Obama Fires CEO of GM!!! [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Obama Fires CEO of GM!!!

captainsae

03-29-2009, 07:43 PM

Maybe Baaney Fwank can row run GM.

Carl C

03-30-2009, 01:32 AM

Thanks goodness Obie doesn't own Ford. :yes:

Craig S

03-30-2009, 11:06 AM

I hope they go outside the ivory towers...ala Ford.

roadtrip se

03-30-2009, 12:25 PM

Good! Prick Wagner needed to go years ago! Wont get any better till they declare bankruptcy, than null the UAW contracts. Toyota pays NA labor $46/hr GM $76/hr, in every other country GM is profitable except US. GM mgmt SUX old and slow, Bob Clutz SUX to. The Duramax/Alison still isn't available in their biggest gas guzzler, the Burbon. The retro camaro concept came out in 2004 and hits the dealer 5-6 years later WTF? That's like Wes shopping for a boat, Ford retro mustangs hit the street a year after the drawing board, Dodge has Chargers & Challengers from drawing board to street. Nothing will change though cause the UAW donated $450 million to Obamas war chest, classic democratic strategy to point finger and blame without fixing the problem, the UNIONS! Some buisnesses are like anything else your quick or your dead.

I work in the business. Your generalizations are clown-ish. Sober up, the world might look a bit different.

chrisc2

03-30-2009, 12:56 PM

It will be an interesting 30 days or so for those folks..

BigGrizzly

03-30-2009, 12:56 PM

Actually Donzirules, I worked for a major manufacturer and not the big three. RT is correct, like the country one CEO does not a company make. You said politics was your forte, good thing because sales is not it. You keep referring to Wess, I wonder why your business went down the tubes is it the Economy, politics or you. just wish you would keep to the subjects and leave the personality out of it.

roadtrip se

03-30-2009, 02:49 PM

instead of the Sofa King? Man, that would have to be entertaining to watch.

We do know that you are NOT the Donzi Boat Sales King. I have to admit, your dented tow vehicle bumper closing technique was quite unique. Followed by your ever endearing and highly effective, character assassination, full of sour grapes, power technique reserved only for those who don't buy in the first visit.

I could probably learn a thing or two from you, but as I said before, try sobering up first!

HOWARD O

03-30-2009, 05:49 PM

Where is the outcry? A President "firing" the CEO of a corporation is an abuse of power the likes of which our Country has never seen. Big gov't. run AMOK! :nilly:

zelatore

03-30-2009, 05:57 PM

Where is the outcry? A President "firing" the CEO of a corporation is an abuse of power the likes of which our Country has never seen. Big gov't. run AMOK! :nilly:

Not to say if Wagner should or shouldn't have gone, but would you have the same thought about a major investor in company X forcing a CEO out?

fogducker III

03-30-2009, 06:21 PM

Where is the outcry? A President "firing" the CEO of a corporation is an abuse of power the likes of which our Country has never seen. Big gov't. run AMOK! :nilly:

Maybe I am missing something, GM is going tits up due to the economy as well as very poor management. The government steps in at the request of many and attempts to bail out said company. One of the conditions of said bail out is to put forward viable plans to restructure and survive, to date they have not.

If a person is not doing their job, or doing their job badly, they should be fired, or asked to resign.

With your government basically "owning" GM at this point, the President (ie. Government) who is in charge of your country, has a large say in what happens at GM and should have the authority to ask a top ranking member of said company to step down.............this is just a foreigner's opinion...........:confused:

BUIZILLA

03-30-2009, 06:37 PM

has it ever been stated what the ownership % that the US Govt (we) have in GM at this point? is it common or preferred stock?

Ghost

03-30-2009, 06:55 PM

"As ye sow..."
This is exactly the sort of chaos that should have been expected (and we should continue to expect) so long as we are in this muddy limbo of public versus private ownership.

No proper bankruptcy?? Great, then who the f#ck OWNS what? What does a shareholder in GM actually hold? Who makes the decisions about what the company will do?

For the money we taxpayers put in, we could have BOUGHT the company several times over on the open market. And managed it. Problem is, it wasn't even worth ANY price **without** a bankruptcy first. GM has more liabilities than assets. Period. It would have simply cost us a fortune that could never, ever be paid back.

A proper bankruptcy would have broken the unpayable contracts to labor and pensions and also cost shareholders what little was left of their investments. Retirees especially would be hit. But this will largely happen anyway, except that those same costs, or more, will be shifted, BY FORCE, to people who DIDN'T WORK FOR GM and also to PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T INVEST IN GM.

With a proper bankruptcy, at least we would know who OWNED what and who was in charge. Instead, this half-pregnant crap will continue to leave everything up to the day-to-day whims of crooked politicians. And because of which politicians those are this week, surprise, GM will be forced to steer the company toward a bunch of "environmentally friendly" standards that are part of a political agenda, not a business agenda. AND the whole "shh, we have to avoid the word 'bankruptcy'" nonsense has ALREADY blown up in their faces, DESPITE the "non-bankruptcy" bailout.

"Too big to fail" is always a lie.
First, it only gets said when something huge ACTUALLY IS failing. So it sure as $hit isn't too big to fail in that sense.

Second, the rationale of the whole "Too big to fail" concept is that the costs of letting it fail are too high. Well, the more true the "Too big" part is, the more impossible it is that any attempt by government to prop it up will be able to stop what is feared. Sure, maybe we can keep the entity nominally in existence, but a lack of cars with the badge "GM" on them is not what people feared. What they feared were the costs to society of the company not continuing on. Transferring those costs WITHIN A SINGLE SOCIETY doesn't get rid of them. It just serves to punish the innocent. "Too big to fail" is ALWAYS A LIE for these reasons. What it really means is "I intend to CON OR FORCE YOU to PAY to COVER MY LOSSES."

Anybody think he can produce a single case where this inherent truth doesn't hold? (Let's nip the first fallacious examples in the bud right now. Recall that under bankruptcy, if a company has hope of being profitable in day-to-day operation going forward, but is saddled with historical debt, the losers are the creditors who hold that historical debt. The viable part of the company will soldier on and make money, the historical losses just get realized and written off at the bankruptcy. The people whose jobs can be saved still work--the jobs don't go away. Just the hopeless debts.)

DonziJon

03-30-2009, 07:09 PM

"as ye sow..."
this is exactly the sort of chaos that should have been expected (and we should continue to expect) so long as we are in this muddy limbo of public versus private ownership.

No proper bankruptcy?? Great, then who the f#ck owns what? What does a shareholder in gm actually hold? Who makes the decisions about what the company will do?

For the money we taxpayers put in, we could have bought the company several times over on the open market. And managed it. Problem is, it wasn't even worth any price **without** a bankruptcy first. Gm has more liabilities than assets. Period. It would have simply cost us a fortune that could never, ever be paid back.

A proper bankruptcy would have broken the unpayable contracts to labor and pensions and also cost shareholders what little was left of their investments. Retirees especially would be hit. But this will largely happen anyway, except that those same costs, or more, will be shifted, by force, to people who didn't work for gm and also to people who didn't invest in gm.

With a proper bankruptcy, at least we would know who owned what and who was in charge. Instead, this half-pregnant crap will continue to leave everything up to the day-to-day whims of crooked politicians. And because of which politicians those are this week, surprise, gm will be forced to steer the company toward a bunch of "environmentally friendly" standards that are part of a political agenda, not a business agenda. And the whole "shh, we have to avoid the word 'bankruptcy'" nonsense has already blown up in their faces, despite the "non-bankruptcy" bailout.

"too big to fail" is always a lie.
first, it only gets said when something huge actually is failing. So it sure as $hit isn't too big to fail in that sense.

Second, the rationale of the whole "too big to fail" concept is that the costs of letting it fail are too high. Well, the more true the "too big" part is, the more impossible it is that any attempt by government to prop it up will be able to stop what is feared. Sure, maybe we can keep the entity nominally in existence, but a lack of cars with the badge "gm" on them is not what people feared. What they feared were the costs to society of the company not continuing on. Transferring those costs within a single society doesn't get rid of them. It just serves to punish the innocent. "too big to fail" is always a lie for these reasons. What it really means is "i intend to con or force you to pay to cover my losses."

anybody think he can produce a single case where this inherent truth doesn't hold? (let's nip the first fallacious examples in the bud right now. Recall that under bankruptcy, if a company has hope of being profitable in day-to-day operation going forward, but is saddled with historical debt, the losers are the creditors who hold that historical debt. The viable part of the company will soldier on and make money, the historical losses just get realized and written off at the bankruptcy. The people whose jobs can be saved still work--the jobs don't go away. Just the hopeless debts.)

a-men

zelatore

03-30-2009, 07:15 PM

[U][SIZE=4]

[B]Anybody think he can produce a single case where this inherent truth doesn't hold? (Let's nip the first fallacious examples in the bud right now. Recall that under bankruptcy, if a company has hope of being profitable in day-to-day operation going forward, but is saddled with historical debt, the losers are the creditors who hold that historical debt. The viable part of the company will soldier on and make money, the historical losses just get realized and written off at the bankruptcy. The people whose jobs can be saved still work--the jobs don't go away. Just the hopeless debts.)

Which largely sums up why my first thought at the beginning of the whole bailout/bankruptcy thing was go for bankruptcy, break the old un-viable contracts, and start over with products/contracts that do work in today's market, not the market of 50 years ago.

gcarter

03-30-2009, 08:10 PM

The last time the government exercised this much control over manufaturing corporation (or companies in the case of Ford) was during WW-II.
Not only did the government set wages, but set profits for the participants. Also, they would upset management if they thought it would further their aims.
This happened to be the time that corporations and companies started furnishing medical insurance as a perq because people couldn't be promised higher wages.
That was a Democrat, Socialist leaning government too.

Just Say N20

03-30-2009, 08:58 PM

My wife had FOX news on sirius on our way out to a :party: Birthday :party: dinner, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

There were 2 or 3 commentators saying, "Obama OWNS GM now, and I couldn't be happier to have someone with his skills running it." I almost drove off the road.

