. If no American made cars, then there would be no tax revenue from American car manufacturing.
More...
GM only has 20% of the US car market, all union.
80% of the rest of the USA made cars are made by mostly non union workers.

if GM went away tomorrow we would have many USA made cars.

Detroit union auto workers are a very small lot 60,000 persons
The rest of the USA market has 300.000 workers.

The government loss 9 billion saving a company that only makes up 20% of the market.
 
Quote from Mercor:

GM only has 20% of the US car market, all union.
80% of the rest of the USA made cars are made by mostly non union workers.

if GM went away tomorrow we would have many USA made cars.

Detroit union auto workers are a very small lot 60,000 persons
The rest of the USA market has 300.000 workers.

The government loss 9 billion saving a company that only makes up 20% of the market.
More...
The point I was trying to make with the quote is that there are two sides to the ledger. The government lost $9 billion on its stake in GM, but what is government tax revenue on GM's continuing operation? On the spending by GM's employees? Multiplied over time?
 
Quote from Ricter:

The point I was trying to make with the quote is that there are two sides to the ledger. The government lost $9 billion on its stake in GM, but what is government tax revenue on GM's continuing operation? On the spending by GM's employees? Multiplied over time?
More...

So why doesn't the government just buy out all failing companies everywhere and ensure they keep getting paid?

This way they keep getting the taxes and the employees keep spending. We'll never have unemployment ever again! Utopia!
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

So why doesn't the government just buy out all failing companies everywhere and ensure they keep getting paid?

This way they keep getting the taxes and the employees keep spending. We'll never have unemployment ever again! Utopia!
More...
Return on investment. Saving a co. like GM returns more (don't forget unemployment benefits, too), is cheaper. However, state governments could be doing it, too, IF not for that balanced budget restriction that ties their hands behind their back, allowing the economy to freely punch them in the face. So to speak. : )
 
Quote from Ricter:

Return on investment. Saving a co. like GM returns more (don't forget unemployment benefits, too) is cheaper. However, state governments could be doing it, too, IF not for that balanced budget restriction that ties their hands behind their back, allowing the economy to freely punch them in the face. So to speak. : )
More...

So, throw the ideas of capitalism in the trash and pick and choose which companies to save based on a government calculation on how much ROI would be generated?

Why am I not surprised you would

a. support government cronyism
b. believe the government could manage to calculate a realistic ROI on any endeavor like you mention (I could only imagine the political hustles involved in cooking this calc to save a company it wanted to preserve votes on - think "Solyndra")

When companies fail, good companies take their place. These more efficient, better run entities provide better technology, better products and a more beneficial tax payment to the government because they have longevity, higher productivity, etc.

Of course, they don't teach this in the Marx classroom, do they.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

So, throw the ideas of capitalism in the trash and pick and choose which companies to save based on a government calculation on how much ROI would be generated?

Why am I not surprised you would

a. support government cronyism
b. believe the government could manage to calculate a realistic ROI on any endeavor like you mention (I could only imagine the political hustles involved in cooking this calc to save a company it wanted to preserve votes on - think "Solyndra")

When companies fail, good companies take their place. These more efficient, better run entities provide better technology, better products and a more beneficial tax payment to the government because they have longevity, higher productivity, etc.

Of course, they don't teach this in the Marx classroom, do they.
More...
"So, throw the ideas of capitalism in the trash and pick and choose which companies to save based on a government calculation on how much ROI would be generated?"
That kinda IS capitalism. GM is (was) too big for anyone to buy up (until it's broken up), so government stepped in on behalf of all of us. I still say a full accounting of the income side is not included in this $9.7 billion loss.

As for government calculating ROI, and you mention Solyndra, I've read (yes, I'll look for the link) that government's investing track record is better than private venture's, for similar projects.

Edit: GM is a better company today.

Edit: no need to start the insults.
 
Quote from Ricter:

"So, throw the ideas of capitalism in the trash and pick and choose which companies to save based on a government calculation on how much ROI would be generated?"
That kinda IS capitalism. GM is (was) too big for anyone to buy up (until it's broken up), so government stepped in on behalf of all of us. I still say a full accounting of the income side is not included in this $9.7 billion loss.

As for government calculating ROI, and you mention Solyndra, I've read (yes, I'll look for the link) that government's investing track record is better than private venture's, for similar projects.

Edit: GM is a better company today.

Edit: no need to start the insults.
More...

The government has no right to pick and choose winners. That is not capitalism by any stretch of the imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top