The guy has never done ANYTHING. Never even had a real job, much less run a company, been responsible for a payroll. Whenever he's needed money, he just raids everyone else's wallet.

I'm really trying not to get negative here, but there is NOTHING about this that is right, or even legal.

So GM and Chrysler presented their plans. And this group of idiots in Washington, who wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real business world, are now in a position of deciding whether or not these are good plans. They can't even recognize they are wet when standing naked in a downpour!

handfulz28

03-30-2009, 09:09 PM

With your government basically "owning" GM at this point, the President (ie. Government) who is in charge of your country, has a large say in what happens at GM and should have the authority to ask a top ranking member of said company to step down.............this is just a foreigner's opinion...........:confused:

has it ever been stated what the ownership % that the US Govt (we) have in GM at this point? is it common or preferred stock?

There is no gov't owned equity, just loans. If GM/Chrysler want more money, they play by BO's rules. No reason GM's board couldn't just say F U and file for bankruptcy....other than the fact they represent shareholders and filing BK wipes them out...whatever is left at least.

BUIZILLA

03-30-2009, 09:13 PM

so Oby puts money into AIG for an 80% paper take and let's them run amock...

then he lends 15 billion to GM, with no paper equity, and tells them what to do?

oy vey

handfulz28

03-30-2009, 09:21 PM

roadtrip se

03-30-2009, 10:16 PM

Ghost

03-30-2009, 10:24 PM

so Oby puts money into AIG for an 80% paper take and let's them run amock...

then he lends 15 billion to GM, with no paper equity, and tells them what to do?

oy vey

Agreed. No matter how appalling the government's behavior with the auto companies, it pales by comparison to the investment bank debacle. At least the auto companies produce something. The investment bankers make me sick. Goldman Sachs wants to give back the bailout money so they can stay independent. Now that the bailout funding of AIG let AIG pay the needed claims that Goldman had, otherwise they were toast.

We should take it all back...

Ghost

03-31-2009, 12:34 AM

Take a step back from the political aspect and consider that the CEO of a struggling conglomerate has taken some responsibility (fallen on the sword) and retired. I think it's the first step towards forcing the biggest stakeholders to make concessions. The bondholders are willing to convert debt to equity, the CEO has been replaced (again, mostly symbolic), and now it will be up to the UAW to suck it up and do the right thing. I don't think GM had any other choice than end up knocking at Washington's door in order to force the UAW to make concessions. Perhaps it was the strategy all along....

I agree with nearly every word, except for the part about not having any other choice. There was and is one sure-fire way to force UAW concessions, and that is bankruptcy. Other than that, I think this is all dead-bang-on.

: I also agree with what some folks have said about our (taxpayers and our representatives) having a say in who runs the company, considering we handed over more money in "loans" than the company was worth in the marketplace. In a sense, we own it. But not really. BECAUSE, we don't want to own it, because there is nothing but downside until everything gets restructured. Owning it would just mean that WE HAVE TO honor all the old, unsustainable UAW contracts. Nothing would be better for the UAW and worse for us. Funny thing is, for pennies compared to what we "lent", we could have bought it and actually given shares out all across America (Say, $1.80 per share). Or, if they were "generous" with our money, we could have bought it for what we "lent" (maybe $7 a share or so, very roughly), giving GM a LOT more cash than if we had paid market price. But this would be bad for the encumbents in office, because it would make it SO CLEAR that they wasted our money. Our shares, that we had paid 4x market price or more to buy, would STILL all go to zero. Only if they lose the numbers in the ooze of crooked government accounting and political bickering can they hide the raw deal they gave us.

Todd, I know you're frustrated and probably a bit run-down from being in the belly of the beast, and I sympathize with your plight. (The economy is affecting my life and financial security a lot too--I don't go into a lot of specifics about the damage it has already done and is threatening to make MUCH worse any day, but it is an everyday problem for me--one of the reasons I have so much emotion driving me to talk about this stuff.)

But I do have a question: Back a ways when we started talking about the options, one of the things I heard argued was that the Big 3 were only talking about loans--this money was supposed to be paid back to the taxpayer. I said then that the whole idea of repayment was a joke--utterly hopeless, and that they'd be back for more "loans" later, also not to be paid back. That looks more true than ever. (I would bet our tax dollars are going out in large chunks to the UAW as they take over their own pension and medical management.) But regardless of where the money is going, am I wrong about the likelihood of repayment?

Also, as an aside: you and I differed strongly on whether it made sense to buy from a company in bankruptcy. But if the Feds had simply stepped in at the outset and said "we will guarantee that ALL warranties are fully honored, but other than that, the company is completely on its own to go through bankruptcy restructuring", do you think that would be any worse than what is happening already, for attacting prospective buyers?

Regards,

Mike

BUIZILLA

03-31-2009, 06:42 AM

I see a VW in my future....

Lenny

03-31-2009, 08:24 AM

I see a VW in my future....

Deneen bought a new Mercedes last Friday ... not sure what I think about it yet, her deal, not mine. Nice "looking" car tho :yes:

BUIZILLA

03-31-2009, 08:51 AM

Deneen bought a new Mercedes last Friday ... not sure what I think about it yet, her deal, not mine. Nice "looking" car tho :yes: Jaclyn just got a new C300... I really like it, first Benz i've EVER liked the seats in.. very comfy :yes:

BigGrizzly

03-31-2009, 09:04 AM

Everybody here has good in site, I wish it would rub off on the congress and UAW. I told you what Honda did earlier, now they closed the ATV plant in NC, but are still paying the employees. This saves a ton of $$$ for them and keeps the work force dedicated. BTW no union in this plant. Before some get their panty hose in a wad I am not downing unions totally, just their government too.

Carl C

03-31-2009, 09:12 AM

I just speed read some of the posts but, being from Detroit, I'd like to give a few of my viewpoints. GM provided a good living to a lot of Americans and they have a huge "legacy" cost because of that. That alone unevens the playing field. GM has an excellent product line and the new Camaro is finally in production. I've got a feeling that Obie's idea of a viable business plan is a puddle jumper in every driveway. American's want and need nice cars and trucks and not all of us need 30 mpg. A guy asked my yesterday at a rest area what my mileage is in my new truck. wtf. I told him I have no idea, when the gauge reads low I put gas in it. If we lose GM because of Obie's ambitions it will be a great loss. No more Cadillacs, Corvettes, GMC trucks or Camaros to name a few. What the hell is wrong with a company providing a good living? They used to come from all over the country to work in Detroit. Imports were a niche market. This post is all over the place and I'm sorry for that but I don't like what I see happening. I'm a Ford guy but we cannot lose GM. (Carl's Blog hehe)

BigGrizzly

03-31-2009, 09:44 AM

Not bad Carl. My take is that, you are not going to tow a 22 foot boat with a Civic, A Focus, a Geo or almost any good economy car. What you need is two, a commuter and a hauler, end of story. Just immanagine putting that hp525 in the back of Purus.:eek::eek:

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 10:52 AM

Agreed. No matter how appalling the government's behavior with the auto companies, it pales by comparison to the investment bank debacle. At least the auto companies produce something. The investment bankers make me sick. Goldman Sachs wants to give back the bailout money so they can stay independent. Now that the bailout funding of AIG let AIG pay the needed claims that Goldman had, otherwise they were toast.

We should take it all back...

You're PO'd because the banks want to give back the money they were forced to take so they can be left to fend for themselves in a free, capitalistic economy? And what are your thoughts on the fact the government doesn't want it back? I seriously doubt GS would've been toast if they didn't get a few $Billion they were owed.
The only trouble spot truly is AIG and everybody really gets hung up on the numbers. But nobody considers the deeper perspective. A lot of "stakeholders" in AIG's "troubled Financial Products" investments were pensions: State pensions, municipal pensions, teachers pensions, large corporate pensions. No, not every single dollar, but a "significant" portion. So if AIG just failed on their contracts, what do you think would happen? The taxpayers would be on the hook anyways. The PBGC doesn't even make pensioners whole, and there's ZERO chance of recouping the funds.
The scenario at AIG is a lot more complex than anyone wants to talk about. Everybody would rather throw doom and gloom, play politics and kill a scapegoat. But what will everyone think when AIG returns their "bailout" funds 100% within 24 months and GM/Chrysler can't repay a frigging dime even after throwing 100,000 people out of work?

I agree with nearly every word, except for the part about not having any other choice. There was and is one sure-fire way to force UAW concessions, and that is bankruptcy. Other than that, I think this is all dead-bang-on.

: I also agree with what some folks have said about our (taxpayers and our representatives) having a say in who runs the company, considering we handed over more money in "loans" than the company was worth in the marketplace. In a sense, we own it. But not really. BECAUSE, we don't want to own it, because there is nothing but downside until everything gets restructured. Owning it would just mean that WE HAVE TO honor all the old, unsustainable UAW contracts. Nothing would be better for the UAW and worse for us. Funny thing is, for pennies compared to what we "lent", we could have bought it and actually given shares out all across America (Say, $1.80 per share). Or, if they were "generous" with our money, we could have bought it for what we "lent" (maybe $7 a share or so, very roughly), giving GM a LOT more cash than if we had paid market price. But this would be bad for the encumbents in office, because it would make it SO CLEAR that they wasted our money. Our shares, that we had paid 4x market price or more to buy, would STILL all go to zero. Only if they lose the numbers in the ooze of crooked government accounting and political bickering can they hide the raw deal they gave us.

Todd, I know you're frustrated and probably a bit run-down from being in the belly of the beast, and I sympathize with your plight. (The economy is affecting my life and financial security a lot too--I don't go into a lot of specifics about the damage it has already done and is threatening to make MUCH worse any day, but it is an everyday problem for me--one of the reasons I have so much emotion driving me to talk about this stuff.)

But I do have a question: Back a ways when we started talking about the options, one of the things I heard argued was that the Big 3 were only talking about loans--this money was supposed to be paid back to the taxpayer. I said then that the whole idea of repayment was a joke--utterly hopeless, and that they'd be back for more "loans" later, also not to be paid back. That looks more true than ever. (I would bet our tax dollars are going out in large chunks to the UAW as they take over their own pension and medical management.) But regardless of where the money is going, am I wrong about the likelihood of repayment?

Also, as an aside: you and I differed strongly on whether it made sense to buy from a company in bankruptcy. But if the Feds had simply stepped in at the outset and said "we will guarantee that ALL warranties are fully honored, but other than that, the company is completely on its own to go through bankruptcy restructuring", do you think that would be any worse than what is happening already, for attacting prospective buyers?

Regards,

Mike

The part about buying/owning the company doesn't work. When you "buy" it, you get the debt too, otherwise the price is higher. And as far as bankruptcy goes, the goal is to save the company (and it's stakeholders), not throw everything into disarray. Yes, the theoretical outcome of bankruptcy is what's desired, but the reality is that it never works that way. Always those darn textbook qualifiers "ceteris peribus" (economics), or "in a vacuum" (physics). Rarely do textbooks apply fully in real life.

FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of what BO's administration is doing. But helping AIG and the automakers is such small potatoes compared to the bigger, more lasting trouble of his spending proposals. At least there is a lot more potential for return of the bailout funds then there is for all the deficit spending that our country will be bound for until we can change Congress and POTUS again. Who would you rather "invest" your money with: Ivy League MBAs or pig fart researchers? :rlol:

zelatore

03-31-2009, 11:25 AM

hmmmmm, a guy with 'z28' in his screen name who writes intelligently.

You're going to blow my whole Camero-owner stereotype out the window, aren't you? :wink:

Next thing I know, you'll be telling me you actually road-race that that thing.

Oh wait.....

Ghost

03-31-2009, 01:53 PM

You're PO'd because the banks want to give back the money they were forced to take so they can be left to fend for themselves in a free, capitalistic economy?
Nope, anyone who didn't want any money and only took it because it was forced on them I am sympathetic to, and they should be allowed to return it and keep govt off their backs. I'm pissed at the hypocrisy at Goldman who says "leave us alone, we don't need help", NOW that they have gotten paid 13Billion in claims (over a quarter of their company's value when things were lowest) using tax dollars from the bailed out AIG. I understand they don't want the govt on their backs, but would they have survived? I don't know and don't much think it matters. If they did, fine. f not, oh well.

But "Fend for themselves?" THAT's what I wanted at the start. "Fending for themselves" once a couple trillion of tax dollars and obligations have been stolen from you and me and made its way into their coffers is not fending for themselves. But we're damned either way now. What's worse, GS with our money and free of government, or GS with our money AND government meddling in business? I say we OUGHT RIGHTFULLY take ALL OF OUR MONEY BACK, though it is now probably totally extralegal. But if you could wave a wand and impose right, that would be justified.

[/And what are your thoughts on the fact the government doesn't want it back? I seriously doubt GS would've been toast if they didn't get a few $Billion they were owed.
I don't doubt Goldman would have been toast. Or badly hurt. They CLAIM they had hedge positions that covered them. I believe this. I also believe that no one would would have been able to PAY off on those hedges if it weren't for the 100's of billions of your and my dollars that got confiscated and handed out to the other banks to cover bad bets. The crooks ALL OWED IT TO EACH OTHER, and STOLE IT FROM US TO PAY EACH OTHER. What did Wall Street buy with all the millions they paid into Congress? What possible reason could there be other than to get something back? I'm pissed because though we SHOULD take all back (should never have given it out), now we're damned if we do and if we don't. We should have let the bastards fail. THE ONLY PROPER BAILOUT WAS FULLY FUNDING FDIC. THAT obligation already existed on the taxpayer. Run on the banks? Fine, we got DEPOSITORS covered with FDIC. Bad investments? That's the problem of the investor. PURE AND SIMPLE. I said it then, it is still true now. Let the chips fall. The innocent, mostly little guys, will be better off, despite how it hits them.

The only trouble spot truly is AIG and everybody really gets hung up on the numbers. But nobody considers the deeper perspective. A lot of "stakeholders" in AIG's "troubled Financial Products" investments were pensions: State pensions, municipal pensions, teachers pensions, large corporate pensions. No, not every single dollar, but a "significant" portion. So if AIG just failed on their contracts, what do you think would happen? The taxpayers would be on the hook anyways. The PBGC doesn't even make pensioners whole, and there's ZERO chance of recouping the funds.
I considered the "deeper perspective" then and now. Those pensions should be left to succeed or fail. After all, many will fail ANYWAY, and all the ones that do fail are goint to fall to Federal Pension Insurance. But that Federal Pension Insurance doesn't force the taxpayer to fully fund 100 cents on the dollar, more like half as I understand it. The retirees lose, but the taxpayer burden is rightfully less. Why should you and I make sure someone's pension is fully funded when it was never ours to fund or to manage in the first place? The people who created such failed institutions got paid. Government wants to take money to fix things, then take THEIR money. They mismanaged things. Oh, it's not enough? Well, too bad, but that doesn't make it okay to take yours and mine.

When government is SO big and into everything, no amount of representative government can allow the citizen to have his voice heard in managing his personal risk. But the tax obligation doesn't go away, in fact it grows exponentially. This is a sneaky form of taxation without representation, but it is most surely that.

I don't like seeing people lose half the value of their pensions, but the DEEPER ISSUE is really that as we keep rewarding bad betters and crooks at the expense of the honest taxpayer, the natural, painful BUT UNDENIABLY REAL AND CORRECTIVE forces get wiped out. So, we will only get more people at the trough later. We are going to bankrupt ALL OF THE INNOCENT for the sins of the guilty/unlucky.

The scenario at AIG is a lot more complex than anyone wants to talk about.
With all due respect I disagree. It is at its core very simple, but the guilty wish to muddy the big picture reality because it serves their purpose to hide the fraud.

AIG sold fraudulent insurance, in that they did not have enough collateral nor collected premiums to cover claims, AND EVERYONE WHO MATTERED, BOTH INSIDE AIG AND AT THEIR CUSTOMERS KNEW IT. AND they paid off Congress to keep the regulators out. A lot of people inside AIG got rich paying themselves from the massive but hopelessly insufficient premiums that were collected. AIG knew they couldn't pay off claims, but they were getting rich collecting commissions on the premiums they sold. AND the banks knew the insurance they bought was ridiculous, but it freed up their books so they could make SO MUCH money in the immediate term that downstream implications didn't matter to them.

EVERYONE with half a brain knew real estate was artificially inflated and had to come down, and thus a leveraged system founded on it not doing so was doomed to collapse. But they were ALL getting so rich in the short term, making the mess, that they didn't care. For this reason, ALL OF THEM should have been left to fend for themselves. Many would fail. Fine.

Sucks for Joe Shareholder, but that's where he invested--it IS NOT WHERE I invested because I was paying attention. Had I known the government would violate the Constitution to force me to pay for the bad bets of others, I'd have at least gotten in on the bad bets to try for a quick-buck-and-get-out, taking my chances as a hare, with lots of upside and limited downside risk, rather than as a tortoise.

Plus, even suffering his losses in the investment bank stocks, Joe Shareholder would have fared a lot better than he will now, with his devalued currency and tax obligations that are building in a wrecked economy that will be shackled down for 20 years+ with high unemployment. Before he'd have just lost some of what he'd saved. Now he will lose his ability to earn. As will many of us.

Everybody would rather throw doom and gloom, play politics and kill a scapegoat. But what will everyone think when AIG returns their "bailout" funds 100% within 24 months and GM/Chrysler can't repay a frigging dime even after throwing 100,000 people out of work?
Not sure I understand what you mean with the GM/Chrysler comparison, but fat chance AIG pays us back. You really believe that? Can I ask where you are getting that? IF THEY DO, it will be a nominal payback only. Meaning, they will pay us back with other dollars from us. We pay to prop up the whole world, and AIG pays us back with some of the dollars we paid out all over the place. But if we don't put trillions out there, AIG never pays us. So, AIG isn't really paying us back at all. And that's all if they pay us back nominally. I bet they don't even do that because I bet they get clobbered in commercial real estate yet. Just a hunch, but I bet they are heavily in that too.

The *commercial* real estate bubble is about to burst, no? The reality is that jobs are going away and will continue to go away. All the strip malls built in the last 25 years are excess capacity. They will be boarded up with no hope of tenants as retail will dry up to a trickle. Sucks, but people should face it. And pensions are going to fail. They already lost a ton in the market, and the income streams that fund them will dry to a trickle as well. And cost-of-living adjustments will skyrocket as our currency falls.

And all of this borrowing and printing on a massive scale will NOT have saved it. And all of these messes will fall directly on the taxpayer. And we will wish we had all this wasted money back. The only thing that can save all these things from failing is printing so much money that everyone can pay all his debts. Of course, that devalues our money even more, so you LOSE ANYWAY if you are just holding dollars instead of tangible assests. Pension? Social Security? T-bills? Money Market Accounts? CDs? All of these will be half lost when the dollar is worth half. 70% lost when the dollar falls to 30 cents. 90% lost if the dollar falls to 10 cents. Everyone on a fixed income will be broke. And socialized healthcare will sound great. Until people find out it actaully means RATIONING.

The part about buying/owning the company doesn't work. When you "buy" it, you get the debt too, otherwise the price is higher.
I agree, that was my point in the earlier post. It was a raw deal from the outset. "Lending" them 4 times (or more) of what all their stock was worth shows clearly that we *could* have bought them outright. The reason we did not was that anyone with deep enough pockets to pay their hopeless obligations would actually have to pay them, realizing their true negative value. Bankruptcy would have cut those obligations and let whatever was viable continue on, and be sold to new investors.

And as far as bankruptcy goes, the goal is to save the company (and it's stakeholders), not throw everything into disarray. Yes, the theoretical outcome of bankruptcy is what's desired, but the reality is that it never works that way. Always those darn textbook qualifiers "ceteris peribus" (economics), or "in a vacuum" (physics). Rarely do textbooks apply fully in real life.
My emotion on this upcoming answer is not directed at you. (It would be if you said this to me 100 times as you rammed these criminal and unConstitutional policies down my throat, but this is boiling over from all the people who have said it. Not here on this site, but in all the PR outlets of all the crooks. So, stand back for a second. No, seriously, stand back.)

I AM SICK AS F#CK OF ALL THE STUPID AND OR LYING F#CKHEADS WHO ARE STEALING ALL THIS MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE TO AVOID "DISARRAY" OR "CHAOS" OR "MELTDOWN" OF THE "FINANCIAL SYSTEM" OR AUTO COMPANIES OR ANYTHING ELSE. WHAT A CROCK OF $HIT. THIS IS SIMPLY AN ARGUMENT TO MAKE IT LOOK COMPLICATED AND OVER-OUR-HEADS. THEY ARE REALLY SAYING "SHUT UP AND PAY TO CLEAN UP THE MESS LEFT FROM WHEN I STOLE FROM YOU THE FIRST TIME, LITTLE MAN." WELL, I GOT NEWS FOR THEM. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE WHAT ALL THE LITTLE MEN DO WHEN THIS $HIT KEEPS UP.

YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT "THEORETICAL" VERSUS REALITY?! LOOK AROUND AT THE REALITY THAT THIS $HIT IS CREATING. COMPARE THAT TO THE REALITY OF MY "THEORY" WHEN THE FRICTION AND LACK OF A VACUUM ACTUALLY WEIGHS IN. MY "THEORY" WILL BE FAR MORE ON THE MARK. THEIR "REALITY" IS JUST A LIE TO SUCKER PEOPLE INTO HANDING OVER THE MONEY.

EVERYTHING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS GENERALIZATION, OF COURSE. THERE IS ALWAYS SIGNAL AND NOISE. BUT THE SIGNAL I AM PREACHING IS BASED ON RIGHTFUL, HONEST PRINCIPLE AND LAW, LAW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, AND WOULD BE FAR, FAR BETTER THAN THE "REALITY-BASED" FIXES (READ: STEALING) THAT IS HAPPENING NOW.

ANYBODY WHO SAYS IT IS BOOKSMART THEORY TO LET FAILING INVESTMENTS FAIL, LEAVING THE UNINVESTED OUT OF IT, IS A FOOL OR A CROOK WHO NEEDS TO GO F#CK HIMSELF. WILLING FREE TRADE IN THE MARKET IS THE BEST REALITY, WITH ALL ITS WARTS. WHAT IS MINE IS MINE. KEEP YOU DAMNED HANDS OFF IT AND EXPECT ME TO DO LIKEWISE. THE LIARS AND CHEATS ALL THROUGH HISTORY HAVE MADE BULL$HIT ARGUMENTS TO CICRUMVENT THOSE SIMPLE TRUTHS. WE LET THEM KEEP IT UP AND THIS WILL END UP IN A FIGHT OF VIOLENCE RATHER THAN A FIGHT OF WORDS AND CURRYING POLITICAL FAVOR. HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT INDISPUTABLY. WE THE GOOD PEOPLE DO NOT WANT THAT. WE DESERVE BETTER. BUT WHEN THINGS GET LEAN ENOUGH, THAT IS WHAT WILL START HAPPENING, AND WHAT CHOICE WILL WE HAVE WHEN THE LOOTING COMES TO US AT THE POINT OF A GUN RATHER THAN A WRIT? WE NEED TO HEAD THIS CRAP OFF AT THE PASS.

SO PEOPLE BETTER GET OFF EACH OTHER'S TOES AND OUT OF EACH OTHER'S POCKETS AND GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION, OR PRETTY SOON THERE WON'T BE A CONSTITUTION. IT IS THE GREATEST DOCUMENT IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICS, AND WE ARE LETTING THEM THROW IT OUT. IF WE DON'T VOTE IN LIBERTARIANS AND CONSTITUTIONALS AND A FEW HAND-PICKED HONEST REPUBLICANS AND EVEN FEWER HANDPICKED HONEST DEMOCRATS IN 2010, THIS RAPE OF THE SHRINKING, PRODUCTIVE SIDE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS WILL CONTINUE. THAT RAPE IS UNSUSTAINABLE, AND COULD CAUSE THIS WHOLE COUNTRY TO BLOW UP IN A STREETFIGHT.

Okay Handful, I'm back. Again, that tirade was not directed at you, but needed to be said in this context. The rattlesnake (rightly or not) is called the "gentleman among snakes" because he gives warning. People need to give that warning and wake people up to what this mess is creating, or we will be in a fight before people know it. I do not want to be dragged into that, but when people resort to looting in the streets, what choice does one have but to try to defend himself? If we don't speak up for what is right now, and vote to make it happen, the fighting will most certainly arrive on our doorsteps later and we will have no choice.

FWIW, I don't agree with a lot of what BO's administration is doing. But helping AIG and the automakers is such small potatoes compared to the bigger, more lasting trouble of his spending proposals. At least there is a lot more potential for return of the bailout funds then there is for all the deficit spending that our country will be bound for until we can change Congress and POTUS again. Who would you rather "invest" your money with: Ivy League MBAs or pig fart researchers? :rlol:
I agree that that Obama and the Democrats are putting yet another piano on the camel's back. And the GOP before them was horrible as well.

But as for who I would rather invest with? Neither one. The Ivy League ain't what it used to be. The whole college system is a disaster. I want to invest in honest, individual companies that know how to make something which people will PAY FOR, BECAUSE THEY WANT IT, and can produce it for less than people are willing to pay. F#cking Ivy League and all the worthless peddlers of phony credentials. There is good stuff to be gotten lost in there somewhere, but more crap than good comes out. These are, after all, the cheats who found a way to suck the lifeblood out of the system quietly and steal everyone's money. And the even dumber ones who run hedge funds that invested in those investment banks and a market set up to fall to half its value. F#ck the Ivy League as a whole. We must all pick and choose winners based on assessing real value. No more betting on red or black. We need to invest in tortoises, not hares, or we will have all hares and no tortoises. Remember this?

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/17/17194/andrew-lahde-bows-out-in-style/
Regards, very much appreciate your past and continuing thoughts,

Mike

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 02:30 PM

So you're going with the fart smellers?

:rlol: :wavey: :beer:

Ghost

03-31-2009, 02:35 PM

So you're going with the fart smellers?
:rlol: :wavey: :beer:

LOL, yes, at least I'm not ruling them out on "credentials." :)

chrisc2

03-31-2009, 02:37 PM

Great dialogue...We need to keep this up. As Ghost pointed out, a solution will require a variety of players, not just the right or the left..

Just Say N20

03-31-2009, 03:07 PM

I KNEW IT! When do you bandage the rest?!?

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 03:16 PM

Not sure I understand what you mean with the GM/Chrysler comparison, but fat chance AIG pays us back. You really believe that? Can I ask where you are getting that?

AIG's CEO Liddy testified that he expects AIG will be able to return the approx. $80B investment within 24 months. The other $80B of "gov't assistance" was in the form of the USTreasury buying performing, cash flowing assets from AIG. Wholly frigging crap, the US Government actually invested in something that's earning a POSITIVE RATE OF RETURN...who'da thunk eh?

As for the autos/AIG scenario, the point was I'd rather throw $1Trillion at a scenario where I'll get it back then $50Billion that I'll never see again. That's more for the people that b!tch about how much money Wall Street got vs the automakers.

[Heh..my EDIT: I'm taking a poke at you directly here, but obviously I've never met you so don't take it as personally as it reads. I could edit it but I'd rather leave it so people don't have to wonder.]
I understand you wholly doubt that AIG will repay "us" but I think your doubt is unfounded. You have so much contempt for this scenario that it clouds your math. Consider if you will the Ivy League Bankers each got $40Billion plus AIG which got $80Billion. The bankers want to give the money back, AIG figures it will be able to give the money back. So where do you come up with Trillions of dollars that the taxpayers are on the hook for? Seriously, tell me where I've gone astray in considering all this hoopla over Wall STreet getting bailed out and "COSTING" taxpayer money is a bunch of Washington/media BULLSH!T over what will come to be a blip on the radar.

The COSTS of the TARP/TALF will come from the smaller, regional "community" institutions that NOBODY is paying attention to. The big, bad Ivy League Wall Streeters want to get the gov't off their balance sheets already. That means they want to give the money back. So if my little calculator is working correctly, -$1 (spent) + $1 (received) = $0. And I'll just let the interest being earned cover all the fraud that your neighborhood "community" banker will engage in with their TARP money.

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 03:39 PM

Next thing I know, you'll be telling me you actually road-race that that thing.

1998 SCCA SEDIV Champion, Touring 2

It's the internet handle I've used since 1996 and I'm just not intelligent enough to come up with an alternative even though the car is long gone.

One of these days I'll put some in-car footage on YouTube.

Ghost

03-31-2009, 04:29 PM

First, as an aside, in my book there's no use in assuming that my contempt for anything or anyone is clouding my math. It's math, and can be dealt with on the face of it. To the extent that I fail to do the same, I encourage people to call me on it. :)

I think you mention some fair questions above, but I believe one important place where your math gives an incomplete picture is in lots of obligations that the taxpayer has assumed that were not formerly his. When "we" now guarantee toxic assets, it frees up balance sheets of institutions that have been handed cash from the taxpayer. These obligation transfers I have heard are 2 trillion plus as I understand it. Now the financial institutions can now go run amok with cleaner balance sheets, as they have offloaded the liabilities to us.

So, maybe they can even nominally (in name only I mean--not sure if that is a technical accounting term--I don't intend it as anything technical) "pay us back" dollars we transferred to them. But our assumption of what used to be their obligations as a guarantor is itself a transfer of wealth from us to them, even if no dollars are seen to change hands. Truly paying us back would also involve their RE-ASSUMING this risk.

I suspect that IF any entity can can repay our money, it is only because the payback we get is a fraction of all the payouts we have done across the industry. So, it LOOKS like we got paid back, but in fact we paid out more than we got back. This looks great for a while, because we don't hold our government to accounting rules like we do in industry. It will come home to roost when we have to actually pay claims on the things we are stuck guaranteeing. As more things fail, we will realize losses that don't look like such now.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point about the difference between a nonzero probability of getting paid back something versus a zero probability. But in your example, you have to look at the weighting to produce and expected value. I'd rather burn a $10 bill than take a one percent chance on losing all my savings.

Using your math, here are the expected values of your two scenarios:
expected value = amount invested x probability of default

So, the 50 billion with no chance of repayment is:
Expected value = -50 billion x 1 = -50 billion

In the second example:
Expected value = -1 trillion x p (where p is the probability of default)

If p is 50%, expected value is a $500 billion loss
If p is 25%, expected value is a $250 billion loss
If p is 10%, expected value is a $100 billion loss
If p is 5%, expected value is a $50 billion loss

So, by your example, giving the $50 billion to Detroit versus a Trillion to the banks will be better unless the probability of payback is 95% or greater. You think it's that high? Hell, do you think it is even 50%? 33%? Also, what faith do you put in what the CEO of AIG says about whether or when they might pay it back? Think back to what the CEO of Lehman Brothers told the shareholders and analysts (we're doing great) less than a week before the 80+ year old company went belly-up. So, as far as saying we invested in something with a positive return, I think smart people will believe it when they see it. Further, I think our assumed obligations, aside from the cash payouts, are 2 Trillion plus, not even included here in the expected loss/return numbers.

Don't get me wrong--I like getting money back better than not. Absolutely. I just think saying we will get our money back on any of this is a misleading statement, for all my reasons above.

Further, all this math, yours and mine both, is missing something more important. The REAL math behind all of this crisis is not what we are discussing. The REAL math is the math of two economies: the productive private sector and the unproductive public sector paid ENTIRELY by taxing the private sector. All arguments about how to heal the economy are bickering about symptoms unless they address the real problem that got us here.

Government takes money by force and pays people to produce things that others would never buy for that cost. The positions I advocate are all about tearing down that theft. This system is what is wrecking the economy. All the banks and credit default swaps and everything else is simply a flurry of last-minute looting. It's like taking the wallet and car keys from a heart-attack victim as he lies collapsed on the street. The heart attack is the core problem.

The real innate sickness in the economy stems from a huge chunk of unproductive people getting paid through tax dollars. All the massive borrowing, both personal and government, hid the effects of this for years. Without us STEALING money from overseas, the inevitable collapse of our standard of living can only be counteracted by getting people out of the unproductive public sector, and into the private sector. And it is a bigger problem than that, because a big chunk of the apparent private sector actually works for tax dollars on contracts from the government.

All the things I advocate push toward forcing individual management of wealth and accountability. When government controls the money and the government staff always grows and gets paid, no matter what they produce (or don't produce), living standards drop. They have to. When people and businesses are on their own without being able to suck wealth out of the productive taxpayer, they are FORCED to produce something others want and will pay for. This is what makes a standard of living increase.

Everything we are talking about with banks and bailouts is addressing symptoms, except to the extent that it either forces this accountability to produce something of value, or further extinguishes this accountability.

So, letting the banks fail, letting businesses fail, etc, and not allowing government to further leverage our children's labor and blood--THESE are the important consequences that should drive all the decisions about bailouts or no bailouts. That, and sticking to the Constitution as written, without which, we will have anarchy or tyranny. I will settle for neither.

Regards,

Mike

EDIT: and by the way, the reason I think we are in a MUCH worse position than in 1929 is that back then, we just had a world financial crisis. America was hard as hickory in terms of a relatively LARGE private sector and a SMALL public sector. Today we are a disaster in this respect, and if we don't start moving people out of the public sector and into the private sector, we will all be poor. Unless we become a really nasty (nastier?) empire, enslaving the world to work for us. And frankly, I don't think we could pull that off even if we were willing to be that immoral as a nation.

Lenny

03-31-2009, 05:28 PM

No more betting on red or black.

Mike, I am going to Vegas for 4 days on Friday. I usually play Roulette. Do you want me to place a bet for ya?

Red or Black ?

:D

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 05:45 PM

I'm right with you on the personal responsibility front, the "you stay out of mine and I'll stay out of yours" front, and the unproductive nature of a lot of our gov't work. But for as much as the gov't spends money on things nobody would buy at any price, there are also things that are done that some would not do no matter the "profit". There is a place for government, and as you pointed out earlier, it's up to US to enforce our Constitutional rights.

For my numerical comparisons I use "fuzzy" math. :troll:

I have no idea what these companies and industries will receive in gov't aid. But to answer your question I have a lot more faith in what the recently appointed CEO of AIG says than I do in Obama's administration being able to run an automaker. I absolutely apply a probability of 1 when a bank is begging to give money back.

It's not like there isn't a precedent for gov't assistance to private industry. What was the public response back when Chrysler got their first bailout? And what happened....they paid back all of their aid...earlier than expected.

There's a difference between actually assuming obligations, and "guaranteeing" those obligations. Akin to being "off balance sheet" liabilities. Sure the number is large, scary even. But going on the math, the probability of those guarantees being called upon are IMHO, much lower than the doom and gloom that's being portrayed. But in all fairness, I haven't kept up with all that is being "guaranteed" so consider accordingly.

How about instead of enslaving the rest of the world to work for us, we just tell China and a few middle Eastern countries to forgive our debt. No, I haven't thought that one through...

:beer:

Ghost

03-31-2009, 08:50 PM

I absolutely apply a probability of 1 when a bank is begging to give money back.
I'm confused by this statement. Not on its own, but in the context of probabilities I asked about above. If they actually are handing the money back over to us now, sure. Probability is decent the check will clear I would think. What I was more focused on from a probability perspective is the 2 year estimate or whatever from the AIG guy. If they could pay it back now, sure, take it now. But AIG isn't saying that, right? They're talking about a couple of years. So, I'll believe that one when I see it.

My guess is they want some govt interference lifted *in the interim*, as opposed to after the money is repaid. I don't honestly know what I hate more, them owing us money or them owing us money AND having government meddling. But I can appreciate the no-tickie-no-laundry thinking about not removing strings until the money actually IS back, rather than on the promise that it is coming in 2 years. That's why I'm so sick--we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Never should have parted with a penny in my opinion.

It's not like there isn't a precedent for gov't assistance to private industry. What was the public response back when Chrysler got their first bailout? And what happened....they paid back all of their aid...earlier than expected.
True, but where are they now? How much healthier might Ford and GM been today had Chrysler died years ago? I am not convinced that there is ANY evidence that the outcome is better than the do-nothing option would have been. If Chrysler had something worthwhile and had gone into bankruptcy way back, maybe they could have come out of that nonunion back then? Or with less debt? And be in GREAT shape today comparitively, instead of dying in wait for a thumb-up from Obama. I don't know, and I suppose this will only get us off track to speculate further. But people dismiss the good sense of the do-nothing strategy far too often I think.

There's a difference between actually assuming obligations, and "guaranteeing" those obligations. Akin to being "off balance sheet" liabilities. Sure the number is large, scary even. But going on the math, the probability of those guarantees being called upon are IMHO, much lower than the doom and gloom that's being portrayed. But in all fairness, I haven't kept up with all that is being "guaranteed" so consider accordingly..
My belief is that this is where your estimate will be wrong, and the house of cards will collapse. Looming commercial real estate collapses, pension failures, mounting job losses (and nothing to start pulling down public sector obligations and put people into private sector jobs) all point to a couple of things:

High unemployment
increased taxes
an end to several decades of artificially low interest rates
Real estate prices are driven primarily by interest rates. What someone can afford to pay each month on something financed at 80%+, for 30 years, is really set by the interest--the principal is a small slice for a long time. As cash grows tight, nobody will lend at 3-6 percent anymore. Assuming (and this is an over-assumption of rosy futures) that people could keep paying the current dollar amounts for mortgages each month. When interest rates go up to 9 or 10 or 12%, housing and commercial real estate values will plummet, just to keep the monthly payment level with where it is now. This means more trouble in the mark-to-market world because values go down, as well as for anyone who actually liquidates any assets in foreclosure.

The banks will be back at our door for more cash in a few months to a year I think. After summer, when everyone just wants to be happy and ignore the world news, as DonziVol or someone astutely pointed out. Or after this coming January (which was my SWAG), right after another disaster Christmas compunded by Q4 earnings reports that look like Cambodia under Pol Pot. Speaking of which, this same "it won't really happen, only a small percentage of those guarantees will be called upon, the whole world doesn't explode at the same time" mentality allowed the Asian currency meltdown, among other things.

I really hope I'm wrong. Appreciate your thoughts in kicking around the possibilities. Frankly, I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking on the big picture, and we've just gone a long way into nuances where we did differ somewhat.

Regards,

Mike

Ghost

03-31-2009, 08:51 PM

Mike, I am going to Vegas for 4 days on Friday. I usually play Roulette. Do you want me to place a bet for ya?

Red or Black ?

:D

Red baby, Red.

f_inscreenname

03-31-2009, 08:59 PM

Good god. I’m not smart enough to keep up. Don’t you have yard work to do G?
What’s up with pensions? You pay in and then it’s gone? How many companies in the past have gone belly up that had pensions, were they all wiped out? Isn’t there a FDIC for pensions? Who would trust a pension offer these days?
On a side note. I wonder how the UAW feels about a bankruptcy after giving millions upon millions to BO’s campaign. Or the “middle class” who voted him in when they get that big tax increase to pay for this crap.
Then there is the bank thing. Banks were almost forced to take money. Even the strong ones. Here is one for you. The wife works for PNC. Let me tell you she gets pissed when I say they are a TARP money taker. The Fed made a deal with them to take over a failing bank (National something or other). They wouldn’t have done it (PNC is a Vulture, they wait for it to die first then pick over the bones at pennies on the dollar) but the Fed needed them to and gave them 7 bill to cover the cost. But now they are TARP fund takers. Who says that the FED cant go in and do what they did to GM? Who says they cant limit bonuses to executives? They took the money. I know PNC is sorry they did the deal now even if it was for the good of the country.
The point I am trying to make is, A lot of banks were forced to take money and now the ones who don’t want it have to jump through hoops to give it back. They basically have to prove they are strong enough to pay it back but all it took was opening the mail and cashing the check to get it. Seem a little backwards of the way a normal loan goes. I think the main reason they “had to take it” was for control. Just like the mob, get everyone on the payroll and you rule them all. And even if you can prove you can give back the money today it will take months to do so (if you are approved then) and all that time you have to follow the rules they set forth or “get in line” to the Fed’s step.

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 09:22 PM

handfulz28

03-31-2009, 10:08 PM

I'm confused by this statement. Not on its own, but in the context of probabilities I asked about above. If they actually are handing the money back over to us now, sure. Probability is decent the check will clear I would think. What I was more focused on from a probability perspective is the 2 year estimate or whatever from the AIG guy. If they could pay it back now, sure, take it now. But AIG isn't saying that, right? They're talking about a couple of years. So, I'll believe that one when I see it.

My guess is they want some govt interference lifted *in the interim*, as opposed to after the money is repaid. I don't honestly know what I hate more, them owing us money or them owing us money AND having government meddling. But I can appreciate the no-tickie-no-laundry thinking about not removing strings until the money actually IS back, rather than on the promise that it is coming in 2 years. That's why I'm so sick--we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Never should have parted with a penny in my opinion.

My point was just the basic notion of being paid back at all. Throwing time in the mix is another variable requiring another set of probabilities. I'm not overly concerned if AIG pays back the money this year or it takes them 3 or 4 years. My very simple point is that I assign a high probability to the money being paid back in full. From Liddy's testimony, I didn't see him asking for anything other than to stop blaming him personally for the problems he was brought in to help fix.

But people dismiss the good sense of the do-nothing strategy far too often I think.

I was thinking about this basic concept over dinner. From a very personal level, what would you do, how far would you go to help a person in need? The Consitution was written, this country was founded on Christian principles including helping your neighbor. Once again you have to step away from the theoretical, textbook notion of doing nothing and realize that live human beings will suffer. I'm not a fan of meddling, I'm not a fan of giving things away and getting nothing in return, I'm not a fan of things being taken from me by force without having a say of where or how they're used. But if I can sacrifice a little and keep my neighbor's house from going into foreclosure and therefore killing my net worth, or if I can keep a man from losing his job so he can continue to put food on the table for his wife and children, well I'm not going to be the one that says "F them, let the company die." Where's the good sense in that?

My belief is that this is where your estimate will be wrong, and the house of cards will collapse. Looming commercial real estate collapses, pension failures, mounting job losses (and nothing to start pulling down public sector obligations and put people into private sector jobs) all point to a couple of things:

High unemployment
increased taxes
an end to several decades of artificially low interest rates (several decades? The long term average 30yr mtge rate is 6% and we haven't been far below for that long)
Real estate prices are driven primarily by interest rates. What someone can afford to pay each month on something financed at 80%+, for 30 years, is really set by the interest--the principal is a small slice for a long time. As cash grows tight, nobody will lend at 3-6 percent anymore. Assuming (and this is an over-assumption of rosy futures) that people could keep paying the current dollar amounts for mortgages each month. When interest rates go up to 9 or 10 or 12%, housing and commercial real estate values will plummet, just to keep the monthly payment level with where it is now. This means more trouble in the mark-to-market world because values go down, as well as for anyone who actually liquidates any assets in foreclosure.

The banks will be back at our door for more cash in a few months to a year I think. How can you think this when these institutions are begging to give all the money back now? After summer, when everyone just wants to be happy and ignore the world news, as DonziVol or someone astutely pointed out. Or after this coming January (which was my SWAG), right after another disaster Christmas compunded by Q4 earnings reports that look like Cambodia under Pol Pot. Speaking of which, this same "it won't really happen, only a small percentage of those guarantees will be called upon, the whole world doesn't explode at the same time" mentality allowed the Asian currency meltdown, among other things.

I really hope I'm wrong. Appreciate your thoughts in kicking around the possibilities. Frankly, I don't think we're that far apart in our thinking on the big picture, and we've just gone a long way into nuances where we did differ somewhat.

Regards,

Mike

The only estimate I make is that the taxpayers aren't going to end up paying $Trillions when all is said and done. At least not as a result of helping AIG, or GM or GM's suppliers, etc. I'm not saying we'll get away free and clear, but when looked back on I think the net cost will be a lot lower. BO's budget on the other hand, that's a different scenario.

Ghost

03-31-2009, 11:17 PM

I was thinking about this basic concept over dinner. From a very personal level, what would you do, how far would you go to help a person in need? The Consitution was written, this country was founded on Christian principles including helping your neighbor. Once again you have to step away from the theoretical, textbook notion of doing nothing and realize that live human beings will suffer. I'm not a fan of meddling, I'm not a fan of giving things away and getting nothing in return, I'm not a fan of things being taken from me by force without having a say of where or how they're used. But if I can sacrifice a little and keep my neighbor's house from going into foreclosure and therefore killing my net worth, or if I can keep a man from losing his job so he can continue to put food on the table for his wife and children, well I'm not going to be the one that says "F them, let the company die." Where's the good sense in that?

This one is really simple to me. It is Christian charity and sacrifice when it is voluntary. It is taxation and confiscation and theft when it is not. No one has ever been charitable with someone else's money. It is simply theft.

And all should note that when you are not compelled by an unfair law to hand over that which is yours, NOTHING STOPS YOU from doing so. You may hand over all you like. But it is yours to judge whether it is a waste of your property or not, and what is the right amount, and what is the right way to manage it toward a better end. Further, if you think it is in your financial (not just charitable) interest, you may do that too. And many of us do, and still will. And that is good. But demanding it of us is a tremendous evil.

Like many I am tired of being compelled by others to open our pockets (most often by those whose "industry" is to compel us to do it, with monies already seized from us, and to insult our character in the process). Everyone else will get here too--this is one place where, at the risk of immodesty, I have long been ahead of my time. Regardless of the Christian nature of our Founders, the Constitution says nothing of any legal obligation to do so, nor should it. The ONLY reason people ever got into this habit was because our country prospered to where people were more willing to part with their money than to stand up for what was right under the law.

Likewise, this fleeting prosperity is the only reason we abandoned the legal standards saying you may defend your property with force. Thousands of years of common-sense grew distorted to the assumption that insurance would take care of it, and you were just SOL on your deductible or whatever when someone came and stole your car/tractor/livestock/etc.

And the ridiculous notion that the police can "protect" you and your property will evaporate from simple everyday experience. They can do little more than deter by sweeping up after a small percentage of crimes already committed. They cannot prevent determined criminals. Only citizens can stop criminals, by and large, themselves. When living standards fall, as they will, to the point where that deductible is what you would need to eat for the next month, these confused notions of morality will be clarified at once.

Today, in this country, almost no one can imagine harming or, if needed, killing a thief to stop a crime in progress, if that thief refused to stop when confronted with force. But after a few weeks in a lifeboat, the most liberal of socialists would kill you for taking half a pint of his water. In fact, he might just kill you to take yours.

As our longstanding false prosperity withers, there will be less and less confusion about ownership and the importance of property rights as an extension of life and liberty. And a great deal of license to protect oneself and ones property will, properly, be granted back to the person who is simply minding his own business, respecting the rights of others, and earning an honest living. And the lives of thieves will not seem so precious.

You may think me a kook today for thinking such things. I really really hope not, but even if you do, so be it. In two to five years, I suspect almost nobody will disagree.

Regards,

Mike

P.S. Good points above F_in--I agree with every world. Just missed your post the first time round.

Ghost

03-31-2009, 11:49 PM

My point was just the basic notion of being paid back at all. Throwing time in the mix is another variable requiring another set of probabilities. I'm not overly concerned if AIG pays back the money this year or it takes them 3 or 4 years. My very simple point is that I assign a high probability to the money being paid back in full. From Liddy's testimony, I didn't see him asking for anything other than to stop blaming him personally for the problems he was brought in to help fix..
I sympathize with Liddy on the unscrupulous blame tossed about by a Congress intent to hide its own sins. As for the likelihood of payback, fair enough, we can agree to disagree I think.

The only estimate I make is that the taxpayers aren't going to end up paying $Trillions when all is said and done. At least not as a result of helping AIG, or GM or GM's suppliers, etc. I'm not saying we'll get away free and clear, but when looked back on I think the net cost will be a lot lower. BO's budget on the other hand, that's a different scenario.
Again, I think this business with the banks, and the risks we are being forced to take on, are bigger then they look. I hope you are right, however. To me, there is no confining it to AIG and the car industry. It includes all the banking nonsense we are into, and all the risks we have assumed. That said, I agree that the probability of BO's budget being devastating and recurring is one, unless someone finds a way to stop it.

gcarter

04-01-2009, 06:05 AM

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz040109dAPR20090331031727.jpg

Just Say N20

04-01-2009, 06:13 AM

Let the hidden, increased confiscation begin.

My brother works in the telecommunications industry. He received this notification recently. I don't remember hearing about this. BO repeatedly said 95% of the tax payers were going to get a tax CUT. :rlol::rlol::rlol::rlol:

Wait, I'm sorry. This isn't a TAX, it says the FCC is increasing the "contribution factor." So Telecommunication companies have to pay an increased "contribution factor" to the FCC. I wonder where they are going to get the additional "contributions" from? Could it be. . . their customers? Why yes! I think it is! The notification said they are going to begin "assessing" the increase during the second quarter.

Don't you love it? It sounds so much nicer to say "assessing a higher contribution factor" than "confiscating more of your money on behalf of the FCC to meet our increased tax obligations."

"The FCC has announced the contribution factor for USF will be 11.3 percent (0.113) for the second quarter of 2009. This is based on revenue estimates which represent the percentage carriers are required to collect for voice, data and conferencing for U.S. interstate and U.S originated international services. This factor reflects an increase from the previous quarter which was 9.5%. The CRF will remain at 4%.

********** will begin to assess this percentage with the April 2009 invoicing cycles."

handfulz28

04-01-2009, 10:17 AM

I would never think you were a kook, at least not until I had a chance to meet you in person. :biggrin: :beer: Overly cynical and very negative maybe, but not a kook. And again, that's only from what you write when we debate these issues so that judgment is only worth the keyboard that is pounded to make these words.

On the very real front of whether AIG will pay back their assistance, I did some reading last night. I didn't save the link but it generally confirmed what I also knew all along...AIG's core insurance businesses are sound, profitable, cash generating entities. The numbers I read were around $20Billion/year in free cash flow. So even if you discount a few factors, I would hope even the most negative, but realistic scenario would prove AIG's capabilities to pay back our money. Like I said before, I'm not overly concerned if it takes them 5 or 10 years. It will not be a losing investment.

:wavey:

roadtrip se

04-01-2009, 01:08 PM

I have been busy finishing up a contract over the past few days (yes, there is business still being done at the OEM level in the auto industry that doesn’t involve the federal government, lots of it actually, at least for now any way…), so I hadn’t had a chance to really take a hard look at this series of posts.

Ghost, I have read your hard line, self-reliant, smaller government talk track many times. It works for me in theory as it is founded in conservative principles, but as I have also stated many times, getting there is the issue. I also fail to make the connection to anarchy in the streets, if we don’t get there. Dialing it back in 2010, yes, I hope so, and will personally volunteer and contribute to an election effort that assists in making this happen.

To the issue at hand, yet again. The auto industry. Maybe you or Handful can assist me in understanding how the banking industry bail-out is related in terms of saving jobs and our manufacturing capability as a country. What about the hundred’s of thousands of retiree and pensions that these car companies underwrite? Or the 3.5 Million jobs tied to the production, supply, sale, and support of the domestic auto industry? How many banker jobs has the AIG bail-out directly saved?

And Ghost, give me a break on Chrysler. The Chrysler of the 80’s and 90’s had its cyclical ups and downs, but suggesting that we should have let it go in 1979 is ludicrous. Just as a little history for you, the Germans grabbed much of the cash being made at Chrysler during the last boom to float their domestic operations back home, instead of investing in new product development for the States. Chrysler is where they are today, because of this, and the sale to the highest bidder mentality that threw it to Cerebrus.

Okay, the real connection of the auto industry to the banking industry is the complete tail spin that they put the country into credit-wise. While GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have their structural and legacy flaws that could have been addressed more quickly and with greater urgency, GM and Ford at least, were very much on the pathway to a full reinvention of their respective companies with great products coming from streamlined operations. Then sales tanked 50% for everybody. The only reason Ford is in better shape than the others today is they leveraged everything, including the Oval, before the credit markets took a crap.

Now we have the shiny, happy people in Washington who want to force these companies to build product nobody wants, and throw down a list of demands and requirements that will force these companies to give up segments of vehicles that people DO wish to buy, just exasperating the problems further. This has already begun with CAFÉ going up 8% recently. You guys will probably get your wish with liquidation coming shortly after, if this all transpires as it looks like it just might.

Somehow, I have to imagine that labor will be taken care of in Washington through some shady back room deal, saddling these companies with work rules and other legacy UAW crap, that will prohibit them from completely addressing their competitive issues here. Does anyone else find it interesting that a highly ranked liberal Democrat, Mr. Dick Gephardt, was just appointed to the Board at Ford? The UAW has more influence in DC these days than the remaining CEOs at any of the domestic car companies.

So it is a complete cluster-*uck. As I have said many times here already, I fail to understand how throwing millions of people out of work is an affirmation of conservative principles. Let them die, you say. Well, I call B*** ***** to that. These loans need to be made, the companies need to show the ability to pay them back in a reasonable amount of time, and the government needs to realize that they are not in the business of building, supplying, selling, and supporting the car industry, and get the *uck out of the way of private enterprise in one of its best forms.

Cuda

04-01-2009, 01:45 PM

Mike, I am going to Vegas for 4 days on Friday. I usually play Roulette. Do you want me to place a bet for ya?

Red or Black ?

:D
Cover 17 numbers straight up on every spin. :)

Cuda

04-01-2009, 01:54 PM

I don't know whether the GM needed to be fired or not, but I think it should be up to the chairman of the board, and not the POTUS.

The government owning business is called socialism.

Ghost

04-01-2009, 01:59 PM

Hey Todd,

Just three quick things. First, the anarchy in the streets thing was just my running a long way down one aspect of the conversation that came up--admittedly far afield from the focus of the thread. Extrapolation (real concerns, but forward thinking) of the implications of ever-increasing government theft running the middle class into poverty. A distant digression, absolutely.

All I meant about Chrysler was that I don't know what a bankruptcy in the 80's would have done. Breaking it up, selling pieces off, whatever. I think it is a fair question also whether Ford and GM would be in a better spot today had they not had Chrysler to compete with since then. Or, could a leaned-out bankruptcy-reorganized Chrysler have done better over the last 30-ish years, and how would that have changed Ford and GM? Would it have forced more competitive measures to come sooner, measures that are underway now? I don't know the answers, but I think they are reasonable questions to ask when considering what to do in our current spot. That's all. I don't have the answers, but the questions seem interesting and relevant.

Last question (this came up earlier, but you may not have seen it). I know you and I disagreed on the stigma of bankruptcy for sales. No need to rehash that, but I was curious if you thought proper bankruptcy, but with a government-guarantee on warranty, would have taken the stigma effects out of the sales equation. I ask because my memory is that you thought the warranty issue was primarily what would scare the pants off potential buyers.

Regards,

Mike

Cuda

04-01-2009, 02:52 PM

Last time I checked, the chairman of the board is appointed to look out for the assets of the share and bond holders, and should have final say over what happens to their money.

BUIZILLA

04-01-2009, 03:52 PM

if I could only buy Jeep... :lifeprese:

Ghost

04-02-2009, 07:34 AM

What about the hundred’s of thousands of retiree and pensions that these car companies underwrite?

One thing I overlooked here before. Suppose the UAW negotiated that every retiree would get a million a month in pension? Then, when the company can't pay those pensions, should you and I be on the hook to pay their retirees a million a month? I am confident you will say no. Why not? Nearly anyone would say that amount was not reasonable. Well, what amount actually is reasonable?

The ONLY possible answer to what is reasonable is that the benefits promised to retirees must be affordable, paid from the income stream that the business produces. No benefits that exceed what may be paid from the business revenue can possibly be considered reasonable. The reality is that for many years, the UAW employees and retirees were overpaid. (Definition of overpaid meaning the business could not support their pay at those levels.)

Why on Earth should any of your earnings or my earnings be part of the math for deciding how much a UAW pension should pay? It is absolutely insane. The max I should possibly be on the hook to pay, and even this itself is debatable, is the premium for federal pension insurance if their pension fails. And that is less than they get otherwise, funding what, 50 cents on the dollar or so of their existing plan? That's the max the rest of us are supposed to pay if their current pension fails, right?

Further, the math everyone seems to overlook is that every penny taken to "save" one industry is increasing the failures among all the others. Do you want THEM to die?

(Anyone who disagrees about everyone paying his own way, please get together and start sending me $1500 a month so I don't lose my house, plus another $100/month so I can replace my leaking roof. I am facing both of these problems on my own right now. Also note that these numbers will go up accordingly when my taxes go up to pay to save everyone else.)

Rootsy

04-02-2009, 07:35 AM

More fun to come....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbVA__DwqAQ

Lenny

04-02-2009, 09:55 AM

Some new reading http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/article/canadianbusiness/1036/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-gm-canada

Cuda

04-02-2009, 10:10 AM

EVERYTHING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS GENERALIZATION, OF COURSE.

All generalzations are false, including this one. :)

Cuda

04-02-2009, 10:12 AM

This one is really simple to me. It is Christian charity and sacrifice when it is voluntary. It is taxation and confiscation and theft when it is not. No one has ever been charitable with someone else's money. It is simply theft.

.

Bingo!

Ghost

04-02-2009, 12:26 PM

All generalzations are false, including this one. :)

And upwards of 85% of statistics are misleading. :)

Cuda

04-02-2009, 12:54 PM

And upwards of 85% of statistics are misleading. :)

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

handfulz28

04-02-2009, 12:57 PM

To the issue at hand, yet again. The auto industry. Maybe you or Handful can assist me in understanding how the banking industry bail-out is related in terms of saving jobs and our manufacturing capability as a country.

Yeah, we did kinda hijack into the banking recapitalization more than just GM. But it's related in that both scenarios require gov't assistance/intervention, the monetary form of which is supposedly at the "cost" to taxpayers. So it's also related by the fact that most people don't realize there's a difference between loaning/investing with a high probability of return (TARP/auto loans/guarantees/etc.) versus just giving away money (funding PBGC/unemployment/etc.).

I wasn't originally in favor of just handing the automakers loans without any significant concessions from their stakeholders. And I'm not a fan of gov't meddling in private affairs. But I'm ok with making an investment in industry with my $100 and I'm ok with lending the bankers money too. The US Treasury is earning a huge float on what they're charging versus what they're paying. So in reality, this isn't "costing" the taxpayer a dime.

:wavey:

Cuda

04-02-2009, 01:16 PM

Yeah, we did kinda hijack into the banking recapitalization more than just GM. But it's related in that both scenarios require gov't assistance/intervention, the monetary form of which is supposedly at the "cost" to taxpayers. So it's also related by the fact that most people don't realize there's a difference between loaning/investing with a high probability of return (TARP/auto loans/guarantees/etc.) versus just giving away money (funding PBGC/unemployment/etc.).

I wasn't originally in favor of just handing the automakers loans without any significant concessions from their stakeholders. And I'm not a fan of gov't meddling in private affairs. But I'm ok with making an investment in industry with my $100 and I'm ok with lending the bankers money too. The US Treasury is earning a huge float on what they're charging versus what they're paying. So in reality, this isn't "costing" the taxpayer a dime.

:wavey:
Unless the Ferderal Govt goes bankrunpt, or if they print up so much money that it takes a wheelbarrow full to buy a loaf of bread.

Ghost

04-02-2009, 01:19 PM

I wasn't originally in favor of just handing the automakers loans without any significant concessions from their stakeholders. And I'm not a fan of gov't meddling in private affairs. But I'm ok with making an investment in industry with my $100 and I'm ok with lending the bankers money too. The US Treasury is earning a huge float on what they're charging versus what they're paying. So in reality, this isn't "costing" the taxpayer a dime.

Two thoughts. I would gladly invest in GM with the proper concessions from existing stakeholders. I want them to make it. (And I also bought from them less than 2 months ago.) I would encourage everyone to buy the most American-made everything you can.

Adding incentive to this is the reality that so long as we are forced to fund all manner of entitlements and public sector jobs that fail to produce value commensurate with their pay, the price of foreign goods hides their true cost compared to things produced here by workers gainfully employed. My beef in my post above is with our being forced to overpay retirees when we had no control over the unrealistic benefits they negotiated.

Michael, can you tell me more about what money we've handed out versus what we have lent to the banks and what you have said we are making money on? I'm lost by your statement above where "this" isn't costing the taxpayer a dime, as I am unsure what the "this" is.

Regards,

Mike

handfulz28

04-02-2009, 02:35 PM

Michael, can you tell me more about what money we've handed out versus what we have lent to the banks and what you have said we are making money on? I'm lost by your statement above where "this" isn't costing the taxpayer a dime, as I am unsure what the "this" is.

"This" is the gov't assistance in the form of loans, equity investments, asset purchases, guarantees, etc. that have been transacted (TARP/TALF/CPP/etc.). The common (mis)perception is that you are literally paying out of your pocket "trillions and trillions" of dollars which you'll never see again. Everyone touts the doom and gloom that future generations will be on the hook to pay off all of this printing of money that the USTreasury is engaging in. As you strongly fear, all of this printing of money will lead to uncontrollable inflation, skyrocketing rates, diminished buying power and eventually public disobedience.

But the reality is that the gov't is actually getting something for all of this money, all of this borrowing from other countries. The gov't isn't giving all of this money away as entitlements; they (we the taxpayers) are earning interest on loans, earning interest on preferred shares, we do own a piece of these companies. So yeah, the US deficit goes up because we are borrowing money. But we're not blowing it on lazy people, sick people, useless non-productive labor. We've invested it in a way never before executed on this scale. And we're earning a higher rate than we paid for it, like any bank or investor would. And there are fixed time horizons for when these monies will be repaid, the preferred shares will be redeemed and equity/warrant positions will be closed.

Of course there's going to be losses, there's going to be fraud, there's going to be slippage, there's going to be overhead. And we're already seeing that when these prospective "borrowers" get wind of what they'll be chained to, they're deciding maybe they'll sit tight, tough it out, and go back to the private market afterall.

Feel free to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/stimulus?filter0=80&filter1=&filter2=&filter3=
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9961/01-16-TARP.pdf

Also, if you have the motivation and interest, research the unfunded pension obligations at the troubled companies of your choosing. You'll have to read the notes in quarterly/annual SEC filings to add the numbers. There's a chance someone out there has already done it for say the top 100 public companies. As a preview, estimates have the Big 3 "unfunded" portion at around $100Billion globally.
What you won't find easy to come by are the unfunded obligations of public/municipal pensions. Teachers, police, firefighters....people that aren't paid enough as it is. I'll let you be the one that tells them they're only going to get half of the already measely pittance some will have upon retirement. :D

Ghost

04-02-2009, 02:58 PM

What you won't find easy to come by are the unfunded obligations of public/municipal pensions. Teachers, police, firefighters....people that aren't paid enough as it is. I'll let you be the one that tells them they're only going to get half of the already measely pittance some will have upon retirement. :D

Thanks, I'll do some reading. My preliminary concern, of course, is that the problem is with all the risk. Maybe we'd be fine IF stuff didn't fail and these loans were repaid, but I suspect there will be too many failures, and it will end up costing us a lot of dimes. But I'll scope this stuff out. Believe me, I hope I'm wrong.

And as for telling all the govt workers about their looming pension failures, can't we take our cue from the lying CEO of Lehman? ("Why tell them? In a week the news will tell them it's bankrupt. Why spoil their mood for that last week?") :biggrin:

f_inscreenname

04-02-2009, 03:20 PM

What you won't find easy to come by are the unfunded obligations of public/municipal pensions. Teachers, ....people that aren't paid enough as it is. I'll let you be the one that tells them they're only going to get half of the already measely pittance some will have upon retirement. :D
Now you plucked a nerve. I am getting sick of the Poor Teachers. Around here they make $60,069 a year on average and work 9 months. http://dcjobsource.com/teachersalaries.html
Booo f_in Hooo...... Add in the benefits, annual pay raises for under performance, 6 hour days (I know most work more but it's their choice, nothing like the freedom of choice). Sounds like a sweet gig compared to my $42,000 year job and I have to work mandatory 8+ hours, 12 months of the year. They have 3 months to hang out or to make even more if the wanted to. A good part time gig during the summer and they could easily be over 80 grand a year.

Cuda

04-02-2009, 03:33 PM

It's a matter on simple economics. How can we get more, yet pay less? It's simple, it cannot be done.

More dollars that are worth less, doesn't mean you made a penny.
The only way anybody can turn a profit is when the price outweighs the cost, and if some of the Big 3 understood that simple premise, they wouldn't have promised more than they can pay, thus the bailout.

VetteLT193

04-02-2009, 03:40 PM

It's a matter on simple economics. How can we get more, yet pay less? It's simple, it cannot be done.
More dollars that are worth less, doesn't mean you made a penny.
The only way anybody can turn a profit is when the price outweighs the cost, and if some of the Big 3 understood that simple premise, they wouldn't have promised more than they can pay, thus the bailout.

You didn't hear? Obama is harnessing pure energy from the purrs of kittens and the tips of rainbows. That will pay for everything.

Cuda

04-02-2009, 03:42 PM

Now you plucked a nerve. I am getting sick of the Poor Teachers. Around here they make $60,069 a year on average and work 9 months. http://dcjobsource.com/teachersalaries.html
Booo f_in Hooo...... Add in the benefits, annual pay raises for under performance, 6 hour days (I know most work more but it's their choice, nothing like the freedom of choice). Sounds like a sweet gig compared to my $42,000 year job and I have to work mandatory 8+ hours, 12 months of the year. They have 3 months to hang out or to make even more if the wanted to. A good part time gig during the summer and they could easily be over 80 grand a year.
My sister has been a teacher at my high school for 22 years. She thinks she deserves more money. If the only reason she bacame a teacher was to get rich, she made a poor career move. It's not like she doesn't make a good living already, and her husband retired from the same HS. He was a teacher there, when I was a student.

Btw, she's getting her Master's in Library Science this year, and found there are no openings in the library. I asked my dad what the hell a Master's in Library Science was, he said, "I don't know. The only thing a librarian did when I was in school, is keep us boys from playing grab azz in the library".

Ghost

04-02-2009, 03:50 PM

You didn't hear? Obama is harnessing pure energy from the purrs of kittens and the tips of rainbows. That will pay for everything.

:rlol::rlol::rlol: Thanks, I needed that.

handfulz28

04-02-2009, 07:24 PM

Now you plucked a nerve.

Only now? I'll try harder. :biggrin.:

f_inscreenname

04-02-2009, 07:30 PM

My sister has been a teacher at my high school for 22 years. She thinks she deserves more money. If the only reason she bacame a teacher was to get rich, she made a poor career move. It's not like she doesn't make a good living already, and her husband retired from the same HS. He was a teacher there, when I was a student.

Btw, she's getting her Master's in Library Science this year, and found there are no openings in the library. I asked my dad what the hell a Master's in Library Science was, he said, "I don't know. The only thing a librarian did when I was in school, is keep us boys from playing grab azz in the library".

My sister in law has been one for years now. Has one of the best paying and most secure jobs in their section of So Carolina. Pay raises every year, benefits, great hours and that two and half months off every summer. No bad for a middle school teacher.

Cuda

04-03-2009, 12:45 AM

:confused::pimp:
My sister in law has been one for years now. Has one of the best paying and most secure jobs in their section of So Carolina. Pay raises every year, benefits, great hours and that two and half months off every summer. No bad for a middle school teacher.
My sister would complain if you hung her with a new rope!

BigGrizzly

04-03-2009, 09:11 AM

Look it is simple. almost everybody feels they should get more pay for the job they do. In my company if the had a new hire it would probably be more then a person in that same job that had been there for years. It was so called inflation. I had the attitude that I do the best I could and keep the job and not complain about the pay, because of the health benefits. When I retired they now have 3 people doing that job. which comes in at $80,000 more then I made. I guess I was too cheap. When I go back as a contractor, I get twice as much as I did when I was employed. So the fact that everybody wants more money the companies have to charge more to survive( make a increased profit) therefore everyone else needs to make more to buy the goods. The problem is people only see THEIR situation not the other side. Now listen to this My wife telecommutes three days a week. In reality that is a $50 a week savings, not bad for rolling out of bed and turning on the computer. Yester day she realized that even if she does not like her job, it is a good job and she still has it.:yes: The light bulb is on.:biggrin.:

Craig S

04-03-2009, 11:16 AM

Yester day she realized that even if she does not like her job, it is a good job and she still has it.:yes: The light bulb is on.:biggrin.:

Great point!
Craig